The Führer’s monologues (vii)

In his Anmerkungen zu Hitler, Sebastian Haffner argued that the character of the National Socialist leader was determined early on and ‘astonishingly always remained the same’. This is especially true of the basic ideological positions.[1] The proof was provided by Eberhard Jäckel in his study on Hitler’s Weltanschauung.[2]

Here we will only briefly touch on the thoughts that Hitler developed in the monologues recorded by Heim. The defeat of 1918, he thought, and the harsh terms of the peace treaty so wounded the national pride and self-confidence of the German people that they exerted all their strength to get out of the distress. Without the uncompromising attitude of the victorious powers of the First World War, it would never have been possible to inflame the national passions to such an extent, to achieve the will tension to regain the former world status. Hitler, in contrast to many of his followers and voters, sought it, however, only as a prerequisite for the establishment of a larger Reich, which at the same time was to become the organising power of a new Europe. To achieve this goal, no state should be in a position to oppose these aspirations. Hitler was deeply convinced that the land ‘according to eternal natural law’ belonged to the one who conquered it, ‘because the old borders did not offer sufficient possibilities for the growth of the people’ (table talk #117).

According to Hitler’s worldview, the first and most important prerequisite for the expansion of Germany’s sphere of power was the strengthening of the people’s vital energies, and the mobilisation of their readiness to fight. Since Hitler could not imagine history without war, he considered it necessary to educate the people to affirm the struggle for existence. He therefore consistently wanted the German people to wage war every fifteen to twenty years (table talk #17). Only in this way would they be able to summon up the utmost strength and maintain the necessary toughness. To get young and old, poor and rich, citizens and workers to identify with the National Socialist regime, to get them to unreservedly link their private existence with that of the state privileges were abolished, discrimination ended, and educational and promotional opportunities improved. Above all, the entire population was to be given access to the nation’s cultural assets. However, the National Socialist leadership reserved the right to determine what art was, and which works of music, poetry and painting corresponded to the consciousness of the people. In addition, Hitler expected everyone to take advantage of their opportunities, to make full use of the possibilities offered to them. If he failed to do so, if he deliberately withdrew from the struggle for life as demanded by the state, all support and tolerance would be withdrawn. The same applied to the people as a whole. Hitler spoke of them with appreciation and respect, and praised their diligence, loyalty and many other positive qualities. But he demanded that they accept the struggle and prove themselves in it. If they did not fight resolutely and bravely, if they showed symptoms of weakness, there was no excuse: ‘If the German people are not prepared to stand up for their self-preservation, fine: then let them disappear!’ (table talk #114)

Hitler himself spared no effort and no means to increase the strength and readiness to fight, but above all the inner unity of the nation. This was served by the attempt to bring as many people of German nationality as possible into the Reich from the occupied areas of Europe and other states, to have ethnic Germans or volunteers from related nations fight in units of the Wehrmacht or the Waffen-SS, and to enlist minorities or individual members of foreign nations, as far as they were considered assimilable, for cooperation.

The declared enemies of the regime were fought with the same uncompromising zeal that was used to select those who were considered useful and qualified according to ideological principles. These included, among others, Czechs, Poles, Russians and, first and foremost, the Jews. Hitler repeatedly emphasised with emphasis that there was no leniency for ‘aliens from the community’. It has recently been claimed that the deportation and murder of the European Jews took place without the knowledge of the German head of state.[3] According to another view, the order to kill them was only given after the conflict between rival forces had become so disastrous that there was no longer any alternative.[4] In my opinion, both theses are untenable. The assumption that the decision to the ‘final solution to the Jewish question’ in Europe was taken by Hitler in the face of the realisation that the war could no longer be decided militarily[5] is not confirmed either in these records or in other sources.

Hitler was the undisputed leader, he made or approved all essential decisions, including the most momentous of the whole war. The ‘removal’ of the Jews from Europe corresponded to the consistency of his worldview, as all his statements on this subject show. And the consequence of his actions from 1939 to 1941 can also be seen in the orders and measures he gave. The Einsatzgruppen that followed the German armies into Russia had clear instructions. On 31 July 1941, Heydrich was instructed to develop a concept for the removal of the Jews from the entire German sphere of power and influence. The fact that expulsion was no longer on the agenda is shown by the impediment and, from October 1941, the ban on all emigration. On 15 October the systematic deportation of Jews from Germany and the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia began.

Ten days later, on 25 October, Hitler declared in the presence of Himmler and Heydrich at the Führer’s headquarters: ‘Before the Reichstag I prophesied to Jewry that the Jew would disappear from Europe if the war was not avoided. This criminal race has on its conscience the two million dead of the World War, now hundreds of thousands again. Don’t tell me: We can’t send them into the mire! Who cares about our people? It is good if we are preceded by the terror of eradicating Judaism. The attempt to found a Jewish state will be a failure’ (table talk #44). Without a doubt, all the fundamental decisions were made at this time. Heydrich then made the technical and organisational arrangements so that in November he could invite the state secretaries of all the ministries involved to the house on Wannsee for a meeting on 9 December 1941. The date for the conference had to be postponed given the events on the Eastern Front, but the ‘Final Solution’ was not. It began in December 1941.

________

[1] Sebastian Haffner, Anmerkungen zu Hitler. Munich 1978.

[2] Eberhard Jäckel, Hitler’s Weltanschauung. Entwurf einer Herrschaft. Tübingen 1969.

[3] David Irving believes that Bormann, Himmler, Goebbels and others ruled the Reich while Hitler waged his war (Hitler’s War, p. 251). However, he fails to provide any convincing evidence for this.

[4] Martin Broszat, Hitler und die Genesis der »Endlösung« (Hitler and the Genesis of the ‘Final Solution’). On the occasion of David Irving’s theses. Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte 25, 1977, p. 746 ff.

[5] Haffner, Anmerkungen zu Hitler (op. cit.) p. 157.

Published in: on May 13, 2022 at 12:00 pm  Comments Off on The Führer’s monologues (vii)  

Reflections of an Aryan woman, 60

Moreover, they acted and made others act without hatred or sadism.

To the American prosecutor Walton, who questioned him during his trial after the disaster, the SS Gruppenführer Otto Ohlendorf, Commander-in-Chief of Einsatzgruppe D, declared that a man ‘who showed pleasure in these executions was fired’,[1] which means that these executions were considered in high places, as well as in the ranks of the SS, as an unpleasant necessity; as a task to be accomplished without hesitation, certainly, but without joy as without disgust, with serene indifference, in the interest of the German Reich and soon Pan-Aryan, which was also ‘the interest of the Universe’.[2] In the mind of the Supreme Leader, Adolf Hitler, the expansion and transformation of the Reich was to initiate a global ‘recovery’ in the traditional sense of the word.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s note: Perhaps it is worth confessing that, in my fantasies, I imagine the ‘extermination of the Neanderthals’ without an atom of sadism, as in the 1979 James Bond film Moonraker. Of course: the film is Hollywood bullshit like all the others. The billionaire Hugo Drax transported several dozen ‘genetically perfect’ (lol!) young men and women of different races, including blacks (!) to a space station. They would live there until Earth was cleansed and their descendants would be the seed of a ‘new master race’.

(Above, Hugo Drax, Moonraker’s villain, playing the piano at his mansion.) Drax reveals his plan to destroy human life by launching 50 giant balloons that would disperse a nerve gas into Earth’s atmosphere that kills humans instantly (animal species are unaffected). But Bond uses a laser-armed device to destroy some of the launched balloons.

I use the plot of that silly movie just to show that my hatred of Neanderthals is as cold and intellectual as Drax’s. Even with my exterminationist hatreds I would fulfil the 4 words, ‘avoid all unnecessary suffering’ when implementing final solutions to the human (or rather, Neanderthal) problem.

Savitri continues:

______ 卐 ______

 
But if, in practice, a ‘People’s Commissar’, a Slavic Communist,[3] was killed as an ‘enemy of the Reich’, as well as a Jew, it remains true that there was a nuance or difference in meaning between these two actions. The Slavic Communist was—just like any Communist as well as many non-Communists such as those nationalists of the Polish intelligentsia who were also shot by Einsatzgruppen commandos—considered personally dangerous. By killing him we eliminated an enemy, real or supposed. (There was no time to examine each individual case and to see whether, perhaps, some valuable individuals might not, in the long run, have been led to join the new German-dominated Europe.)

The Jew, in addition to the danger he could represent, and often did represent, personally, was considered dangerous in his very essence: because he belonged to the people whose historical role was to spread untruths and counter-values in the world: a source of subversion, a source of ‘anti-nature’; the ‘chosen’ people of the Powers Below (the exact antithesis of the Aryan and especially of the German), without whom neither Marxism, nor Jacobinism, nor Christianity—that ‘Bolshevism of Ancient World’, as the Führer so aptly put it—nor any of the forms of the superstition of ‘man’ and his ‘happiness’ at any price, would have come into being.

He symbolised the victory of the Dark Age, which the initiates know is inevitable, but which they strive to postpone as long as possible, if they have a fighting soul. His elimination was, even more than that of the people of all races who had believed his lies, a challenge to the Forces of Disintegration. For he was the ‘unclean’ element. In more than one speech, Himmler likened it to the parasitic insects whose presence degrades the most beautiful hair, the most robust body. And he saw its suppression ‘not as a matter of ideology, but as a matter of cleanliness’.

And yet… If there is an order to the leaders of the Einsatzgruppen to mercilessly eliminate ‘the enemies of National Socialism’ (including the Jews, of course), there is no German document proving that the ‘final solution of the Jewish problem’ meant the ‘total physical liquidation of the Jews’.

Consider the famous Protocol of the Wannsee Conference of January 18, 1942 (whose authenticity is questioned by an author as impartial as André Brissaud[4]) in the course of the trials set up after the war. With bad faith concerning the SS, the SD (Sicherheitsdienst), the Gestapo, etc., they translated as ‘extermination of the Jews in the German living space’ the sentence which actually means ‘repression of the Jews outside of German living space’ (Zurückdrängung der Juden aus dem Lebensraum des deutschen Volkes).[5]

It seems that, at first, it was only a question of ‘repression’ and not of indiscriminate extermination—and this, despite the anger of the Jews of the whole world, despite the resounding ‘declaration of war against the German Reich’ launched from New York at the beginning of August 1933 by Samuel Untermeyer, president of the ‘International Jewish Economic Federation to combat the Hitlerite oppression of Jews’ when there was still no oppression or persecution in Germany despite the call by Wladimir Jabotinsky, future head of the Jewish terrorist organisation Irgun Zwi Leumi, in the Jewish magazine Masha Rietsch of January 1934, for the ‘extermination of all Germans’.

_________

[1] Quoted in André Brissaud, Hitler and the Black Order, 1960 edition, p. 324.

[2] Bhagawad-Gîta, III, verse 25.

[3] Many of the People’s Commissars in Soviet Russia were Jews, but not all of them.

[4] Brissaud: Hitler and the Black Order (op cit.), p. 309.

[5] Quoted in full by Hans Grimm,Warum? Woher? Aber Wohin? 1954 edition, page 187.

Reflections of an Aryan woman, 59

One can compare the action of the Einsatzgruppen against the Jews in Germany and in the countries occupied by the armies of the Third Reich with that of the Einsatzgruppen in the Eastern territories.

In both cases, according to the instructions given by Reinhard Heydrich in May 1941 to the leaders of the latter, the aim was to ‘mercilessly destroy all past, present and future opposition to National Socialism’[1] that is, to eliminate as many actual or potential enemies of the new Germanic faith and Empire as possible. In both cases, the action revealed a scale of values in complete opposition to all anthropocentrism or a scale of values completely devoid of hypocrisy. For war is in itself the negation of any anthropocentric faith or philosophy—especially war between men of different races and civilisations, some of whom regard the habitat of others as necessary, or favourable, to their development. Himmler remarked that the Anglo-Saxon pioneers in North America had ‘exterminated the Indians and only wanted to live on their native land’.[2]

And the fiercest anti-Hitlerites are forced to admit that he was right, and that there is no ‘respect for the human person’ in the attitude of the founders of the US towards the real Americans. It is all too easy, after the fact, when you have installed your democracy over the entire surface of a continent practically emptied of its inhabitants, whose race you have destroyed in the most cowardly way by alcohol, it is easy then, I say, to proclaim that the age of violence is over; to forbid others to carve out a ‘living space’ for themselves as you have carved out one for yourself and, should their effort end in failure, to bring them before a parody ‘International Tribunal’ as ‘criminals against humanity’.

This is easy. But it is an indictment of lies; of bad faith. It also accuses a secret and sordid envy: that of the dwarf towards the giant; that of the plutocrat in search of new markets, towards the warrior capable of frank and detached violence; that, too, of all the proud citizens of shaky colonial powers towards the conquering Third Reich, at the height of its glory.

In both actions—that of the Einsatzgruppen in Poland and Russia, and that against the Jews everywhere—the leaders of the Third Reich had men from conquered countries treated or allowed to be treated as the founders of the US had treated the Redskins, but with less tartuffery. They openly admitted that ‘the tragedy of greatness is to create new life by treading on corpses’:[3] corpses of which it doesn’t matter how many if the ‘new life’ is closer to its divine prototype; if it is more faithful to the supreme values than the life that is disappearing. And they sincerely believed it was, or would be (and indeed it would have been, if Germany had won the war).

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s Note: Some who come to comment on this site continue to do so without understanding that we are in a fight with the white nationalist POV. Here again is what we have said so many times:

This is a site for apprentices to fourteen-word priests (or a priestess, if a woman wants to become someone very similar to Savitri Devi, which I consider highly unlikely).

The gulf between the priest and the white nationalist is that the former has already transvalued Christian values to pre-Christian values, and regards the genocide of enemies as highly moral and laudable. The latter suffers from what we call ‘ogre of the superego’ inspired by Christianity, thus imagining the Nazis as if they weren’t killers but good Christians (like the Americans).

Those who want to know the real history of the Third Reich would do well to note that, among Reich sympathisers, the most knowledgeable don’t go around denying the genocides committed by the Nazis (e.g., Max Weber and David Irving). Or don’t they still notice these German words?

___________

[1] Quoted by André Brissaud in Hitler and the Black Order, 1969 edition, page 319.

[2] Confidences in Kersten (see Kersten’s book, Les mains du miracle, page 319).

[3] André Brissaud, Hitler and the Black Order, 1969 edition, page 309.

‘America delenda est’: A step in the right direction

Thomas Dalton’s article (‘America Must Die—So That the People Can Live’) published last week in The Occidental Observer potentially could be a stepping stone in the right direction to help white nationalists cross the psychological Rubicon into National Socialism:

Hence, early America prospered and flourished in spite of, not because of, Christianity; in spite of, not because of, Blacks and Jews; and in spite of, not because of, the principle of equality. Blacks, Jews, “equality,” and Christianity were millstones around the young nation’s neck.

Wow! We seldom read anything similar on Kevin MacDonald’s webzine. Dalton continues:

Therefore, it is time to accept reality and give up America for lost. Put away your flags, your pins, and all your red-white-and-blue paraphernalia. Toss out your MAGA hats; America will never be “great again.” Anyone who tells you otherwise is a liar or a fool. The country is rotting from above and below. Vermin are calling the shots from on high, and human detritus washes in over the borders. This was precisely how Ancient Rome fell. Such is the terminal stage of many an empire.

Indeed. But in the case of that melting pot called Imperial Rome, the nordish invaders were the good guys.

More specifically, my above analysis suggests the following steps: (a) Break up the existing United States into smaller, more cohesive, more homogenous, and more manageable units. (b) In these new units, encourage all non-Whites, and especially all Jews, to emigrate as soon as possible. (c) Discard the pernicious concept of human equality and replace it by a celebration of the higher, the nobler, and the best. (d) Replace industrial democracy with something like an aristocracy.

(c) and (d) sound like what we have been calling the transvaluation of values on this site.

Only full-blown secession can hope to get to the root of the problem… Native Americans were of course here before the White Europeans, and that precedence needs to be respected, such as via truly autonomous homelands. And since Blacks were forcibly brought here from Africa (with heavy Jewish involvement), I would have no issue with assisting their return to Africa with subsidized travel arrangements, a small one-time cash payment, or with the use of political leverage in Africa to aid their repatriation. We can ease the transition, but out they must go.

Amerind presence needs to be respected? In the comments section a commenter replied: ‘The idea that roughly 45 million blacks will return to Africa for a small cash payment is laughable and in my humble opinion that is the crux of America’s issues’.

True, and that’s because the measures proposed by Dalton are still confined to Christian ethics, not to an ethic that is genuinely transvalued (cf. my latest comment about The Turner Diaries).

A step in the right direction doesn’t mean that Dalton or those who read his piece have finished crossing the axiological river. It’s only a stepping stone. Compare the above quote with the methods used by The Organization in Pierce’s great novel.

America is dying a slow and painful death. Let us euthanize the long-suffering nation, redraw the boundaries, rethink the guiding principles, and begin again.

Although Dalton is author and editor of several texts with a special focus on German National Socialism, he didn’t dare to think like those who forged the Master Plan East: ethnic cleansing à la Himmler so that the Aryan race could flourish in peace. Fortunately, a couple of commenters said the obvious in the comments section of MacDonald’s webzine.

Last Tuesday, commenter Tito said: ‘Perhaps the very finest essay so far offered on this essential site. Our Aryan species has little time to rescue itself, a project demanding we disavow our irrational prejudice against genocide’. Angelicus responded: ‘Brilliant observation. Unfortunately, most of the so-called nationalists in the USA and Europe are infected with stupid and totally misplaced ideas of honour and decency, mostly thanks to that poisonous creed called Christianity…’

Those who want to go deeper into the subject can read On Exterminationism, linked on the sidebar.

Nordicism and National Socialism, 1

Editor’s note: Left, a drawing by Wolfgang Willrich, ‘This is what the German soldier is fighting for’.

‘We cannot forget the predilection that the Hellenes felt for this colour [blond]: they could not conceive their noblest deities in another form’ wrote Joseph Arthur de Gobineau 165 years ago in a quote reproduced below. You can imagine what happened to the Aryan psyche after the Judeo-Christians destroyed the statues and temples of the Greco-Roman gods and replaced them with churches and iconography of a Semitic god (which is why we believe that Aryan liberation will only come after we burn down worldwide all Christian churches to the ground).

Here I translate and adapt for this site the first instalment of ‘Nordicismo y Nazismo’, an essay originally published by Evropa Soberana in 2013.

 

______ 卐 ______

 

Nordicism was not born with European colonialism or with the rise of Nazi ideas in the interwar period. It is a trend that comes from classical antiquity, which is closely related to art and the human model to which art must aspire. Nordicism tries to answer the question of what is the source of the Indo-European tradition and which is the human race that laid the main foundations of Europe since prehistoric times.

However, the Nordic wave that is closest to us is the one that flourished under the Third Reich. To understand the ideas that underlie National Socialist Nordicism, the content of this piece, we will provide a selection of written fragments from:

• Adolf Hitler

• the SS doctrine

• Nazi ideologues such as Alfred Rosenberg

• Scholars who, without being Nazis, are considered avant-garde precursors of a mentality that culminated in Nazism, like Nietzsche. (H.S. Chamberlain has been omitted since he designates as ‘Teutonic’ what has finally been called ‘Nordic’.)

• Other authors that have nothing to do with National Socialism (they even ended up opposing it!) but that deal with the Nordic race, like Madison Grant.

• I also include images of National Socialist characters as well as propaganda and works of art from Nazi Germany, in which the Nordic type is represented as a reference, ideal and goal to pursue.

Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) was a German philosopher who influenced, among others, Nietzsche and Hitler. During the First World War, Hitler always carried with him the book The World as Will and Representation. Schopenhauer wrote:

The highest civilisation and culture, apart from the ancient Hindus and Egyptians, are found exclusively among the white races; and even with many dark peoples, the ruling caste, or race, is fairer than the rest, and has, therefore, evidently immigrated, for example, the Brahmins, the Inca, and the rulers of the South Sea Islands. All this is due to the fact that necessity is the mother of invention, because those tribes that emigrated early to the north, and there gradually became white, had to develop all their intellectual powers, and invent and perfect all the arts in their struggle with need, want and misery, which in their many forms, were brought about by the climate. This they had to do in order to make up for the parsimony of nature, and out of it came their high civilisation. (Parerga and Paralipomena, 1851, Volume II, Section 92).

Arthur de Gobineau (1816-1882) was a French ambassador, historian and philosopher with a vast culture and a great intuition. His innovative and monumental work Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races is well-known, but few venture to say that Gobineau was a ‘Nordicist’ in the sense that he identified the original Aryans with the ‘Nordic’ human type.

The colour of the Aryans was white and rosy: so were the Greeks and the oldest Persians; so were the primitive Hindus also. Among the colours of the hair and the beard dominated the blond, and we cannot forget the predilection that the Hellenes felt for this colour: they could not conceive their noblest deities in another form.

Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races, 1853 and 1855, Book Three, Chapter I.

In that very remote epoch, the civilising force did not reside in the South: it emanated from the North. It came from Thrace with Orpheus, with Mousaios, with Linos. The Greek warriors appeared tall, white and blond. Their eyes looked arrogantly at the sky, and this memory so dominated the thinking of successive generations, that when a darker polytheism invaded with the growing influx of Semitic immigrants all regions and all consciousnesses, and replaced it with their sanctuaries, for the Olympians the highest expression of beauty, of majestic power, was no other than the reproduction of the Aryan type: blue eyes, blond hair, white complexion, high stature and slender complexion.

Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races, 1853 and 1855, Third Book, Chapter III, on Ancient Greece.

What was, in the physical and moral realms, a Roman of the 3rd, 4th or 5th centuries? A man of medium height, of frail constitution and appearance, usually dark, running in his veins a little blood of all imaginable races; believing himself as the first man of the universe and, to prove it, he was insolent, creeping, ignorant, thief, depraved, ready to sell his sister, his daughter, his wife, his country and his sovereign; and endowed with an insurmountable fear of poverty, suffering, fatigue and death. Apart from that, he had no doubt that the Earth and its courtship of planets had been created for him only.

Faced with that despicable being, what was the barbarian? A man with blond hair, white and rosy complexion, broad on his back, tall in stature, vigorous as Alcides, reckless as Theseus, skillful, agile, feeling no fear of anything, let alone of death.

That Leviathan possessed above all, righteous or false ideas but reasoned, intelligent ideas that he struggled to be spread. Within his nationality, he had nourished the spirit of a severe and refined religion, of a shrewd politics, of a glorious history.

Able to meditate, he understood that the Roman civilisation was richer than his, and sought the reason for it. He was in no way that turbulent creature that we ordinarily imagine, but a very attentive adolescent with positive interests, who knew how to arrange himself to feel, see, compare, judge, prefer.

When the vain and miserable Roman opposed his tricks to the vital cunning of the barbarian, who decided the victory? The fist of the latter. Falling like a mass of iron on the skull of the poor grandson of Remus, that muscular fist showed him on which side the force was then. And in what way was the Roman humiliation then avenged? He cried, and he asked the centuries to come to take revenge for his oppressed civilisation. Poor little bugger! He resembled the contemporary of Virgil and Augustus as well as Shylock to King Solomon.

Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races, 1853 and 1855, Book Three, Chapter VII, On the Decline of Rome.

What’s wrong with exterminationism?

In this blog I have cited two Jews, Marcus Eli Savage and Mitchell Heisman, who admitted that Christianity was nothing but a psyop devised by their tribe to control the blond beast.

Before I woke up to the Jewish question I used to read the books of another Jew, Stefan Zweig (perhaps the only Jew whose libretto for an opera by Richard Strauss was accepted at the time of the Third Reich). Zweig begins his biography of Mary Baker Eddy with a very deep idea, ‘The most mysterious moment of a man is when he becomes aware of his intimate personality; the most mysterious moment in the history of mankind is the birth of their religions’. That is why I have placed so much emphasis on this site when analysing Paul and Mark the Evangelist: the literary authors (Jesus did not exist) of a religion that would eventually castrate all Aryans around the globe.

So castrated actually that, recently, in the comments section of a well-known blog of southern nationalists in the US, a commenter who detests me explained his reasons for why he hates me: because I criticise Christianity almost full time in this blog and also, because I promote an exterminationist ideology.

Only modern emasculated whites, what I call Jew-obeyers, can complain about that. We can already imagine the ancient Greeks or the Romans being frightened of a fellow citizen who criticised a Jewish sect called Christianity (remember the quotations of ancient Greeks and Romans about Jews and Christians in the ‘masthead’ of this site). If during the siege of Jerusalem in the year 70—when Mark wrote his gospel!—a Roman would tell Titus that an exterminationist ideology would have to be implemented, no one would have been frightened. At most, they would have told the exterminationist that it was better to enslave the survivors and sell them in the Mediterranean market for economic gain, what they actually did.

Had the ancient Romans benefited from the hindsight of the modern era—that the miscegenation that they were already beginning to practice in the 1st century would result in the collapse of the Empire—, they would have accepted the arguments of the exterminationist philosopher.

So what’s wrong with exterminationism? Not for nothing in this site have I called miscegenation ‘the sin against the holy spirit’, in the sense that it is so unforgivable sin that, once consummated, only the gradual decline and the eventual fall of an Aryan empire can take place. Those white nationalists or Southerners who have not yet learned the role that miscegenation played in ancient Rome would do well to read ‘The Race Problem of the Roman Empire’ by the Swedish philologist Martin P. Nilsson. Only after that it will be somewhat more digestible to understand what William Pierce wanted to tell us in a chapter, ‘Extermination or Expulsion’, from his only non-fiction book.

Food for thought:
Martin P. Nilsson’s text.
William L. Pierce’s text.

Tough question

Let us put it simply this way:

If the entire destruction of the Jew involves the destruction of the Bible—will you people be able to do it? From all I can see, all Bible believers are unable to do so. They don’t even care about the Jew behind it. They love the Bible more than they hate the Jew who made it.

And that is our greatest weakness.

Axe of Perun

Published in: on August 23, 2018 at 9:53 am  Comments (2)  
Tags:

Apocalypse for whites • XL

 

Law against Christianity

(final page of The Antichrist)

 
Given on the Day of Salvation, on the first day of the year one (30 September 1888, according to the false calculation of time).

War to the death against vice: the vice is Christianity

First article.—Every type of anti-nature is a vice. The priest is the most vicious type of person: he teaches anti-nature. Priests are not to be reasoned with, they are to be locked up.

Second article.—Any participation in church services is an attack on public morality. One should be harsher with Protestants than with Catholics, harsher with liberal Protestants than with orthodox ones. The criminality of being Christian increases with your proximity to science. The criminal of criminals is consequently the philosopher.

Third article.—The execrable location where Christianity brooded over its basilisk eggs should be razed to the ground and, being the depraved spot on earth, it should be the horror of all posterity. Poisonous snakes should be bred on top of it.

Fourth article.—The preacher of chastity is a public incitement to anti-nature. Contempt for sexuality, making it unclean with the concept of ‘uncleanliness’, these are the real sins against the holy spirit of life.

Fifth article.—Eating at the same table as a priest ostracizes: you are excommunicated from honest society. The priest is our Chandala, —he should be ostracized, starved, driven into every type of desert.

Sixth article.—The ‘holy’ history should be called by the name it deserves, the cursed history; the words ‘God’, ‘saviour’, ‘redeemer’, ‘saint’ should be used as terms of abuse, to signify criminals.

Seventh article.—The rest follows from this.

—Friedrich Nietzsche

 
___________

Note of the Editor:

Nietzsche’s ‘Law Against Christianity’ is a piece that has been eliminated from numerous editions of The Anti-Christ: A Curse on Christianity because the editors simply cucked before the Judaeo-Christian ethos.

Apocalypse for whites • XXII

by Evropa Soberana

 

Third Jewish-Roman War:
The Palestinian Revolt or
Rebellion of Bar Kokhba (132-135)

Hadrian at first had been minimally conciliatory with the province of Judea. He allowed the Jews to return to Jerusalem, began rebuilding the city as a gift from Rome and even gave them permission to rebuild the Temple. However, after a visit to the ‘Holy Land’, he had a sudden change of mind and began again to make Roman authority felt in the troubled province.

While the Jewish quarter was preparing the construction of the Temple, Hadrian ordered it to be built in a different place from the original, and then began deporting Jews to North Africa. Planning the complete transfiguration of Judea, its de-Judaization, its repopulation with Roman legionaries and its impregnation of Greco-Roman culture, he ordered the foundation, on Jerusalem, of a new Roman city, called Aelia Capitolina.

This implied the massive irruption of the classic art, extremely hated by the Jews, besides the construction of numerous Roman buildings—and the construction of a Roman building necessarily went through a ceremony of consecration of religious character that, according to the Talmudic mentality, polluted the Holy Land for being a pagan ritual. Jerusalem, before the nervous eyes of Jewry, was going to become the scene of a highly ‘profane’, ‘impure’ and ‘pagan’ place for their mentality, such as streets decorated with naked statues with a prepuce!

The Jews, again indignant, prepared for a rebellion, but Rabbi Joshua ben Hananiah calmed them down, so they were content to prepare themselves clandestinely in case they had to rebel in the future, which seemed every time most likely. They built caches in caves and began to accumulate weapons and supplies. Although they did not carry out an open rebellion, in 123 terrorist actions began to take place against the Roman forces of occupation.

The Hellenistic education of Hadrian is evident in his beard. The Romans, a people of soldiers, like the Macedonians, had the deep-rooted habit of facial shaving. Although Nero brought partial beard at some moments of his life, it was Hadrian the first emperor to leave it permanently. Such a man would naturally be more inclined to take a stand for the ethnically Greek populations of the Eastern Mediterranean against his main rivals: the Jews, especially Alexandrians.

Hadrian, who was increasingly regretting his previous indulgence for the Jewish quarter, brought the Legio VI Ferrata to act as a police force. To make matters worse, the emperor was a man of Hellenistic education. In addition to the anti-Judaism traditionally associated with it, the Greek formation considered circumcision as a barbaric act of mutilation.

Although they admired the nakedness of a beautiful human body, the Greeks, who in Judea formed the most influential social sector after the Romans, considered it an act of extreme bad education to show the glans in public (for which those who had too short a foreskin from birth, had to cover the glans with some accessory). Instead, according to Jewish tradition, Adam and Moses were born without foreskin, and the Messiah will also be born circumcised. The Jews were not the only people to practice circumcision: it was also practiced by other Semitic peoples such as the Syrians and the Arabs. But in the case of the Jews it was a religious matter: a sign of covenant between them and Jehovah. To make matters worse, Hadrian also decided to prohibit the observance of the Sabbath, which forced the Jews not to work and practically do nothing on Saturdays.

The year 131, after an inauguration ceremony by the governor Quintus Tineius Rufus, began the works of Aelia Capitolina, and the following year coinage was minted with the new name of the city and works were begun on a Temple dedicated to Jupiter in the location of the ancient Temple of Jerusalem. Rabbi Akiva ben Yosef convinced the Sanhedrin to proclaim as Messiah and commander of the coming rebellion Simon Bar Kokhba (‘Son of a star’): a cunning, bloodthirsty and shrewd leader. Bar Kokhba must have planned carefully, noting the issues where previous rebellions had failed.

Instantly, as soon as Hadrian left Judea, that same year of 132, the Jewish quarter rose, attacked the Roman detachments and annihilated the Legio X (Legio VI was encamped watching the passage of Megiddo). The Jews from all the provinces of the Empire and beyond began to attend, and also obtained the support of many Syrian and Arab tribes.

With their fundamentalist Semitic hordes—supposedly 400,000 men, of whom it was said to have been started by cutting off a finger or plucking a cedar from the roots—they stormed 50 fortified plazas and 985 defenceless towns (including Jerusalem), exterminating the Greek communities, the Roman detachments and all the opponents they encountered; atrocities being common. Later, they dedicated themselves to the construction of walls and underground passages; in short, to entrench themselves in each square.

After these fleeting victories, the Jewish state in the area was reorganized. In Betar, a mighty fortress in the mountains, Bar Kokhba was crowned Messiah in a solemn ceremony. During the years of the revolt, Ben Yosef and Bar Kokhba reigned together, one as a dictator and the other as a religious ‘pontiff’ who proclaimed the ‘era of the redemption of Israel’ and even minted their own coins.

General Publicius Marcellus, governor of Syria, was sent to support Quintus Tineius Rufus; but both Romans were defeated by forces vastly superior in number, which also invaded the coastal areas, forcing the Romans to fight with them in naval battles. At this moment so worrying for Rome, Hadrian called Sextus Julius Severus, who at that time was governor of the province of Britain. He also required a former governor of Germania, Quintus Lollius Urbicus. With them, he gathered an army even greater than the one that Titus had gathered last century, a total of perhaps twelve legions: from one third to half of all the military troops of the Empire.

In view of the vast number of enemies and the desperation with which they acted, the Romans avoided open battles; limited themselves to attacking scattered groups and destroying the populations where they could find sustenance: the tactics of anti-partisan warfare. The Jews had fairly well entrenched themselves in some 50 fortified cities, many of them truly impregnable complexes in the mountains, so the Romans advanced slowly by besieging the squares, cutting off supplies and entering when the defenders were weak.

This painful tactic, which also required long journeys through hostile areas, cost the Romans innumerable deaths—in fact, it seems that the Jews annihilated, or at least caused very heavy losses, to the Legio XXII Deiotariana which had come from Egypt. To confirm the hardships passed by the legions, Hadrian eliminated from his military reports to the Senate and the people of Rome the traditional opening formula ‘I and the legions are fine’ for the simple reason that the legions… were not fine.

After enormous sacrifices and waste of discipline and feeling of duty, the Romans were triumphing little by little. In the year 134 the Betar fortress remained, where Bar Kokhba had become strong with the Sanhedrin; his most loyal followers, and thousands of Jews who had come as refugees. The same day of the anniversary of the fall of the Temple of Jerusalem, the fortress fell into the hands of the Roman soldiers, who put the entire population to the sword and did not allow the dead to be buried for six days.

‘Even if they swear to become good Roman citizens and worship Jupiter and our other gods, kill them, if you do not want them to destroy Rome or conquer it by the secret and cowardly means that they usually do’.

—Emperor Hadrian to his legions

Apocalypse for whites • XX

by Evropa Soberana

 
Consequences of the Great Jewish Revolt

In the year 73, after seven long years of an incredibly bloodthirsty war against the greatest military power on the planet, Judea as a whole was devastated; Jerusalem reduced to ashen ruins, and the Temple completely destroyed, except for a wall that remained standing, the Mur des Lamentations. Judea became a separate province, and the Legio X Fretensis permanently camped in the Jewish capital.

Once more: according to ancient sources, 1,100,000 Jews died during the siege and during the legions’ invasion, and another 97,000, including the leaders Simon Bar Giora and John of Giscala, were captured and sold as slaves throughout the Roman Empire. The vestiges of independence and political unity of the Jewish quarter were pulverized, and the Jews became again a people without a country.

Once re-conquered the whole province of Judea, Rome coined commemorative coins on which appeared the profile of Emperor Vespasian and, on the other side, the inscription IVDEA CAPTA (conquered Judea), under which Judea was represented by a crying woman.

The Jewish rebellion was condemned as a kamikaze action from the beginning. Simply, the Roman Empire was a force too irresistible, and only the fundamentalist fanaticism, preached by minority social sectors, could drag Jewry to fight until the end in a way so tenacious with an enemy that was the bearer of an infinitely superior culture and, above all, of a better and more effective way of acting in the world. Will and faith may move mountains. In this case however the Jews did not achieve miracles but the destruction of their holy land and the hardening of the Roman occupation.

The date of the fall of Jerusalem in the year 70 signals the beginning of the so-called Galut or Diaspora: the dispersion of the Jews throughout the world. In reality, the Jews were already more numerous outside Judea than in Judea—the largest Jewish population in the world was in Alexandria—, but the destruction of their capital decapitated the Judaic centralism and further fostered this diaspora process, favouring autonomous developments; the typical stateless feeling, and the rise of that characteristic cosmopolitanism.

Vespasian had the Jews of Judea scattered throughout Italy, Greece and, above all, North Africa and Asia Minor, believing that this was the end of the Jewish danger to the Empire.

Upon returning to Rome, the triumphant Titus solemnly rejected the crown of laurels of victory offered by the Roman people, claiming that he fulfilled the divine will and that ‘there is no merit in defeating a people that has been abandoned by their own god’. Shortly afterwards the Romans erected an arc of triumph, under which no Jew—at least no traditionalist Jew—still passes today. The arch of Titus, erected in Rome to commemorate the capture of Jerusalem, shows the Roman legionaries transporting the fruits of the looting of the temple, highlighting the giant menorah.

This is a key moment in Jewish history. The Jews saw how their achievements were crushed by a proud European empire, how their relics were trampled by Roman sandals and how their sacrosanct Temple was burned by flames. To see it destroyed was a huge shock in the collective psychology of Jewry, filling the Jews with resentment and desires for revenge against what they knew of Europe: the Greek and Roman communities.

Rome might have easily been able to exterminate all the Jews of Judea if she had wanted, but Rome did not, as it seemed that the Jewish power was finished. The Jews had been traumatized, and their tribal pride shattered. But, far from neutralising them, this psychological shock on their collective unconscious fed them cruel desires for revenge.