Poisonous 1917

The Hollywood movie 1917, which I saw today, directed, co-written and produced by Sam Mendes, whose mother is Jewish, is poison to the Aryan race.

Of the most notable contemporary racialists, Richard Spencer’s voice is the least bad. I’m not saying it’s a good voice: it’s just the least bad.

Let us listen, then, what together with Hollywood buff Mark, who never shows his face, Spencer said yesterday about Mendes’ movie.

The problem with Spencer is that he is very lukewarm. A truly fanatic priest of the 14 words would be furious not only against this new film, but against the entire film industry (with the exceptions of the 1995 and 2005 movies based on Jane Austen’s novels, of which I spoke this week.)

One of the problems with films like 1917 is that they are made with great craft and even art we could say. But that turns the film into an even more rhetorical poison, and therefore more dangerous, than a poorly directed film.

For me the seventh art, as a subject, is crystal-clear. As long as there are non-whites on Earth, every film must be propaganda: audio-visual spectacles that must have the imprimatur of a totalitarian Fourth Reich, as Yockey said in one of the quotations of The Fair Race: ‘L’art pour l’art values must be transvalued to Art practiced in conformity with the cultural task’. Of course, that was collectivist Germany, not libertarian, Mammon worshiper and Judeo-Christian America.

Compare the above way of seeing art—a priest’s POV—with the words of Spencer and the faceless Mark. Spencer said that 1917 ‘is valorizing WWI, and I think that is something that is extremely problematic’ (after minute 6:30, and he repeated these words after minute 34). Note the word ‘problematic’ and realise why, compared to me, I label Spencer as lukewarm. I’d simply say it’s Jewish poison for the Aryan mind. Mark added about the hero of the movie: ‘he defeated the villain, he defeated the foe… from the British side’.

Spencer also spoke of World War II but did not say a word about the Holocaust that the Allies committed on the Germans. I wonder if Spencer has read Hellstorm? This astronomic omission reminds me that Hunter Wallace wrote about Justinian I today in glowing terms about ‘reconquering the Western Empire’. These are words as deceiving as Sam Mendes’ visual art about the Great War. Does Wallace know about the Holocaust perpetrated on two Germanic peoples by Justinian I, the emperor of the mud capital of Constantinople? (see the final pages of the book I recently translated, Christianity’s Criminal History).

Just as in official history the Germanics that invaded the already miscegenated Roman Empire are presented as barbarians, in 1917 a ‘German is depicted as an insane maniac’, said Spencer around minute 36 and he added that the scene was ‘insulting to Germans’. Mark then said that in the film the German point of view is never represented, that it is taboo in Hollywood. I would add that, unlike one of Clint Eastwood’s films about WW2 where the Japanese POV is presented, the German POV continues to be taboo. Incidentally, both Spencer and Mark use the word ‘gay’ without realising that it is Newspeak to avoid.

Only until a few seconds before the 57th minute Mark said ‘I knew that the guy was a Jewish filmmaker’, something he should have said from the first minute. Then we hear, after 1:06, that the film is pro-Zionist and glorifies the two world wars that only favoured the Zionist Christians: wars that transvalued values in the US to a philo-Semitism based on the Schofield Bible. Spencer & Mark’s review aside, it is time to say a few more words about the American racialist movement.

George Lincoln Rockwell was the only one who understood racial reality. If he had not been murdered the journal National Socialist World, in which William Pierce and others collaborated, would have continued.

The wisest thing I heard in England the last time I visited the island was what Arthur Kemp told me: that William Pierce’s mistake had been not to form a political party. I recently talked about Pierce’s blunder, but degenerate music was only a tactical blunder. The fact is that Pierce committed something much more serious: a strategic blunder, not having followed in the footsteps of Commander Rockwell.

Only Rockwell tried to follow in Hitler’s footsteps. After Rockwell everyone else has been talkative, despite Pierce’s enormous intelligence (whom I cite so much in The Fair Race).

After the assassination of Rockwell, everything we have had in this continent have been impossible compromises with Christian ethics and the American way of life. The tremendous inertia of American Judeo-Christianity is such that, as a commenter said on this site today, the purported anti-Semite Andrew Anglin no longer speaks about Hitler. He now speaks about Yahweh and his son Yeshu, as the gods that the valiant visitors of The Daily Stormer must follow.

If white nationalism were a legit movement, everyone would be talking about Christianity’s Criminal History and the forthcoming revolution, although theoretically and patiently, waiting for the dollar to collapse so that the masses transit from happy mode to angry mode. But they are stagnated in Judeo-Christianity and the American way.

He was more woke than you could possibly imagine

by Jake Raymond

Commander Rockwell often spoke of “White Christians” under attack in the West. “White Power” as a slogan can be credited to him. Every North American racist revolutionary has a debt to this man. His populism, theatrics, swagger, and street fighting shaped the Struggle for decades to come. We know what he did, but what did he really believe? Below are some choice selections from his written correspondence with Savitri Devi herself that shed light on his true sentiments.

December 1960, Rockwell writes Devi:

You ask in your latest letter if I will sell your books! OF COURSE!—And PROUDLY!—they are great books which will one day be revered like our present Kike Bible, when our Jew-hypnotized people are once again proud and knowledgeable of their Nordic culture and concepts, and do not need to or want to lean on the nasty mutterings of a bunch of old Jews.

Summer 1965, Rockwell writes Devi:

You simply must try to understand the almost unbelievable difficulties I face in working here with Americans. Perhaps many Europeans are evil and vicious “Democrats” and even “Communists.” Unfortunately, most of my fellow Americans do not have the honor to be even such ideological criminals—they are just plain ignorant and often unbelievably dumb. Europeans simply have no comprehension of the political ignorance of the majority of Americans. It is also true what you write about various religious matters. (For obvious reasons I cannot commit to writing, all the various things involved here.)

June 1966, Rockwell writes Devi:

I cannot mention the subject in writing, for what I hope are obvious reasons, but you will remember it was criticism of one subject you were afraid might be included in the National Socialist World. By now, you should have received your airmail copy of this journal which we are very proud of. I doubt you will find anything about which to quarrel. In fact, I think you will be quite pleased with the tremendous world circulation we have finally given to your wonderful book The Lightning and the Sun. In that very book, and in the condensation in National Socialist World, you and Colin Jordan both point out that National Socialists unhesitatingly and unhypocritically admit that the ends justify the means, providing the means do not contradict the end.

—excerpted from Woman Against Time.

Published in: on December 30, 2019 at 12:01 am  Comments (13)  

Criticising G.L. Rockwell

by Verdigris

This is one of the problems I had with George Rockwell’s White Power. He did apologise to Europe for WWII but at the same time he was speculating on a leader for the white race and seemed to think Europe needs America to save itself. This personally irked me because Europe already had that leader. They can blame the Jews all day long but it wasn’t the Jews who gleefully pulled the trigger, they just pointed the gun.

Sometimes I get this feeling that Americans and English care about Europe only so far that they can tie it back to their own exceptionalism.

They’re also naïve and ignorant on the Christian question. They seem to think that because Christianity is “attacked”, this makes it an intrinsically white religion. They would do well to read Celsus’ On the True Doctrine: Jews and Christians, and Christians and Christians have been squabbling since the first inception of that religion.
 

______ 卐 ______

 

Editor’s reply: I have complained dozens of times why Pierce’s Who We Are, published on National Vanguard from 1978 to 1982, never was popular among white nationalists. Presently I am the only one who publishes part of it in my Daybreak Press!

Gradually the thought dawned in my mind that it’s simply because Pierce introduces the most relevant chapters of white history outside the American continent. And American white nationalists are still stuck with their provincial history (just as Mexican nationalists don’t want to know much of the history of Spain).

Recently, for example, Hunter Wallace of Occidental Dissent published a series of articles about the Vikings. He is stuck with the story that the Norsemen were the bad guys and the European Christians the good guys; and that only their Christianization solved the Viking problem. Just compare this interpretation of history with what Pierce wrote in Who We Are about the Vikings.

My prediction is that white and southern nationalists won’t become National Socialists in the US. They will cling to their American and Confederate flags. Fortunately, the collapse of the dollar that is coming will start their lesson in humility…

Rockwell

I don’t know if I’m going to start a series about George Lincoln Rockwell’s books, but yesterday that I read Chapter 12 of White Power some ideas came to me.

I realized, even then, that talking and educating are useless unless they are directed at the only worthwhile political goal, power. (page 297)

In other words, everything white nationalists do today is almost useless. With the exception of Harold Covington they don’t even have a plan on how the United States will be reclaimed (well, in the case of the late Covington, at least part of its territory).

Although it is made to appear so, the battle between the “conservatives” and “liberals” is not a battle of ideas or even of political organization. It is a battle of force, terror and power. (page 299)

Completely true: as we can see in how the System used the Charlottesville event to imprison innocent young whites.

As long as the right-wing confines its fighting to being “nice”, the great masses of the public will bow down like sheep to the left-wing which is not nice—which uses smear, economic persecution, legal harassment, and finally physical terror to maintain its domination of our national life and culture by force. The force is disguised, of course, in checkbooks, judge’s robes, rigged party conventions, etc.—but it is still either the force itself, or the threat of force which has America down and afraid.

No amount of papers and pamphlets, were they all masterpieces of propaganda—and no amount of talk and meetings can stop this growing left wing force… (page 300)

It is amazing that these words were written in the mid-1960s! Rockwell was not a ‘white nationalist’: a term that didn’t even exist when he lived.

What exasperates me greatly when reading the real white nationalists is that since Rockwell’s time they have lost their manhood. Of the notable racialists currently active, only Alex Linder speaks as a man. And with the exception of youtuber John Mark, the vast majority have been so emasculated that they are not even able to talk about revolution within the limits of freedom of expression allowed by the US government.

Any man who spends thirty or forty years pretending to imagine there is such an easy way while our country and our White Race go down and down and down—is not a dreamer—or ignorant. He is a coward! (page 302)

Absolutely.

Before a mass of people will rise up and do anything effective and forceful about a tyrannical situation, there must be built up a certain emotional pressure. (page 304)

Since today’s whites are degenerates, only the convergence of catastrophes can save them: the coming collapse of the dollar and, later, the gradual energy devolution throughout the century due to the growing oil shortage. (Hopefully, an international exchange of nuclear strikes during the chaotic societal circumstances will fulfil Little Finger’s ‘Chaos is a ladder’…)

There are plenty of people already awake in America. They are afraid and they are frustrated by their inability to do anything about the terrible evil they see growing.

Mercury magazine did indeed “inform” a lot of people. So does the Birch Society. But we don’t need any more informed people who won’t stand up and fight to oppose tyranny!…

As Hitler puts it so masterfully, “eight lame men walking arm in arm do not make one gladiator”. These weak rightwing leaders, who, for forty or fifty years have been preaching a million different tricks to avoid the desperate, dangerous fight which is always the price of any victory, are approaching the end of the road. (page 305)

This reminds me of something else. Pace Rockwell, it is impossible to fight with defective people. Rockwell played a very risky gambit in the recruitment of soldiers in his movement, like that shirtless young man who entered his barracks and eventually became a good element. The risk was that one of them killed Rockwell in cold blood simply because the assassin was already suffering from a previous mental disorder.

Of today’s revolutionaries, unlike the retired Norman Spear, who in the past had connections with the Covington group, the James Mason fans who formed cells have suffered fatal in-fight shootings (such as the fatal shooting Rockwell received by admitting an insane person among his ranks). In other words, only sound-minded revolutionaries will be able to do something for the cause, and it is almost impossible to find them among Siege fanatics (remember Mason’s lacrimae lunae of which I spoke in another recent entry).

The people already sense this. But they do not yet want the all-out, bloody battle, in which they would probably lose their color TV, their two cars and their electric lawnmower. They still hope they can win by some easy way. (page 316)

William Pierce saw this in his two novels, which every revolutionary racialist must read to understand what is happening.

How long before our masses of great Americans get mad enough to say, as we must, “To hell with all the pretense and fancy talk!”…

Racism is not only not “evil”—racism is our only hope! America will soon be ready for a leader who has gone through hell to preach pure racism, to fight for our White people, as a race, without any pretty excuses or cover-ups. (pages 317-18)

If the approach of Mason’s epigones is defective, Nick Fuentes’ approach is defective too. Christian ‘optics’ has been tried before and did not work. For example, just for an innocent joke from Fuentes about the holocaust, the media is now trying to assassinate his character as a ‘holocaust denier’—completely ignoring the core of Fuentes’ message: the cultural and ethnic changes by mass migration; the charlatanry of American conservatism, and the return to moral values as far as sexuality is concerned.

To conclude, the System will always label us as Nazis and Holocaust deniers. If so, why not, once and for all, speak with brutal honesty as Linder speaks? Why not abandon shy white nationalism in pursuit of Rockwell’s neo-Nazism?

It makes no sense to worry about optics while the only optics endorsed by the System is that of those who, as Rockwell said long ago, is enforced by totalitarian leftists.

Published in: on November 22, 2019 at 9:31 am  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.

Nazism Lite

For the 14 words the humanities are more important than the sciences. Greece and Rome were able to flourish thanks to a deep contact with their religion, history, art, language and architecture. The scientific method as we know it now would only begin until the 17th century. Our treacherous era prioritises hard sciences and technology at the expense of the arts and the humanities to demoralise and control the blond beast.

Among the humanities, the most important is that which tells the facts: History. As I have said repeatedly on this site, only two stories of the white race have been written: one by William Pierce and another by Arthur Kemp. Pierce died before I woke up to the real world, but I visited Kemp a few years ago at his home in a town in England.

One might think that the only American book (Pierce’s) that deals with the subject of the history of the white race would be an immense bestseller in the circles of white nationalism in North America. Today I realised that Amazon Books has vaporized all references to Pierce’s book. But that is not the worst. The worst is that Who We Are is very rarely mentioned in white nationalist forums. What is currently sold in white nationalism is a genre we could call Nazism Lite. For example, on this day, the Metapedia page has the Arktos Media Ltd. publishing house as its featured article. A glance at the titles is enough to see the ideological lukewarmness of that publisher whose books the white nationalists buy.

I see things in this way: In the English-speaking world what is closer, chronologically speaking, to the Third Reich was the noblest and true. That which is furthest removed by time, represents an attempt at a schizophrenic compromise between the 14 words and Americanism. From this angle, the only truly noble politician in the US was George Lincoln Rockwell. And the only non-schizophrenic intellectuals were William Pierce and Revilo Oliver. None of them, as far as I know, called themselves ‘white nationalists’. That is a term that originated after Rockwell and Oliver had died, and when Pierce only had a few more years in this world.

It speaks a lot about the so-called white nationalism that the content of Who We Are is currently only available, on paper, in abridged form in my The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour compilation (see the image at the top of the sidebar). It is as if every member of the Nazism Lite had decided to cut off a testicle from their bodies compared to the two-testicled racists of yesteryear.

Putting aside white nationalism, and speaking as racists spoke in more civilized times, just remember that the people with the longer memory are the people with the longest future (cf. Jews). Hitler, in one of his table talks, said: ‘Our history goes back to the days of Arminius and King Theodoric, and among the German Kaisers there have been men of the most outstanding quality; in them they bore the germ of German unity. This fact is too often forgotten, because since the 15th century it is only in Austria that the history of ancient Germania has been taught’.

That’s the spirit. The Nazis knew that we must reconnect with religion, literature and an architecture uncontaminated with Semitic religions. Remember that the Führer wanted to become an artist, either a painter or an architect. How many among the white nationalists of today have the same artistic proclivities? How many have websites appealing to the aesthetic instinct of the former Aryan?

In the Ancient World, the Spartan ephebes assiduously studied Homer, whose many verses they could recite. What should move to protect the culture of whites is the beauty of the Aryan woman. We can already imagine the Spartan women parading naked in a public event to invite marriage: those women had the reputation of the most beautiful in Greece. (Remember, the Doric Spartans did not contaminate their blood with the muds of the Mediterranean.) Precisely because beauty is the splendour of truth, the first thing the Judeo-Christian Semites did centuries later was to destroy the Greek statues.

The reason that Who We Are is not a bestseller is because Pierce’s pure neo-Nazism was not schizophrenic as white nationalism is. If the white nationalists have not published Pierce’s book to sell it in all their events, this is because the book does not make any concession to Americanism: it is not the chimera that has parts of a lion and parts of a bird.

Who We Are says things that are currently taboo in the chimera of today. For example, it is a Nordicist book. After the section ‘Unending Struggle Between European and Asian’, it is clear that even many Russians and Europeans from the Balkans mixed their blood with Asians and Turks respectively. In addition, Who We Are has some passages in which Pierce seems to promote the removal or extermination of the inferior races: the greatest taboo in those who have cut off one of their testicles. The book puts Christianity in its place, as a Levantine infection that grabbed the soul of the Aryan race. (‘It appealed directly to a sense of envy and resentment of the weak against the strong’. ‘But Christian ethics was like a time bomb ticking away in Europe, a Trojan horse waiting for its season’.) As if that were not enough, it isn’t a mono-causal book in the sense that it not only blames the Jews: the blunders that whites have committed throughout history, for example by placing economic gain above racial preservation, are conspicuous.

There is a way that the movement called white nationalism could be redeemed, and it is precisely that they abandon that term and embrace National Socialism. The bridge to do so in America is precisely the memory of politicians like Rockwell and geniuses like Pierce. Since Rockwell-like politics is no longer allowed in the US (cf. Charlottesville), at least a few Americans could be educated in private. Always remember what we have reiterated more than once:

We need to create the Aryan community—an ecclesia—, which whites never had. The Aryan ecclesias need to thrive in our towns and cities (think of the image at the top of this article). Our priests, for lack of a better word, are not experts in theology but in history, anthropology and Indo-European linguistics. They must be skilled in the various Indo-European traditions, with emphasis in Greece and Rome.

Kangaroo court finds James Fields guilty

John Patler was convicted of first-degree murder when he assassinated Commander George Lincoln Rockwell and got only twenty years and was out in about seven.

Fields, who is innocent of what happened on my birthday last year, is facing up to six life sentences or seventy years in prison.

The US judiciary is done: stick a fork in it!

Published in: on December 7, 2018 at 8:02 pm  Comments (6)  

Therapeutic States

To contextualise this series about psychiatry, see: here. Below, an abridged translation of a chapter of one of my books:
 

The empire of psychiatric power is more than three hundred years old and grows daily more all-encompassing. But we have not yet begun to acknowledge its existence, much less to understand its role in our society. [1]

Thomas Szasz has also said that the social institutions involved in psychiatric violence are the family, the medical institution and the state.

In political theory, one of the definitions of state is ‘the monopoly of violence’. A common civilian cannot exercise violence on another civilian under the law, but the executive power of a state, safeguarded by the legislative and judicial powers, can. The executive power doesn’t only count on an army to protect his (or attack another) nation, but through the police it can exercise violence against its own citizens in those cases stipulated by the law.

If psychiatrists were normal and common citizens they could never exercise, or threat to exercise, any violence. But psychiatrists represent a privileged class of citizens: society allows them to exercise violence on some citizens. Furthermore, they possess special jails for these ends that they call ‘psychiatric hospitals’, which are outside the jurisdiction of the common penal system. This is apparent in the laws of a nation like England and the international law on human rights.

The English laws of mental health are a means by which the right to liberty of a citizen is moved to the side, a right warranted by both the common jurisprudence of that nation and the Article 5.1 of the European Convention of Human Rights. In the quotation of the English brochure I had already mentioned that the Mental Health Law of 1983 permits the compulsory admission to the psychiatric ward, and that similar dispositions in other countries exist.

This means no less than an exception within the law: the right to liberty is warranted between civilians except if the he is a psychiatrist. Just as the state, the psychiatrist has special powers to send another citizen to a prison. This can be proved by pointing out how the constitutional rights of an individual whom a psychiatrist has decided call him ‘insane’ become automatically annulled. If we take now as a paradigm the constitutional right of the United States, this individual is deprived from his right to a speedy trial by an impartial jury (Sixth Amendment), the right to bail (Eight Amendment), and the right that no person be deprived from liberty without due process of law (Fourteenth Amendment).

The United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Germany and many other countries are Therapeutic States, as Szasz calls nations that claim to be free but that through the medical and psychiatric institution have totalitarian traits. If in one of these States the accused of mentally ill doesn’t agrees with the legal exception of his country in favour of psychiatry, he cannot appeal to international law either. The Article 5 of the European Convention begins:

Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty,

However, the article continues:

save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law… the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of spreading of infectious diseases, of persons of unsound mind, alcoholics or drug addicts, or vagrants. [2]

We can agree with the statement regarding the prevention of infections and epidemics: the power to decide who is infected falls on scientists who can detect in their labs the existence of biological diseases. But just what the other group means, persons of ‘unsound mind’, is something that only the psychiatrist of a Therapeutic State has the power to decide because in these cases lab tests are not performed. The second part of the European Convention article of international law invalidates the first one: it leaves to the psychiatrist’s discretion to decide who has a ‘sound mind’ and who has an ‘unsound mind’.

To stamp someone with the label of insanity means that the first political step to his imprisonment has been undertaken (for instance, in the 1960s more Americans lost their liberty accused of unsound mind than the accused of a crime). [3] In short, psychiatrists have the powers to incarcerate an innocent citizen who has not broken any law.

This means that the psychiatrists have the power to derogate the civil status of a citizen to a lower level than that of the common criminal. Just remember how they wanted to commit George Lincoln Rockwell.

If we take as an example the bank assailant who killed a cop and some clients during the skirmish, after being caught he has the right to an impartial trial and to a lawyer, as well as the right to not being tormented or mutilated. On the other hand, the individual who has been identified by a psychiatrist automatically loses these rights: he is incarcerated without a trial and without a lawyer who can make an appeal. Moreover, he can be tormented with electroshock or even psychologically destroyed with neuroleptics or lobotomy.

For a teenager in conflict with his parents, his rights fall into an inferior level compared to those of the assailant or common criminal: he lacks any institution or state lawyer who could possible defended him. As we have seen, in generational conflicts of parents with their children the ‘identification’ invariably falls on the latter. Ronald Laing, the most popular anti-psychiatrist in the 1960s, stated in an interview of 1988:

Economics controls politics, so the pivotal issue is an economic one. To see what is happening, look at the textbook or manual called DSM-III, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, third edition. Translated into economic and political terms, mental disorder means undesired mental states and attitudes and behaviour […].

The criteria in the manual are very useful for controlling the population because you can bring them to bear on practically anyone if the occasion seems to demand it. Look at this: ‘Oppositional disorder’ is a very good one. (Laing reads from the DSM-III:)

The essential feature is a pattern of disobedient negativistic and provocative opposition to authority figures. For example, if there is a rule, it is usually violated. If a suggestion is made, the individual is against it. If asked to do something, the individual refuses or becomes argumentative. If asked to refrain from an act, the child or the adolescent feels obliged to carry it out. […].

These are not exceptional examples out of DSM-III. The overall drift is what contemporary modern psychiatry, epitomized by this DSM manual translated into eighteen languages, is imposing all over the world—a mandate to strip anyone of their civil liberties […] to homogenize people who are out of line. Presented as a medical exercise, it is an undercover operation. [4]

That this is the disposition in modern psychiatry is observed in the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, Parham vs. J.R. of 1979. This decision gives carte blanche to the States to enact laws that permit minors to be hospitalized if the parents and a psychiatrist want it without any right for the child or adolescent to a hearing or trial. [5] Let’s give the floor to one of these victims of the Therapeutic State. Following next I quote a letter sent on 12 December 1999 to a lawyer who fights for human rights within the United States:

I’m a 16 year old girl who has just gotten out of a ‘psychiatric treatment center’. I was there for over 4 months because I was diagnosed with Borderline Personality disorder and Manic Depression. Borderline Personality Disorder is the biggest f— joke I have heard of. All it is a description of an immature teenager. Haha. I am also not Manic Depressive. The psych people there somehow managed to convince everyone that I was, including my parents. (‘She has severe highs and lows. And she’s impulsive too!’) They put me on lots of medication.

During the first 2 months of my stay at the hospital I refused to take it. My behavior, thinking, and stability were fine, but since I wasn’t taking the medication I was ‘noncompliant and not ready for discharge’. So I decided to cheek the medication. Just so I could get out of the damn place. They found out that I was cheeking it though. Of course.

I haven’t been discharged yet. I won’t be. Ever. Instead my parents have decided to sign me out of the place AMA [against medical advice]. They finally realized I do not need to be in that place, nor did I ever.

Perfectly normal people are kept in treatment centers. Perfectly normal teenagers. Nobody was crazy there. Not even one person. They were just teenagers with divorced parents. Or teenagers who did a few drugs. Or teenagers who got suspended from school. Suddenly we were all Borderlines, Schizophrenics, and Manic Depressives who ‘needed’ long term hospitalization. We also ‘needed’ medication. They put us on heavy doses of anti-psychotics, mood stabilizers, antidepressants, anti-whatevers. I was the only patient who didn’t take the medication. I will never take psychiatric medication. I’ve tried it before. It does nothing except for turn me into a zombie. It dulls me out. Makes it so I can’t think straight. Everyone else took it though. [6]

There cannot be a clearer example of the alliance between parents and psychiatrists. In the United States, the sole will of the parents was enough to incarcerate or liberate a child. It’s noteworthy that Rachel, who wrote the above letter at sixteen, had a good grasp of what psychiatric diagnoses really are. In the dawn of the 21st century the diagnoses that were used against her and her mates (‘borderlines’, ‘schizophrenics’, ‘manic depressives’) are as fraudulent as the diagnoses that the psychiatrists used in the 19th century (‘moral insanity’, ‘folie lucide’, ‘nymphomania’). All this is camouflaged in medical language.

It was Lenin who said that dictatorship is a power not limited by law. How psychiatry could not be corrupted if the way they label a girl with the DSM to strip her from her civil rights has no law that supervises it in our societies? Psychiatry is a profession that regulates itself. It is a state within the State that carries out the function of control of the unwanted.

Unlike George Lincoln Rockwell, Ezra Pound was no so lucky. He was committed in a psychiatric hospital in Washington, D.C., for over 12 years. His supposed insanity was due to the fact that he had moved to Italy in 1924 and throughout the 1930s and 40s embraced Benito Mussolini’s fascism, expressed support for Adolf Hitler, and wrote for publications owned by the British fascist Sir Oswald Mosley.

How to know if a modern society is a Therapeutic State? This is a state that searches for medical or therapeutical solutions for family and social problems; in the Western past, or in the Soviet Union, even for political dissidence. It is a society that can afford an extra legal system of penalties—the undercover operation of which Laing talked above—with the aim of sparing the dirty job on the constitution of a country. For legislators it would be too embarrassing to enact laws against women in disputes with their husbands, or against teenagers in disputes with their parents. Psychiatrists do the dirty job (‘moral insanity’, ‘dementia praecox’) that society in general, and legislators in particular, do not dare to do directly.

Szasz’s dream was to reform society to separate the state from the medical institution, just as the First Amendment of the United States Constitution separates church and state. Alas, although the Soviet Union and the psychiatric abuse of political dissidents is gone, in the West the inquisitorial power of physicians is well rooted, and civil society is doing very little to question it.

References

[1] Last words of a lecture by Thomas Szasz presented in the Foucault Symposium in Berlin University, May 1998.

[2] Tom Heller et al., Mental health and distress: module 3 (The Open University, 1997), p. 43.

[3] The manufacture of madness (op. cit.), p. 65.

[4] Ronald Laing, Interview (OMNI, April 1988), pp. 60f.

[5] Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584 (United States Reports, volume 442, p. 584), quoted in The antipsychiatry forum, section ‘Compliments’, answer of Douglas Smith to Lolobenchik (www.antipsychiatry.org). This website provides legal assistance in so-called psychiatric cases.

[6] Ibid. (www.antipsychiatry.org), section ‘Physical restraints’. Rachel signs her letter as ‘Rach’.

______ 卐 ______

Liked it? Take a second to support this site.

Siege, 27

Defining the radical extreme

The question of who, and which, is the farthest out? For what reasons and towards what purpose? Among these types would be included all of the pioneers, the ground-breakers, the innovators, the outrageous, the unpopular, the unprofitable, the dangerous, the controversial, the misunderstood, and those in advance of their times. It’s been said that the road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom, that the only aberration is abstention. What all of this does on the practical side amounts to the elimination of the surprise element, minimizes the chance of disillusionment, builds confidence and self-reliance, and helps gain for one the mastery of almost any situation. It also rids us of the cowards and fakers, as well as opportunists, as they can’t use it or hide behind it.

We can tolerate being regarded as inhabiting the far reaches of the outer limits if it means never being caught dragging behind anyone else. It behooves us to smile at those who today disparage our message if by our so doing we are striking out on the course that they themselves must one day follow. We would be fools and cowards to shirk the task and take for granted that someone else might take it up in our stead. We have so little to lose at this point and so much to gain; our prime enemies being stagnation, dogma, and muddle. It requires some daring and imagination to become the vanguard of a movement, and to remain so takes constant reappraisal and re-evaluation.

Had not Commander Rockwell taken the bull by the horns and risked everything—his “good name” as a conservative—over twenty years ago, where today would the Racialist Movement in the United States be? What was in 1960 the most dynamic and futuristic thinking, today is shared by practically one and all. But it was only through the supreme sacrifice of one man who was able to see farther than the rest in his own time. And still the situation demands more, far more. We could easily have another twenty years of marching ahead of us but it cannot be direction-less marching and it cannot be marching in circles.

People like to stay with what’s comfortable, especially those with a broad conservative streak in them. People dislike the shit-disturbers. However, comfort and routine do not make revolution. Where once Gus Hall was a firebrand with the power to shock the pants off all of us, today he is an old fogy. Seems as though all our REAL National Socialist leaders die in battle before they get the chance to atrophy thus. Maybe we are blessed in that manner. What we want—and what we believe we have achieved—is to make NSLF synonymous with the radical extreme, and when you seek to define the radical extreme, you need only recite those four letters to have it completely summed up.

Vol. XI, #7 – July, 1982

Published in: on May 23, 2018 at 10:24 am  Comments (2)  

This Time, 9

rockwell

A passage from This Time the World
by George Lincoln Rockwell

 
Without anybody coming out and saying it, the mad scramble for ‘democracy’ has been extended to the sexes and the natural dominance of the male, and the passive submission of the female, which are basic to both natures and absolutely necessary to their happiness, have been scorned as evil carry-overs from our animal natures. A ‘modern’ girl cannot avoid the impression that it is somehow ‘inferior’ to be ‘just a woman’ or ‘just a housewife and mother’, and the corresponding idea, therefore, that she must try to ‘be somebody’ or ‘do something worthwhile’ by having a ‘career’. She receives all sorts of ‘education’, particularly in college, which is not only useless if she becomes a wife and mother, but which irritate and frustrate her natural capacities.

It is not a question of ‘superior’ or ‘inferior’, but a question of possibilities. A girl will grow up to be a woman, a female, no matter what education, ideals, ideas and training she may get. Perhaps it is ‘unfair’ that she was born a woman, physically weak, less able to reason, coldly burdened with the inexorable cyclic functioning of her reproductive system and blessed with the soft, warm, emotional, understanding and patient nature of the machinery designed by Nature for motherhood, above all things.

The effort of feminists and liberals to ‘correct’ what Nature has decreed, whether the effort is ‘good’ or ‘bad’, can lead only to misery for those who attempt to fly in the face of a cold and merciless Nature, and a social agony for a world which is deprived of warm and submissive females and mothers.

It is a mark of insanity for an individual to ignore reality and act as if he were something which he is not. It is no less insane when women pretend that their female natures do not exist, that they are not only the ‘equals’ of men, but the same as men, except for a slight physiological difference. No matter how a few of them manage to succeed in the poses of engineers and steel-workers and fighter pilots and business executives; women today, as a group, are fundamentally acting in the manner of the insane: defying and ignoring reality.

The results are frightfully visible in our whole civilization. The women are becoming masculinized, while the men are getting feminized. One has only to look at a crowd of our teenagers to see how things are going. They wear the same tight pants, the same jackets and the same hats—even the same duck-tailed hairdos. We are breeding and training up a generation of jazzed-up, negroidal, neutered queers.

Our whole approach to women today, as with most of our social attitudes, is that of the Soviets who have women in the army, working in the streets and even in firing-squads, just like men. God save us from such women!

Women are indeed the equal of men, as a group, only when they fulfill the task for which Nature equipped and made them—motherhood. Man was designed, even in the creative process itself, to supply the spark, the drive and the aggressive push of life, while woman is designed to supply the basic building material of new life; nourish, treasure, warm and guide it, until it can sustain its own life. There is no escape from this fate, even if it were bad, which it is not.

If a man is to be honored for making cigars or building bridges or making beer, as our great businessmen are, then surely we ought to honor those who make our people! But the trouble is that our insane ‘liberal’ attitude toward motherhood and homemaking has given women an impossible inferiority complex and frustration about their possible and real achievements in life. We train our girls by the millions to be anything but successful wives and mothers, lead them to believe they are to be an ‘equal’ part of a ‘man’s world’, when the truth is that it is only Nature’s world, and man’s share in it is no greater or more glorious than that of a female-oriented woman who produces, brings up and gives to society a family of happy people.

If our girls were brought up from first consciousness to realize the absolute and total inevitability of their mission in life, but above all to be proud of that mission; train for and then fulfill it joyously, there would be no more talk of ‘achieving’ equality. They would find that Nature has already given them equality in generous measure, if only they will accept it. There can be no sense in discussing the superiority of negative or positive electricity in a battery; they are merely different forms of the same thing, but the difference is vital if there is to be any current. When the male and female potential or voltages are permitted to become ‘equal’, they must be strongly opposite or the current will stop…

It is not women who are at fault in the growing madness of our family and our sexual frustration, it is the men who have permitted it. The women are still born passive and submissive and if our fathers and grandfathers had not failed them as a group, as I failed my first wife as an individual, they would still, as a group, be enjoying their birthright and the honor owed them by society for being the most exalted manufacturers and executives in the world, the manufacturers of Our People!

Upon achieving power, one of our first tasks will be an all-out public relations drive to help our entire population—men and women—to see that ‘motherhood’ is not the silly, sloppy thing which is made of it today.

Published in: on November 7, 2017 at 10:33 pm  Comments (31)