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)  

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.

Strong meat

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

David Irving in 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lost opportunity

In the forthcoming WDH Radio Show, which is in the process of being edited, the Boer Jan Lamprecht is the special guest.

Too bad that I cannot speak English fluently. With a simultaneous translator this is what I’d have said when I drew the subject of the atomic bombs that South Africa had:

First of all, I agree with James Mason that “The enemy today is the US Government itself and it is by every standard of measure, the most evil thing that has ever existed on earth.” This means, as Mason’s fans say, that the only valid pro-white action in America is that of the absolutely Leveling of the existing State, state culture, it’s values; in short, the total destruction of Americanism as such.

From this angle, and here is where it hurts me to be unable to speak fluently—which I can perfectly do, and with furious glances, in my native tongue—, it would have been logical to have used the atomic bombs—over the United States.

The fact that the West, including the US, pressured South Africa to initiate significant political changes against the Apartheid can only be contextualized considering the Americanist hegemony and the wars for racial equality from the 1880s, when the US betrayed itself.

The South African government had six atomic bombs. If the South Africans had nuked Washington, in addition to New York (which would dispatch quite a few non-gentiles) and Hollywood (thus destroying the Jewish virus factories for the Aryan mind), together with Jerusalem and Tel Aviv (which would have emboldened the surrounding Muslims to reconquer Israel)—with the surplus bomb being retained for London, Paris, or Moscow—South Africa would have been destroyed by the Evil Empire, but at least it would have died with honor. (See as a paradigm of what real man should be the Siege entry I just posted today.)

Compare this heroic scenario with the slow death that South Africa suffers now, so well explained in what Jan Lamprecht says in the next episode of WDH Radio.

I repeat once again: Now that I have reread the events about the Judeo-Roman wars, the direct and overwhelming way in which the pre-Christian Aryans handled the Jewish problem surprises me. If the Romans had known that their massacre of Jews; their destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem, and prohibiting Jews to enter their holy city would not produce results in the long run, they would have killed them in the siege of Jerusalem instead of selling the survivors as slaves. They didn’t do it because they ignored that this line of Semites had a more resistant spirit than the Carthaginian Semites, on whom the Romans had applied the same medicine.

Let us not blame the pre-Christian Romans. Blame instead the contemporary Aryans, including many “defenders” of the white race. Because of the mental virus that the Jews implanted in them, these latter-day Aryans are incapable of (1) celebrating each year what the Romans did with our racial enemies, and (2) devising a really final solution for the problem.

If they had sneaked five of the bombs they possessed into key cities in the US, Apartheid South Africans could have dealt a great blow to the Evil Empire. But they did not. The ideas in this post show why I barely speak on radio shows. If I’m unable to speak the English language with proper pronunciation and fluency, saying these things would only sound wrong. But at least I can say them in writing based on what Mason said above.

Kriminalgeschichte, 7

Below, translated excerpts from the first volume of Karlheinz
Deschner’s Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums

(“Criminal History of Christianity”)

 
Bar Kokhba and the “Last War of God” (131-136)

To this new uprising, in 115 C.E. different uprisings were added among the Jews of the diaspora, which were very numerous in the Mediterranean area according to Philo. Only in Alexandria there was more than a million. They were still not disillusioned with the Messianic dream. During the war of Trajan against the Parthians (114-117 C.E.), the rumour of a disastrous defeat of the empire ran, and there was also a great earthquake that destroyed Antioch and other cities of Asia Minor. In the face of these disasters, the Zealots believed their time had come.

In the province of Crete and Cyrene, where 200,000 non-Jews were reported to have died, the “king” and “Messiah” Lukuas destroyed the capital, Cyrenaica. In Cyprus, the insurgents devastated Salamis and, according to the chronicles, killed 240,000 non-Jews, an obviously exaggerated figure. From then on, however, the Jews were barred from access to the island and even the castaways, if they were Israelites, were executed. In Egypt, where the Romans liquidated all the Jews of Alexandria in reprisals, the fighting lasted for years. In all places, the Jewish diaspora was severely punished.

In the same Palestine, the successor of Trajan, Emperor Hadrian (reign 117-138 C.E.), a great devotee of the gods, built a new city on the ruins of Jerusalem, Aelia Capitolina, and on the site of the Temple built an altar to Jupiter And a temple of Venus.

And here it is that in the year 131, Simon ben Kosevah (Bar Kokhba) begins a war of guerrillas so generalized and so deadly, that forces the very emperor to take command of the Roman troops. Bar Kokhba (in Aramaic means “son of the star,” so named after the success of his uprising; in the Talmud, the loser received the name Ben Koseva, “son of lies”) takes power in Jerusalem. His principal counsellor is Rabbi Aqiba, who greets him with a classic messianic appointment calling him “star of Jacob,” the saviour of Israel. He is also supported by the high priest Eleazar, later killed by Bar Kokhba himself because he advised surrender.

There were two years of high morale in Jerusalem, resuming worship in the Temple and proclaiming a new era of freedom until the Emperor Hadrian sent four legions under the command of his best general, Julius Severus, with large numbers of auxiliary troops and a large fleet.

The Romans start regaining ground little by little.

According to Dion Casio, whose exaggerations are notorious, 580,000 Jewish fighters were killed and 50 fortresses destroyed, 985 villages destroyed, and tens of thousands of prisoners sent to captivity. Mommsen believes that these figures “are not unlikely,” since the fighting was fierce and surely led to the extermination of the entire male population.

Women and children flooded the slave markets, leading to lower slave prices. The last population to fall was Beth-Ter (the present Battir), west of Jerusalem, where Bar Kokhba himself died in circumstances not well explained.

The site of the Temple and its surroundings were ploughed with oxen. As for the Zealots, the Romans utterly exterminated them, for at last they understood that the religious fanaticism of the Jews was the true cause of the revolt. “For the next fifty years we did not see the flight of a bird in Palestine,” says the Talmud.

The Israelites were forbidden under penalty of death to enter Jerusalem, and the garrison doubled. Until the fourth century the Jews could not return there to weep once a year, on the 9th day of the Aw month, the loss of the “holy city.” And until the twentieth century, or more precisely until May 14, 1948, they failed to found a Jewish state, Eretz Yisrael.

Uncle Adolf’s table talk, 31

the-real-hitler

 

17th October 1941, midday

Antonescu’s rôle—Necessary reforms in Rumania—Elimination of the Jew.
 
 
Apart from the Duce, amongst our allies Antonescu is the man who makes the strongest impression. He’s a man on a big scale, who never lets anything throw him out of his stride, and he’s incorruptible, what’s more—a man such as Rumania has never had before.

To bring decency into civil life, the first condition is to have an integral State: an incorruptible army, a police and administration reduced to a minimum.

But the first thing, above all, is to get rid of the Jew. Without that, it will be useless to clean the Augean stables.

If Antonescu sets about the job in this manner, he’ll be the head of a thriving country, inwardly healthy and strong. For this purpose he has a good peasantry (Hungary has nothing like it) and natural riches. Moreover, Rumania is a country with a thinly scattered population.

Published in: on September 21, 2015 at 7:06 pm  Comments Off on Uncle Adolf’s table talk, 31