True Himmler, chapter 1

I won’t read the first chapter for the moment because I am pained by David Irving’s hypothesis: that the Allies assassinated Himmler when he was taken prisoner, that it wasn’t suicide. But I will be reading my hard copy of this thick volume over the next few weeks until I finish it. So far as I have read the second chapter, Irving’s style is very readable, and I think anyone who considers himself sympathetic to National Socialism should buy it from the author’s bookstore.

The editing is splendid, and trying to read such magnificent books in PDFs is an outrage, as it is precisely these books that deserve to be in our personal library, with plenty of footnotes in our own handwriting.

Published in: on May 24, 2022 at 8:17 pm  Comments (1)  

On the Boromirs

A commenter drew my attention to the most recent interview with Richard Weikart. I just watched the interview and at minute 35:40 Weikart said something that contradicts the impression I have of American white nationalism: ‘They are overwhelmingly anti-Christian’.

Most American white nationalists are either Christian or sympathetic to Christianity. Rare in American white nationalism is the person like Alex Linder who sees Christianity as evil, and there is no longer a truly central figure in that movement, as the late William Pierce, who has a negative image of Christianity.

It is a pity that there are no surveys to know the exact percentage of Christians or Christian sympathisers in white nationalism. But the impression I get after reading a dozen years of white nationalist sites is that, except for Linder, there is no major figure who truly abhors Christianity (Kevin Alfred Strom’s webzine is not as vehement as Linder in its criticism of Christianity).

Although brief, a good example of Christian racialists was seen recently in what was said to me in the comments section of The Occidental Observer, to which I have already referred a couple of times. The moderator didn’t let my last comment pass. In addition to answering his third question to one Occidentan, I suggested he read Pierce’s story of the race. It doesn’t matter that that answer of mine didn’t appear in TOO, as long as I was at least able to defend myself against the slanders that racialist Christians were casting on me.

As a good Christian, Weikart (who is almost exactly my age by the way), is anti-racist. The interview I heard today was very enlightening because it shows how the Christian religion clouds the otherwise clear understanding of such scholars. If I could answer Weikart I would tell him that regarding the leading white nationalist sites, the webzines of Jared Taylor, Kevin MacDonald and Greg Johnson, he won’t find overtly anti-Christian positions. Even a racialist site as much visited as Taylor’s according to the latest statistics I saw, Hunter Wallace’s, is openly Christian.

Given that Christianity is inherently anti-racist, the question that comes to mind is how much longer American white nationalists will continue to ignore the issue. People like Weikart, a good scholar of Hitler, are fascinating in that they show that, from the Christian POV, he is more consistent by being anti-racist than racist. Wallace may be looking to square the circle, but the other pundits mentioned in the previous paragraph simply ignore the CQ, the Christian Question. The West’s Darkest Hour will continue to be ignored by racialist Christians and even racialist non-Christians because an honest discussion about the religion of our parents is a taboo subject in the dissident right.

Changing the subject, today I received a mail from David Irving. The second volume of his biography of Himmler will be published next year. I am very much looking forward to reading it… It is infinitely more important to know Hitler and Himmler well than the Boromirs who covet the One Ring to the point of self-destruction. I hope that Weikart’s book, which will reach me this month, will help me in this endeavour.

Published in: on May 24, 2022 at 11:51 am  Comments (14)  

The Führer’s monologues (vi)

A detailed discussion of the content of Hitler’s monologues can be dispensed with in this context given the extensive recent Hitler research. However, even in the context of a brief sketch, references to facts that belong to the secured state of knowledge cannot be avoided.

First and foremost, Hitler bears witness to himself in his discussions, especially during the long evening and night hours when he spoke his thoughts ‘into the impure’. The man who was at the zenith of his power, who dominated large parts of Europe and directed the deployment of his armies in Russia, who could look back on a series of steady successes lasting more than ten years until the crisis of the winter of 1941/42, undoubtedly possessed high intellectual abilities. With his present knowledge in the field of military affairs, armament and technology, he always made a strong impression on those around him. This was no less true for problems of art and especially history and politics. On the other hand, he showed much less interest, as a long-standing confidant confesses, in questions of the ‘humanistic field of knowledge’.[1] Thanks to his extraordinary memory and remarkable knowledge of literature, Hitler achieved insights and findings in specialised fields that commanded the respect of many experts. He was usually superior to them in his ability to grasp the core of a problem immediately and to reduce complicated relationships to a simple denominator. Above all, Hitler not only knew but, according to the testimony of Grand Admiral Raeder, ‘formed views and judgements from it that were often remarkable’.[2] He was able to think in large contexts and was in many respects far ahead of his advisers, for example on the question of motorizing the German army.[3]

Hitler’s monologues at his headquarters bear witness to these abilities only to a limited extent. Examples are his terse remarks on questions of environmental protection, the warning against the consequences of unrestrained exhaustion of the earth’s reserves of raw materials (Monologue 1), the demand for better utilisation of the countries’ natural resources (15, 16), or even the realisation, by no means common at the time, that the automobile would overcome borders and link peoples together more strongly than before.

For Hitler, motorisation was an important step ‘on the way to a new Europe’ (2). The correctness of these and other insights are not affected by the fact that he hindered this development through his policies. Knowledge, worldview and political practice collided.

The extent to which the ‘Führer and Reich Chancellor’ was aware of this tension will not be clear. Even during his monologues at the Führer’s headquarters, he never forgot the necessary restraint regarding his intentions and plans. Even in the smallest of circles he did not betray any secrets, did not reveal doubts or uncertainty. At no time did he weigh up the pros and cons with his advisors before making major decisions, nor did he make it clear what the motives were for his actions in concrete political and military situations.

Heim’s notes testify to Hitler’s great self-control, but also his suspicious reserve. The guests at the table were given no indication of the information coming from Germany and abroad, how the German people reacted to the sacrifices and deprivations, and what repercussions the severe crisis of the winter of 1941/42 had on the population of the occupied territories and the allied states. In general, Hitler’s thoughts were far more on the past or the future than the present. With great willpower, he repressed the problems and worries of everyday life at the dinner table and acted as an attentive host, casually talking about Bruckner and Brahms or appropriate nutrition or reporting on events or figures from the early days of the NSDAP.

In this behaviour, however, another trait of Hitler’s becomes visible. He was not a political pragmatist who concentrated on solving the issues of the day, but the representative of a world view that he wanted to help to achieve victory. That is why he looked to the future, especially in times when a lot was coming at him. Convinced that he knew the ‘eternal law of nature’ (117) and that his mission was to help it come to fruition, he made great efforts to free himself from burdens and difficulties, to defy resistance and often even facts that did not fit into his concept. He knew very well the limits imposed on human action, but believed that through energy, especially through an unshakeable and uncompromising belief in his mission, he could push them far out and force people as well as powers under his spell.

Hitler was convinced that the epoch of the bourgeoisie was over and that the bourgeois nation-states would not survive the war. In his opinion, in the world war of the present day, they would inevitably disintegrate—since they lacked inner strength and a unifying force—and the vital and unconsumed layers of the nations would then strengthen the camp that fought with particular determination and faith. Just as National Socialism had prevailed in the internal political struggle against far superior forces of the parties and the means of the power of the state, so it had to assert itself in the war with the utmost determination and readiness to believe. Not the superior weapons, but the more devout fighters would ultimately bring about the decision.

On 27 January 1944, Hitler very clearly and firmly told the field marshals and commanders that it was precisely this devout readiness of each soldier that mattered. ‘It is completely unknown to many’, he declared, ‘how far this fanaticism goes, which in the past moved so many of my party comrades to leave everything behind them, to allow themselves to be locked up in prisons, to give up a profession and everything for a conviction… Such a thing has only happened in German history in the time of the religious wars, when hundreds of thousands of people left their homes, farm and everything and went far away, poor as church mice, although they had previously been wealthy people—out of a realisation, a holy conviction. That is the case again today’.[4]

There is no doubt that the National Socialists had an advantage over the bourgeois parties of the Weimar Republic because of their readiness to believe and devote themselves. And Hitler certainly helped his party overcome defeats and serious crises by never giving up, showing confidence especially in difficult situations and thus lifting his followers. Part of his strength lay in this steadfastness and belief in his mission (32). In the same way, Hitler also tried to convey to the German people during the war the feeling of superiority and the conviction of final victory. This undoubtedly succeeded to a great extent, as long as the expectations did not contradict the realities. In the long run, however, willpower and strength of faith were not enough to withstand the growing pressure of the war opponents. Among the concrete power factors on the opposite side that became more and more apparent was the internal stability of the Soviet Union, the efficiency of the Red Army and the economic strength of the country, the unity and willingness to resist of the British population, the industrial potential of the USA, the will of the nations of Europe conquered by Germany to live and to be free.

______ 卐 ______

Note of the Editor: Free? Western nations today are slaves of an ethno-suicidal religion spawned by the Allies right after WW2!

______ 卐 ______

It cannot be assumed that Hitler failed to recognise these realities, as his statements in the Führer’s headquarters would lead one to believe. Even in the conversations in his inner circle, he did not lose sight of the psychological effect of his words. Remarks such as that the Americans are ‘the dumbest people imaginable’ (82), assertions about England’s growing difficulties (81, 88) or Germany’s perpetual superiority in weapons technology (84) were intended first and foremost to strengthen the self-confidence of those around him. He felt it necessary to counteract the sober assessments of the situation by his political advisers, who, in his opinion, inhibited the momentum of the soldiers and the population through their restraint and caution. Hitler was convinced that he had only achieved so much thanks to his ‘mountain-moving optimism’ (79).

More fundamental importance is attached to the statements on questions of domestic policy and worldview. The leader of the Third Reich was a bitter enemy of the revolution with its egalitarian and democratic driving forces. In his opinion, it was destructive and its bearers belonged to the negative selection of the people. Again and again one finds the assertion that the judiciary had nurtured criminality during the First World War, that in 1918 it was only necessary to open the prisons and already the revolution had its leaders (18, 52, 60). In other contexts, however, the achievements of the revolution are praised. It did away with the princes (20), broke up the class state, challenged the monopoly of the educated and propertied bourgeoisie and thus opened up opportunities for advancement to empower people from the lower classes (26, 50, 56). Sometimes even credit is given to the revolutionaries. Given the ‘stupid narrow-mindedness’ of the Saxon bourgeoisie, for example, the influx of workers to the KPD in that country was very understandable (13), just as communists like Ernst Thälmann generally elicited much more sympathy from him than aristocrats like the Austrian Prince Starhemberg (13), who had even taken part in the 1923 putsch in Munich in his entourage.

In all this, however, Hitler left no doubt in his discussions about how closely he felt bound to the nation-state tradition of the 19th and early 20th centuries and intended to complete what had been developed and propagated before him in the way of large-scale concepts and imperial ideas. However, he was convinced that he would only achieve this goal if he could rely on a broader, more powerful and more vital support class. The bourgeoisie and the old ruling classes seemed unsuitable for this. In unusually harsh terms, he criticised the former German ruling houses as well as the ruling princes of Europe (9, 20, 55), the nobility, the officer corps (13,28,31), the diplomats (121), civil servants and lawyers (14,48,130), the intellectuals and scientists. Again and again, the bourgeoisie in toto is accused of half-heartedness, cowardice and incompetence (13,20). The capitalist system is not spared either (15). ‘The economy’, Hitler declared bluntly, ‘consists everywhere of the same scoundrels, ice-cold money-earners. The economy only knows idealism when it comes to workers’ wages’ (39).

Well-known representatives of German industry and some bourgeois experts who heard such and even harsher statements by Hitler considered him a radical zealot or even a Bolshevik in disguise.[5] This view, however, does not get to the heart of the problem any more than the opposite view, which wants to conclude from words of appreciation for entrepreneurs and praise for the efficiency of the German economy and its promotion that Hitler was dependent on these circles. In these monologues there is no evidence that Hitler wanted to serve the interests of capital. He did not bind himself to any class, he hardly took into account the interests of certain groups and strata. In the National Socialist state, classes were to be eliminated and thus all the forces of the people were to be set free, and all sections of the population were to be given opportunities for advancement and activity. All groups were to be united in the Volksgemeinschaft, the national community a new higher unit.

However, since in the National Socialist Volksgemeinschaft the rights and functions of the social groups were not finally defined, nor were the NSDAP and its branches assigned any clearly defined tasks, it functioned as long as everyone derived advantage from it and saw part of their interests and demands realised. As the demands grew, there were signs of fatigue, resignation and communal refusals. Hitler increasingly found himself criticising state organs (107), civil servants (41, 59), judges (130, 177), party leaders and ministers for being too lenient towards individual and group interests. However, as long as there was still a basic consensus among the majority regarding the goals for which they were fighting, the state and party leader imposed his will unchallenged in all decisive questions.

That this succeeded so unreservedly was undoubtedly due to the dynamism that the leader of the NSDAP had unleashed in Germany. He did this based on the realisation that in times of social upheaval, economic and political change, authorities and institutions reacted too slowly and sluggishly, that experts in all fields had insufficient answers and solutions to offer, and that as a result of the confidence in the state and its organs was severely shaken. If unconventional methods were practised in such situations, if alternatives were developed with unused forces, then these would receive an advance of confidence from the outset. Hitler built on this. Through the establishment of special offices, the granting of special powers and special orders, the National Socialist regime gained a remarkable momentum, initially even a momentum that lasted in some areas into the first years of the war.
However, this process also caused considerable difficulties. A seemingly endless chain of competence disputes and rivalries developed, leading to friction, disorganisation and, in many cases, failure. Hitler, to secure the support of all forces for the speedy implementation of his plans, triggered this dynamic and held on to the system even when the disadvantages became openly apparent. David Irving concludes, therefore, that he was far from being the all-powerful leader and that his influence over those directly under him diminished, especially under the extreme stresses of war.[6] This thesis is correct insofar as Hitler’s will did not always and in all areas penetrate to the lowest state and party organs, and was also interpreted and understood differently due to a lack of ideological unity in the party. In the monologues presented here, he complains about the failure of the SA leaders (79), the high-handedness of individual Gauleiters, and the inadequate implementation of his orders. But it is wrong for Irving to conclude that the conduct of the war so absorbed Hitler’s strength and concentration that he left the areas of domestic and occupation policy to his responsible ministers and confidants, especially Himmler, Goebbels and Bormann. The reader of these monologues can convince himself of the opposite.

Without him, the Führer and Reich Chancellor believed, Germany could pack up (79), and important decisions had not been made (32). Hitler was also convinced of his indispensability at his headquarters; he was excellently informed and did not fail to intervene wherever he thought it necessary. He criticised clumsy formulations in an editorial by Reich Minister Goebbels, registered events in individual districts, paid attention to the promotion of the arts, forbade attempts at administrative simplification in the war, ordered the shooting of the arsonist of the ‘Bremen’, supervised and reprimanded the judgements of German courts, took note with indignation of the sermons of the Bishop of Münster. As the minutes of the Speer Ministry meetings and many other testimonies show, Hitler allowed himself to be informed down to the last detail and made his own decisions, especially in domestic matters. No one knew better than he that the war could only be fought if a majority of the people followed it, or at least accepted the inevitable. For this very reason, he devoted extraordinary attention to the tasks of domestic policy, especially domestic security.

Even more important is another consideration. Hitler waged the war because it was the consequence of his worldview: the living space of the German people was to be conquered and secured for many generations. He spoke about this very forcefully again and again in his headquarters. Only this gain of land would create the prerequisite for solving the social question. By offering each individual the opportunity to fully develop his abilities, the National Socialist programmer hoped to reduce or eliminate the tensions and rivalries in the community (140). In this war of worldviews, Hitler did not lose sight of the goals for which he was waging it. The most important was the consolidation of National Socialist supremacy in Europe and the expansion of German influence in the world. General questions of occupation policy in East and West, as well as cooperation with allied states and peoples, belonged in this context. In Hitler’s view, German rule could only be secured if it succeeded in winning over as many people of ‘Germanic blood’ in the world as possible (125). The prerequisite for strengthening one’s nationality, however, was the repression and elimination of all those who were considered inferior and alien to the community: Jews, Slavs, Gypsies and others. Finally, it was a question of suppressing the influence of those circles that did not recognise war as the ‘law of life of peoples’, that did not want to accept the ‘right of the strongest’ in social coexistence, nor race and descent as criteria in professional competition: Christians, Marxists, pacifists. In these areas Hitler never delegated responsibility, but reserved every fundamental decision for himself. Irving’s assertion that Hitler was not informed about essential measures precisely in this area, which was central to him, cannot be substantiated. An analysis of the monologues points’ in the opposite direction.


[1] Heinrich Hoffmann, Hitler, wie ich ihn sah. Munich-Berlin 1974, p. 160 f.

[2] Erich Raeder, Mein Leben. Vol. 2, Tübingen 1957, p. 110.

[3] Fritz Wiedemann, Der Mann, der Feldherr werden wollte. Velbert and Kettwig 1964, p. 102.

[4] Excerpts from this speech can be found in the appendix to the collection of Bormann’s Führer Talks.

[5] Walter Rohland – Bewegte Zeiten. Erinnerungen eines Eisenhüttenfachmanns (Memories of an Ironworks Expert). Stuttgart 1978, p. 82 reports on a statement of displeasure by Hitler during a meeting. Afterwards he had declared, ‘If only I had destroyed the entire intelligentsia of our people like Stalin, then everything would have been easier!’

[6] David Irving,. London 1977, p. XV.

Published in: on May 9, 2022 at 12:29 pm  Comments Off on The Führer’s monologues (vi)  

A response to Ives

– This is a reply to a previous comment this morning –


I made a big mistake in letting your first comment pass. The habit of trying to argue with white nationalists things that have already been much discussed on this site, made me forget what I promised in the last paragraph of my post the day before yesterday.

But I will no longer forget what I promised.

Just as a courtesy of passing a couple of your comments before I start implementing what I have promised, I’ll reply to what you say about Hadding Scott.

Hadding, with whom I discussed the issue of the so-called holocaust in a long thread at The Occidental Observer, is, unlike Alex Linder, a magnificent example of how axiological neo-Christianity prevents one from seeing what happened in WW2.

You might be interested to read an article explaining my position on David Irving. As Robert Morgan tried to convey to the racialists at The Occidental Observer six years ago: ‘In our culture, shaped as it has been by Christianity, the premier innocent victim is and always has been Jesus. He laid the groundwork; established the archetype. It’s inconceivable that the Holocaust racket would have been as successful as it has been in a non-Christian culture’.

And please, please, pay more attention to the letters in red in my sticky post. Thank you.

______ 卐 ______

Noon update: This is the crux of my above-linked article:

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!

Published in: on December 10, 2021 at 11:38 am  Comments (4)  

On Shelob’s lair

Or: Kant’s trap

In the modern world, Immanuel Kant has been the poet’s greatest enemy, the enemy of clear, concise and transparent prose (my style).

Kant initiated the dark movement of classical German idealism, from which perhaps only the German nationalist pronouncements of Fichte are salvageable. While German music and literature were luminous (think of Beethoven and Goethe), German philosophy was tremendously obscurantist: and a thin tail of that cobweb even reached its way about how Mein Kampf was elaborated.

David Irving is correct that he never read Mein Kampf because, as an exact historian of the Third Reich, he didn’t want a text dipped into feather pens other than Hitler’s to contaminate his true biography (which is why Irving recommends reading daily each of the after-dinner talks of Uncle Adolf: these are uncontaminated). Mein Kamp is a PR book written for a people who, influenced by their philosophers’ style, had already betrayed the lyrical way of writing. For the same reason I don’t recommend The Gulag Archipelago, but the excellent abbreviation made by an Englishman, with the permission of the Russian author, that reads like an entertaining novel. I sincerely believe that an abridged edition of Mein Kampf should be tried, trying to keep only the passages that Hitler dictated.

But even in Hitler’s Table Talk I see a couple of disagreements with our Führer. One of them was a short sentence in which he expressed himself about the genius of Kant. As John Martínez said more than eight years ago on this site:

In another post you mentioned the fact that not a single one of the supposedly greatest philosophers ever said something about the importance of race to the establishment of a great civilisation like ours. That is to say, these guys have devoted millions of man-hours [Shelob’s trap] to discussing every single subject under the sun—except for what is perhaps the most important of them all from the point of view of our civilisation: the fact that it is a White civilisation and that these discussions are not taking place in Africa, Asia or what have you.

As Nietzsche scoffed at using an English word, Kant is ‘Cant’: his prose was empty and insincere, and he shouldn’t have hypnotised the Germans. The only proponent of the German Enlightenment worth rescuing was Hermann Samuel Reimarus, who initiated the discipline of analysing the New Testament that recently culminated in Richard Carrier’s book. The rest was hot air.

Matthew Stewart

In my home library I have many books from the publisher Prometheus Books, which taught me to distrust the pseudosciences of the paranormal and even early Christianity (for example, the book that collects the surviving fragments of the 4th-century book that the philosopher Porphyry wrote against Christians, was published by Prometheus). Stewart’s first book was also published by Prometheus, The Truth About Everything. He believes that we have lost sight of what philosophy was in its original conception, and wrote that iconoclastic pamphlet to poke fun at academic philosophy.

In the chapter on Kant, Stewart asserts that this German philosopher was no Copernicus. On the contrary: his ‘metaphysics’ is one of the possible manifestations of a philosophical trend. Regardless of Kant’s influence, because of the apotheosis that was applied to him after his death, his name, says Stewart, is only a point of convergence of a plethora of beliefs based on the mistakes of Descartes.

Since, like Descartes, in those times the aim of the philosophers whose parents were Christians had been the reconciliation between science and religion, Kant divided the world into two absolutely disconnected worlds. Using my language, the celebrated philosopher of the kingdom of Prussia was just another guy who didn’t know how to shake off his parental introjects. The Kantian dream of ‘perpetual peace’ reminds me of the pictures of the lion laying with the lamb of the Jehovah’s Witnesses who ring the doorbell of my house.

It said that Prometheus Books warned me against pseudosciences. In one of the Martin Gardner books that I own, this hilarious writer informs us that crank scientists love to develop new vocabularies and mystifying language (imagine the hundreds of neologisms that L. Ron Hubbard created for Scientology).

A feature of Kant’s work is its vast technical vocabulary and abominable prose. Stewart tells us that if one translates Kant’s newspeak into oldspeak (the same is possible with Hubbard’s neologisms) it is possible to begin to see behind the smokescreen and mirrors of the three Kantian ‘critiques’.

For example, a priori / a posteriori are Latin words that simply mean ‘before’ and ‘after’ in a logical rather than temporal sense. But those who are not alert to the crank sciences will believe that there is something very profound when Kant speaks to us, say, about the ‘transcendental unity of apperception’, or of the ‘transcendental ego’ (the latter reminds me of Hubbard’s ‘operative thetan’!). Even with the word ‘pure’ in his Critique of Pure Reason, Kant means ‘uncontaminated by experience’.

According to Stewart, this repertoire of concepts seems to be sophistry and illusion, adding that Kant succumbs to the medieval error of turning a tedious logic into a radical ontological falsehood (How many angels can fit on the head of a pin?). Stewart also claims that Kant confines the science of the world to projections and shadows, mere appearances, and all this to save religion. The Categorical Imperative is the Kantian machine for the Moral Law (read: the education that little Immanuel received as a child in a religiously abusive home) based on ‘reason’ (and, to boot, we must take into account the cryptic definition of ‘reason’ by Kant).

Beyond the very dense Kantian jargon, this guy surreptitiously inserts the substance into the bosom of an otherwise purely formal theory. That’s why, Stewart affirms, the Critique of Practical Reason is a betrayal, and that this is the key we need to decipher Kantian ethics: the result of the standards that Kant received as a child in the bosom of a pietistic Christian family. (Pietistic Lutheranism is a movement within Lutheranism that combines its emphasis on biblical doctrine with an emphasis on individual piety and living a vigorous Christian life.)

Stewart’s criticism is not original. Almost all of his arguments were defended in writing by living characters as a result of the publication of the first Kantian critique. The problem is that modern ‘philosophers’ share the apotheosis of Kant, and generally believe in the professional respectability of that crank thinker. The Eastern gurus (think of the Zen monks) hypnotise the faithful by saying things that are extremely unpleasant for commonsensical ears, but presented as profound metaphysical truths. Kant’s promise that he was able to reverse the basis of all knowledge, from ‘object’ to ‘subject’, is just this kind of psyop to dupe the unwary.

In sum, Stewart tells us, Kant’s obscurity is the critical factor in allaying the concerns of those who have brought Kant to the universities. His obtuse distinctions exude an air of professionalism and his twisted arguments give the impression of depth. The resulting inconsistencies supply grain for the controversial windmills of academic philosophy.

All that Stewart says invalidates not only bestsellers on philosophy like the bestselling story that Will Durant wrote, but what they want to teach us in the academy under the pretentious name of ‘philosophy’, supposedly love of wisdom. Stewart concludes by telling us that both the rationalists and the empiricists of the 17th century tried to take philosophy out of the monasteries, turning it into the fiefdom of the amateurs. Kant collected his ideas at the service of a return to the monastic age. After him, philosophy was to be safe from rebellious amateurs and returned to its peaceful seminaries and universities. Of course, the new theologians were no longer debating the sex of angels. They are masturbating themselves, intellectually, with ‘the facts of conscience’. Aristotle ceased to be the object of scholastic comments to be relieved by Kant.

Nietzsche wrote: ‘Kant’s success is just a theologian success: Kant, like Luther, like Leibniz, was one more drag on an already precarious German sense of integrity… Kant became an idiot. — And such a man was the contemporary of Goethe! This disaster of a spider (*) passed for the German philosopher!’


(*) For Francis Bacon (1561-1626) the metaphysicians were like spiders that constructed their webs with a substance segregated from their insides, resulting in that their conclusions kept little if any connection to empirical reality. Kant has been the biggest spider of all, Tolkien’s Shelob! The number of philosopher’s apprentices who have fallen into his cobwebs trying to decipher them, in a vain search for wisdom, is legion.

Christmas present

A paradigm shift

After posting ‘Christmas Eve’ and trying to capture some vitamin D by sunning myself on the roof of the house, I came up with an idea that reflects the point of view of this site.

Yesterday I read David Irving’s article on The Unz Review where he talks about the sabotage that Jewry has inflicted on him over the years due to his biographies of the most prominent personalities of the Third Reich. I think what Irving says is true, and I have no objection to what he wrote. But what most struck me is that every time Jewish associations complained in various countries on both sides of the Atlantic, it was the Gentile authorities who took the repressive measures against Irving.

As Thomas Kuhn well saw, the same information can be processed in a completely different way between two subjects. So different that, depending on how we process the info, the paradigm shifts. In science, the classic paradigm shift would be from the geocentric to the heliocentric system. Although 17th century astronomers had exactly the same information, it depended on how they interpreted the data.

I have already posted the following caricature on this site but it is necessary to repost it, as it reflects the paradigm shift from the JQ, which currently reigns in white nationalism, to the CQ—Christian question—that I propose. The caricature is interpreted by some white nationalists as archetypal Jewish subversion, as if to imply that the kikes hypnotised us through religion.

Regardless of whether or not that was the intention of the caricaturist, I see the same information differently. The kike didn’t hypnotise us. There is white agency. Just look at the faces of these white idiots. They simply love what the kike tells them. It’s obvious to me that for two millennia white Christians have been willingly indulging in evil by following the gospel. And the same can be said for secular white nationalists who continue to subscribe the same ethical code that we see in the caricature.

The caricature shows a malicious Jew selling us Christian ethics. The orthodox interpretation of our decline, which we see every day on The Occidental Observer, blames the Jew. But with the same info that MacDonald sees I see whites as the real culprits. Who dares to believe such bullshit, the white family in the above caricature? The same info can be interpreted depending on our internal will. While white nationalists see a couple of kike silhouettes, I see in ochre colour the bitter cup that Christianity made us drink since Constantine.

The first image above can also be used as an illustration of a paradigm shift. Who to blame: the Jew who wants to sell us the teachings of Jesus or the white folk who candidly accepts them? Who is worse: the white imbecile or the foreign subversive?

In my life I have hardly dealt with Jews. Two of my classmates in elementary school were Jewish, and I only met a single Jew in high school (about whom I wrote a critical essay in the updated edition of The Grail). From my twenties to middle age I only superficially treated a couple of Jewesses: colleagues of my family in the cultural milieu of the country where I live. I never got on closely with any of them. But about the Christians or secular Gentiles I could tell hundreds of anecdotes: they are exactly like the white imbeciles of the first image.

The idea that occurred to me while sunbathing comes from a very specific example: what happened to me on the Gates of Vienna blogsite in 2009 and 2010.

Gates of Vienna is the perfect microcosm of what happens across the West; for instance, what happened to Irving with the Gentiles who obeyed the whining Jewry. As can be seen from my earliest posts when The West’s Darkest Hour was not launched by WordPress platform but Blogspot, when a Jew complained to Ned May (the Gentile admin of Gates of Vienna) because of what some Jew-wise commenters said, May immediately obeyed the Jew to censor the commenters.

For the evolution of my thought this was a microcosm of what happens on a large scale throughout the West! It took me about a year to give up Gates of Vienna and to grasp that Jewish subversion is, ultimately, white suicide. Thanks Ned!

The one who had power in the Gates of Vienna forum was the Christian Ned May, not the complaining Jew. May could let these gentiles comment about the JQ but he didn’t do it. The Jew complained just as the other Jews have been complaining in various countries, as David Irving recounts, until whites obey. And just as happened to me in the obscure site Gates of Vienna, worldwide gentile authorities banned Irving (and many others) from various countries simply for obeying the complaining Jew.

That sort of thing happens when you are imbecile enough to accept the code of ethics of the first image above.

Sometime after I stopped commenting on Gates of Vienna I received an email from an intelligent woman who told me that the dynamics continued the same in that forum: the Jew complained and May obeyed. Anyone who hasn’t had an exasperating experience like the one I had at that forum won’t understand what a paradigm shift means, from Jewish silhouettes to the poisonous chalice that whites like to drink. Exactly the same information—let’s say the Irving article I read—makes white nationalists and I see things as completely different objects.

Published in: on December 25, 2020 at 1:35 am  Comments (11)  

True Himmler

by David Irving

Twenty years in the making, David Irving’s biography of Heinrich Himmler, the man, is finally ready.

In two parts, the first of which appears now, Irving describes from true documents the origins of Himmler, an educated man with a Classics teacher as his revered father, and his extraordinary career until the final dramatic hours of his life, raising an army of elite SS soldiers and men to stand for Germany and defend it against the secret Soviet plans to invade all of Europe in 1941.

He becomes a most trusted ally of Adolf Hitler, and remains loyal to the end; when he hears of Hitler’s imminent death Himmler takes steps to contact the western Allies and offer them the assistance of the SS against the mighty Russian army. But the western capitals are by then powerless, sucked too far into the Soviet thrall.

Why twenty years? It has not been easy—or inexpensive—to retrieve the thousands of missing private papers, letters and diaries which vanished into unfriendly hands at the end.

Mr Irving, already the finder of other secret records surrounding Hitler, identifies the current holders of scores of private letters—partly American, partly Israeli, their identities now oddly concealed by Germany newspaper editors and historians still wilting under the glare of the draconian Morgenthau Plan. (Mr Irving published a facsimile of the secret Plan from Oxford University archives). He uses secret British intercepts of SS messages, as well as Reinhard Heydrich’s papers and KGB files in Moscow archives.

The reputation of his young soldiers was systematically denigrated on the age-old principal Give a dog a bad name and hang him. Mr Irving’s suspicions, spelled out in the first and second part, are that Germany’s enemies saw in the SS such a formidable enemy, and in Himmler such a formidable man, that they tracked him tracked down after the war ended, where his life was terminated; the very first chapter examines the circumstances of Himmler’s ‘suicide’ more closely.

The book is illustrated as usual with black and white and colour photographs immaculately printed, including hundreds selected from Himmler’s personal albums now held by the Hoover Library in Stanford, California, and the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington DC.

(Over 700 pages, with illustrations. See sample spread of illustrations: here.)

Published in: on December 18, 2020 at 10:36 am  Comments (6)  


Lulu’s software has a bug that prevents me from buying a proof copy of my latest book, On Exterminationism, although visitors to Lulu can buy my other books that Lulu was already selling.

If a user cannot purchase his proof copy of his new book to review it for the last time before it goes on sale, the software doesn’t allow the new book to go into public circulation.

It is not the first time that users have problems with Lulu. Although I already issued a ticket on Lulu’s help page, sometimes they take a long time to reply. Before, Lulu had the option for immediate online help but I no longer see that option on the help page.

Our group needs a house that publishes the most important books: books that appear neither in Counter-Currents Publishing nor in Arktos that publish books of white nationalism which, as we know, is a fraudulent movement for those who want to save their race.

The alternative would be to buy an Expresso Book Machine and start printing the classics of National Socialism in my house, or the books of deceased Americans like Rockwell, Oliver and Pierce who made their careers before the feminised males monopolised the racial discourse in the US. But how to acquire such a machine without a sponsor?

Compare these days with the time when Hitler was financed by steel entrepreneurs. If there is a phrase that portrays our very dark times, it was one that Apollokult posted this April: ‘The kingdom of Heaven as well as the paradise of Earth are taken only by force, but their Lebenskraft is at zero level’.

Perfect expression! The Lebenskraft of Aryan males—life force—is now dead.

I couldn’t even order David Irving’s True Himmler because, like Lulu, that site too has a similar software problem. Fortunately, unlike Lulu David Irving has just responded and he says his assistant is trying to fix it.

I guess there is no wealthy man in the world who would like to finance the project of opening a publishing house for the types of books Irving and I publish: a house that, unlike Amazon Books, would be friendly to the customer who desperately wants to obtain non-Pod books online.

Published in: on December 14, 2020 at 3:52 pm  Comments (9)  

Hitler in your living room

Pages 528-532 of the forthcoming edition of The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour:

When I read Hitler’s Table Talk, what impressed me most was to discover that uncle Adolf was a very cultured man who talked about ancient history (including Julian the Apostate), architecture, painting, music and even criticised Christianity more than Jewry. He also predicted that the future of the Reich would be vegetarian. Alas, in the pro-white forums neo-Nazi Christians cannot believe that Hitler’s after-dinner conversations are genuine. For this reason, I would like to quote a commenter who used to sign under the pseudonym of Jack Frost in the webzine of Kevin MacDonald. This is what Frost said in a discussion thread of The Occidental Observer on August 4, 2015:

David Irving has considerable expertise in this matter, and he says they’re genuine. Likewise Albert Speer, who was present at some of these dinner talks, attests to them in his memoirs. But also, perhaps even more convincing, the talks are the blindingly original insights of a true master.

These views [critical] of Christianity are not derivative of anyone else’s opinions, certainly not Schopenhauer’s, and while at odds with certain of his public statements, are quite consistent with other things known about Hitler, particularly his anti-Semitism. Surely a forger wouldn’t have gone this route. In the first place, he would have had to do original thinking that is quite uncharacteristic of forgers, and in the second place an ordinary forger would have been careful not to make any statements that were inconsistent with other things known to have been said or written by Hitler. Their very originality speaks to their veracity. Of course, this can be turned around. People who want to believe Hitler was actually a Christian disingenuously ask why, if this was his real opinion, didn’t he put it in Mein Kampf or mention it in any of his public speeches?

But the answer is obvious. Hitler was a politician, and had to be all things to all people. No politician with such views could have been open about them in a Christian nation. Accordingly, to Christians of his day, he appeared to be a Christian. Such hypocrisy was more or less built into the task he had set for himself.

David Irving, with whom I came to exchange some correspondence, has been the foremost historian about Hitler and the Third Reich. Unlike the PC historians about WW2, Irving can see the ‘historical Hitler’ in contrast to the fictional ‘Hitler of dogma’ that the System advertises. Below I quote his opinion on the book in question. It appeared in David Irving’s website, posted on January 1, 2004:

Hitler’s Table Talk is the product of his lunch- and supper-time conversations in his private circle from 1941 to 1944. The transcripts are genuine. (Ignore the 1945 “transcripts” published by Trevor-Roper in the 1950s as Hitler’s Last Testament—they are fake.)

The table talk notes were originally taken by Heinrich Heim, the adjutant of Martin Bormann, who attended these meals at an adjacent table and took notes. (Later Henry Picker took over the job.) Afterwards Heim immediately typed up these records, which Bormann signed as accurate.

François Genoud purchased the files of transcripts from Bormann’s widow just after the war, along with the handwritten letters which she and the Reichsleiter had exchanged.

For forty thousand pounds—paid half to Genoud and half to Hitler’s sister Paula—George Weidenfeld, an Austrian Jewish publisher who had emigrated to London, bought the rights and issued an English translation in about 1949.

For forty years or more no German original was published, as Genoud told me that he feared losing the copyright control that he exercised on them. I have seen the original pages, and they are signed by Bormann.

They were expertly, and literately, translated by Norman Cameron and R.H. Stevens, though with a few (a very few) odd interpolations of short sentences which don’t exist in the original—the translator evidently felt justified in such insertions, to make the context plain… Weidenfeld’s translator also took liberties with translating words like Schrecken, which he translated as “rumour” in the sense of “scare-story”.

The Table Talks’ content is more important in my view than Hitler’s Mein Kampf, and possibly even more than his Zweites Buch (1928). It is unadulterated Hitler. He expatiates on virtually every subject under the sun, while his generals and private staff sit patiently and listen, or pretend to listen, to the monologues.

Hitler’s Table Talk is better than Mein Kamp as, according to Irving, with the consent of Hitler some editors added to Mein Kamp several chapters that the Führer never wrote. While Mein Kamp was a bestseller for the German people, the unadulterated Hitler will not be discovered in it.

George Lincoln Rockwell was a man of a generation infinitely less sick than ours. When he was killed I had just turned nine. Three decades later, when a new term, ‘white nationalism’ began to be heard on the internet, the typical American racist had already deviated from the path of Commander Rockwell to a more politically correct one.

Remember, the history of the white man carries enormous inertia. In addition to the MacDonald webzine, there is another that is considered one of the pillars of alt-right publishing, Greg Johnson’s Counter-Currents. Although Johnson promotes the creation of an ethnostate his webzine exemplifies what we say about the historical inertia that, once Rockwell and William Pierce died, reversed back white conscience to neo-Christian paths. Johnson, who in 2010 still taught homilies in a church in San Francisco, rejects Nordicism and has come to say: ‘I am interested in European preservationism, and “white” to me just means “European,” which includes a whole range of skin tones, from the whitest white to brown’ (posted as a comment in his webzine on the thread about ‘Racial Purity, Ethnic Genetic Interests, and the Cobb Case’ on November 18, 2013 at 4:14 pm). As we shall see in the next section, this is exactly the sort of flawed worldview that moves me to say that white nationalists are committing ethnosuicide. The following is what Guillaume Durocher, one of the writers who contribute to Counter-Currents, wrote in ‘Understanding Hitler and the Third Reich’ published on April 20, 2016:

Hitler’s Table Talk. This big book, as far as I am concerned, is the ultimate Hitler book. Of course, we have the usual caveats: We have no guarantee that these recordings of Hitler’s private conversations, primarily taken between the invasion of Russia and the end of 1942, are completely accurate. The translation edited by Hugh-Trevor Roper is uncertain: David Irving claims it is good, mainstream historians have said it is actually artlessly translated from a previous French translation (!), which is actually an impression I distinctly had reading the book. Nonetheless, themes of these private conversations recur enough that the gist is clear and accepted by both mainstream and revisionist historians.

I cannot summarize such a book here, but suffice to say that Hitler had an awesome scientific and elitist vision, a truly epic conception of history and politics in which he was a leading character, and a grandiose and terrible project against decadence and for excellence (as he saw it). All this merits real engagement rather than crude caricature. Hitler’s ruthless utilitarianism (his relations with other peoples can be summed up as following: Either fighting-comrades or expendable subjects) and his absurd exclusion of Slavdom from “Europe” in effect make him politically untouchable, above and beyond Allied or Hollywoodian propaganda.

With this book, everyone can reach in to find the Hitler behind the myth. For added effect, imagine Hitler speaking as he does in our only known recording of his private conversations, with Marshal of Finland Carl Gustav Mannerheim. And now you’ve Hitler in your living room…

This quote by Durocher portrays not only the importance of the book of shorthand transcripts of Hitler’s monologues: it also portrays the typical intellectual of white nationalism. They are de facto conservatives with racialised tones: fellows that bear no resemblance to the man we saw in Sparta, Republican Rome, the Berserkers or the Third Reich. Like MacDonald’s The Occidental Observer, Counter-Currents exemplifies the feminisation of racialism since the times when Rockwell tried to apply the National Socialist model in America.

Hitler’s ‘absurd exclusion of Slavdom from Europe’? As we saw in the history of the white race of Pierce, originally, Celt, German, Balt, and Slav were indistinguishably Nordic. But the Slavs became mongrelised after the genocidal Asian invasions: one of the darkest hours for the fair race. We must also remember what the SS pamphlet pointed out regarding the differences between a Russian village in fertile Ukraine compared to a German farm on land wrested from the sea. Neither Durocher nor his editor or the alt-right folks would ever make such distinctions! A fanatic form of egalitarianism reigns among them as to Caucasian peoples. Nor would they say that a country that succumbs to Jewish Bolshevism deserves to be conquered by a nation, in every sense of the word, more Aryan: a nation where the archetype of the eternal masculine was still active!

The following quotes from Hitler’s first two after-dinner conversations in Hitler’s Table Talk are an invitation for the reader to acquire a copy of the book to know the real Hitler. The book is also an invitation to see how Aryan men who resurrect the archetype of the eternal masculine in our age should think.

What the experts said of David Irving

British historian, David Irving, perhaps the greatest living authority on the Nazi era – Professor Stephen Spender, The New York Times Review of Books

On Churchill’s War: Enormous mastery of the sources and ability to maintain a sweep of narrative and command of detail that carry the reader along. – Professor Donald Cameron Watt

On Hitler’s War: It was thoroughly researched and employed a variety of themes… It also confirmed Irving’s reputation as one of the world’s most thorough researchers and an exciting and readable ‘historian’. – Board of Deputies of British Jews

On Hitler’s War: No praise can be too high for Irving’s indefatigable scholarly industry. He has sought and found scores of new sources, including many private diaries. Mr Irving’s craftsmanship as a writer has improved immensely, and I have enjoyed reading his long work from beginning to end. – Professor Hugh Trevor Roper

On Hitler’s War: This ground is traversed with a sense of immediacy and grasp of detail lacking in many of the recent Führer biographies… Mr Irving’s mastery of the German sources is superb. – Professor Donald Cameron Watt

On Hitler’s War: David Irving has ransacked the world’s archives; he has discovered eye-witness accounts; he has unearthed diaries and correspondence which were thought to have been destroyed… a narrative which is, for all its inevitable complexities, remarkably comprehensible and, surprisingly readable. – Professor J.E. Molpurgo

On Goebbels. Mastermind of the Third Reich: Irving does not deny that Jews were horribly butchered or just kept in such conditions as to die in their millions. Nevertheless, the book has received execration in some American pre-publication reviews for its alleged denials of the Holocaust and exculpations of Hitler… There is no truth in these accusations. – Professor Professor Norman Stone, The Sunday Times, April 14,1996.

On Goebbels. Mastermind of the Third Reich: David Irving knows more than anyone alive about the German side of the Second World War. He discovers archives unknown to official historians… His greatest achievement is Hitler’s War… indispensable to anyone seeking to understand the war in the round. Irving as usual, knows more than anyone of the details [of the death of Goebbels’ family in 1945]. He does not spare us. – Professor Sir John Keegan, The Daily Telegraph, April 20, 1996

On Göring: At the Nuremberg trials he defended himself with vigour and rebutted some of the charges that had wrongfully been made against him. It also came out in matters of art, on which David Irving is rather good. – Professor Norman Stone in The New Statesman, August 18, 1989.

On Goebbels. Mastermind of the Third Reich: Some critics, including Deborah Lipstadt of Emory University, have accused Irving of ‘trying to destroy the memory of those who… perished at the hands of tyrants.’ Even a cursory inspection of this new, 700-page plus account [Goebbels] does not support that assertion. – Professor Francis L. Loewenheim

On Goebbels. Mastermind of the Third Reich: Mr Irving would be a high price to pay for freedom from the annoyance that he causes us. The fact is that he knows more about National Socialism than most professional scholars in his field, and students of the years 1933 1945 owe more than they are always willing to admit to his energy as a researcher and to the scope and vigor of his publications. – Professor Gordon A Craig

On Göring: Irving’s research effort is awesome. – Professor Larry Thompson in The Chicago Tribune

David Irving… has mastered his material and written a very readable biography. – Professor Hugh Trevor-Roper (Lord Dacre) in The Sunday Telegraph, August 20, 1989.

On Göring: A very readable book, for Irving has always written with verve and energy… It tells us a great deal that we did not know… Highly interesting… Marvellous stuff… An absorbing account… Most intriguing. – Professor Gordon A Craig

On Churchill’s War: A vivid portrait accompanied by much striking and original analysis. It is certainly no mere repeat of the usual hagiography. Once again David Irving shows himself a master of documentation. – Prof. John Erickson, April 30, 2001

On Rommel: David Irving has been so successful in building up a reputation as The Man You Love To Hate that his merits as an historian are too easily forgotten… But professional historians have always envied him his immense capacity for work and his astonishing luck including new documents; and they should be grateful to him… But his fellow historians can take nothing but pleasure in [this] work. – Professor Michael Howard

A fascinating study of the brilliant Rommel. It enables the reader to experience the emotions of a warrior in battle. – Mark W. Clark, General, U.S. Army (retired)

David Irving’s full study The Rise and Fall of the Luftwaffe therefore deserves a warm welcome… Mr. Irving has made splendid use of the Milch papers and other German records which he has been able to study. – Capt. Stephen Roskill, UK official historian

Most of Irving’s books are big, solid works like this. All are well written, exciting, fun to read, and all contain new information based on sensational discoveries. – Stephen Ambrose, Washington Post Book World

David Irving specialises in the blunders of war. He also knows how to appraise the unassuming heroism of the ordinary man. From both points of view, his present book on the destruction of convoy PQ.17 is even better than the one which made his name on the bombing of Dresden. It is a melancholy story, with many separate strands leading to disaster. – Professor A. J. P. Taylor, The Observer

The result is a biography of Milch, slanted as it were towards the Luftwaffe… This one is scholarly, fair and highly informative. – Professor A. J. P. Taylor, The Observer

Published in: on April 6, 2019 at 8:39 am  Comments (6)