The Aryan problem

encompasses the Jewish problem

 
Further to the discussion in the Kriminalgeschichte thread.

Regular visitors of this blog find rather puzzling that Greg Johnson is the most criticised white nationalist in this site. Some might conjecture that I abhor his homosexualist stance. But no: it’s the fact that Johnson subscribes Christian ethics what drives me mad. Let me steal a page from my first essay in Day of Wrath:
 

______ 卐 ______

Unlike the national socialists and William Pierce, nowadays white advocates are comfortably living under the sky of Christian and/or liberal ethics, as I will try to argue in this article [I refer to “Dies Irae,” the first essay of my book Day of Wrath]. Greg Johnson for one, the editor-in-chief of Counter-Currents Publishing, has been ambivalent on Pierce. He wrote:

Some time later, on April 22, 2000, I purchased The Turner Diaries and Hunter from Dent Myers at his Wildman’s Shop in Kennesaw, Georgia. Frankly, I found them repulsive, The Turner Diaries in particular. Pierce may have been inspired by National Socialism, but his model of revolution was pure Lenin and his model of government pure Stalin. If he had the power, he would have killed more people than Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot combined.

Note that Johnson, overwhelmed by his morals, is not even recognising here that the national socialists were the good guys for Aryan preservation, and the heads of the states he mentions the bad guys.

He epitomizes everything about the Old Right model that I reject: one party politics, totalitarianism, terrorism, imperial-ism, and genocide. At the time, I remarked that as a novelist and political theorist Pierce was a first rate physicist.

I regarded him as a monster…

Take note that Johnson’s webzine is considered by some the crème de la crème of white nationalist blogsites, something like the haute culture magazines for the sophisticate, and that he presents himself as a fan of Friedrich Nietzsche to the webzine’s readership.

The trouble with Johnson is not only that he’s living a double life—criticising Christianity online and delivering pious, traditional homilies at the Swedenborgian Church of San Francisco—; he really wants to have it both ways. Sometimes he seems to be in favor of revolutionary action but other times he condemns violence. In Johnson’s own words in his so-called “New Right” manifesto, “the only gun I want to own is made of porcelain.” Doesn’t this amount to say that he rejects winning, since throughout history there has been no nation-building without violence?

Elsewhere I have quoted Nietzsche’s Zarathustra having in mind Johnson’s manifesto. But what would a genuine Zarathustran voice sound like? Simply put it, someone who advocates the transvaluation of some values back to the pre-Christian mores in the West.

______ 卐 ______

 
I wrote the above in 2012.

Few things annoy white nationalists more than to say that white decline is due to the suicide of the Aryans. Their mantra is that the jews are genociding whites; that it is homicide; whites are altogether innocent of their demise.

Actually it’s suicide, as can be seen even among many nationalists who, like Johnson, reject the concept Umwertung aller Werte. They’re still stuck with the Christian-inspired concept of the sanctity of all human life, brown and jew included: European man’s most deadly spiritual poison.

In addition to the historical arguments that have been presented in this site favouring the suicide hypothesis, we should also consider a sentence from the pamphlet Eugenics and Race (1959, revised in 1966). If its author, the anthropologist Roger Pearson, makes it until the next month he’ll celebrate his ninety birthday.

Pearson’s views drew on Arthur Keith. His Eugenics and Race summarises Keith’s philosophy thus: “If a nation with a more advanced, more specialised, or in any way superior set of genes mingles with, instead of exterminating, an inferior tribe, then it commits racial suicide, and destroys the work of thousands of years of biological isolation and natural selection” (my emphasis).

Miscegenation is what I call the sin against the holy ghost, as it cannot be reversed and does indeed destroys the millennial evolutionary work that produced the Aryan female beauties. Like Jared Taylor, David Duke and many others, Johnson says he wishes non-whites the best. This contrasts dramatically with how Biblical jews exterminated the competing tribes. Non-hatred of the Other led whites to fatal miscegenation in Sumer, India, Central Asia, Egypt and later in the Greco-Roman world.

Had the Aryans of the Ancient World the benefit of hindsight that Pierce developed in Who We Are, they would have imitated their Semitic neighbours. The moral for historically awakened whites, in Pierce’s own words, should be “extermination or expulsion” but never, ever use non-white labour!

In the Modern World what makes ethnic cleansing unthinkable for white nationalists is Christian ethics, which even permeates the secular mind of Johnson et al. See my recent posts about the jewish-Roman wars describing how pre-Christian Europeans dealt with the jews—without moral restraints.

As long as whites fail to transvalue their values back to normal I will be talking about white suicide and that the Aryan problem “encompasses” the jewish problem. Nevertheless, concurrently to the revaluation of values, to exterminate non-whites the human race, as a whole, must be impeached first. At my Ex Libris page the series Impeachment of Man and Raciology can now be read from the beginning (see also what Charles Darwin said about pro-white exterminationism). Since the Raciology article I posted today is the seventh and last of that series, I am considering the idea of adding excerpts from either Keith or Pearson.

Mondays will be dedicated to scientific racism. Keep tuned.

A question for Johnson

In my article on “ethnosuicidal nationalists” I mentioned several aspects of white nationalism that seem to me indistinguishable from the anti-white zeitgeist of the present West. But I did not include homosexuality because only a faction of white nationalists preaches this lifestyle as a normal thing that we must accept.

Recently, some of The Right Stuff renegades posted podcasts denouncing what they consider a cancer to extirpate from the white nationalist movement: what they call a homosexual “mafia” within the movement (listen here).

Most of their discussion centres on Greg Johnson, the editor of the webzine and small house Counter Currents Publishing.

Last year, white nationalist Lana, host of Red Ice TV, interviewed Johnson in “Straight But Not Narrow Nationalism: Gays, Women & The Manosphere.” The way Lana introduces the subject of homosexuality seems to make us assume that we are facing a typical liberal woman. Lana swallows the pseudo-scientific propaganda that homosexuality is genetic, and that therefore the poor homosexuals have no choice but to act in accordance with their genetic programming.

Worse still, Lana uses the Newspeak term “gay” throughout her interview: a word that when I was a child it meant “cheerful.” (I will never forget how Christopher Plummer used the word gay when referring in The Sound of Music to the Vienna of the early 20th century: a film I saw in an elegant theatre.) The homo community appropriated that word so that, for purposes of euphony, their degenerate lifestyles would sound pretty to the public.

But what I wanted to focus on is the defence that Johnson made in that interview with Lana. This seems to be his main argument: “[Paraphrasing us] ‘Destroy the Jews and the non-whites and the homosexuals.’ Wait a second here. The homosexual category is not entirely a group of people that are enemies of white people… I sort of regard it as some form of bizarre and stupid fixation that a lot of people have… on the far right.” Then he added that non-Christians are more tolerant of homos.

The “tolerant” actually is the nihilistic liberal of the present West, not the pagan of the Ancient World who abhorred homosexual behaviour to the extent of punishing it with death. I mean the ancient Germans, as Tacitus portrays them (the pederasty of the Greco-Roman world is a separate issue that I have discussed extensively on this site: a practice that has nothing to do with any colour of their little LGBT flag).

Where lies the great dishonesty of Johnson is in the following. I, for example, consider myself fairly tolerant of homos if we take as a parameter the capital punishment applied by the ancient Germanics. My general attitude consists in, say, not focusing on the lifestyle of the writer—for example Oscar Wilde or Gore Vidal—but in their literary work. It is only if a Wilde insolently crosses the line by suing the father of his lover, when the system defends itself. Similarly, I found nauseating the photo of a macho lover that Vidal published in his autobiography.

But I don’t condemn the closet homos. The difference between my stance and The Right Stuff with dishonest Johnson, is that he does not want to see that the phobia that some nationalists are showing is due to the fact that already out of the closet, now the mafia wants to normalise homosexuality!

Johnson does not seem to recognize that tolerant people like me exist for heaps, even to his racial right. As a commenter of The Occidental Observer told James O’Meara, Johnson’s favourite homo author on his webzine, Do not shove your orifices into our noses and we leave you alone. But through their essays the “mafia” won’t stop pushing agendas to the confused teenagers who read or listen them.

Johnson’s normalising of homosexuality dates back many years before Lana’s interview. Only last year he published “Gay Panic on the Alt Right,” and three years earlier he dared to endorse the so-called homosexual marriage in “The Gay Marriage Controversy.” Even fifteen years ago, under a pseudonym, Johnson dared to publish “Homosexuality and White Nationalism: Two Arguments for Tolerance” in a forum of extremely tough racists. (Years later Johnson recognized that he was the author of that article—see here—: an article he even translated into French under the title “Homosexualité et Nationalisme Blanc.”)

These articles are not an isolated phenomenon. Johnson and the “mafia” are reluctant to see that if their group returned to the closet, we would leave them alone. But that’s not gonna happen, and nothing seems more aberrant to me that, in some Alt Right conferences, one of these open homos is allowed to address the young.
 
General order number four

A few years ago Johnson went to visit the racist and critic of homosexuality Harold Covington to the northwest of the US. Covington told me that Johnson had the audacity to give him a book authored by him which includes one of the essays mentioned above. Johnson has been a fan of the Covington novels about creating a white republic within what is now US territory. However, in his plans to found a new nation, Covington proposes to remove from the liberated territory the unhealthy elements of the new republic, what he calls General Order Number Four:

No Jew or other non-white person, no homosexual, and no white person engaged in interracial sexual activity shall reside within the boundaries of the Northwest American Republic, or within any area of NVA operations. NVA field commanders shall deal with violators of this General Order at their discretion…

To contextualize this order see: here. NVA stands for Northwest Volunteer Army, an army originally formed by a group of guerrillas that snatch a piece of territory from the degenerate US. In his novels, when civil warfare erupts in the American Northwest, to throw out those homosexuals who flaunt their lifestyles, Covington depicts fighters who furtively introduce bombs in so-called “gay bars.”

Several years ago Johnson did not let me comment on his webzine. I asked him something like this: When the holy racial wars start, your homo friend J.D., who lives in the Northwest—the epicentre of racial wars in Covington’s scenario—might find himself in the wrong bar. Will you stand by the freedom fighters or the forces of ZOG if the NVA boys blow your buddy up?

On Judaised Americans

My last posts on the Greco-Roman wars against the Jews (here and here) made me wonder… Just compare how pre-Christian Europeans handled the Jewish problem with how, in modern America, the red carpet was rolled out for the Jews since the 19th century in line with the dominant Judeo-Christian, liberal ideology.

As Tom Sunic explained in the very first chapter of Homo Americanus, in the US not a single politician will ever admit that America is a theocratic system with a peculiar political theology. Think of how Donald Trump recently became the first sitting American president to visit Jerusalem’s Western Wall!

If Aryans ever wish to re-establish their own racial sovereignty, they must identify their foe: Judeo-Christian ethics, which pervades even the white nationalist movement. One example will suffice. Greg Johnson has been working on a White Nationalist Manifesto for some time. When he finally publishes and advertises it through the forums, will it contain his “Old Right” bashing favouring an effete Neo-Christian “New Right”?

Whatever the impact of the forthcoming White Nationalist Manifesto among American racists, many of whom are Christians, the US owes its very existence to the Jews. The 17th century reverence for the Old Testament by those naïve, starry-eyed colonisers who imagined a “City on the Hill” comes to mind. “Very early on America’s founding fathers, pioneers, and politicians identified themselves as Jews who had come to the new American Canaan from the pestilence of Europe,” writes Sunic.

After another post on the Jewish-Roman wars, the following Saturdays I’ll be adding passages from Deschner’s Criminal History of Christianity describing how the Early Church dealt with the Jews. Despite their rabid anti-Semitism, early theologians did not push for those pagan attempts to solve the Jewish problem once and for all.

Certainly, unlike the US, in anti-Semitic Christendom the Jews were not revered, but they were tolerated. Those early theologians that I’ll be quoting on Saturdays are similar to the white nationalists of today: much barking but no bites. This is why, unlike National Socialism, white nationalism won’t ever work. Whites must transvalue “New Right” values back to “Old Right” values!

Antiochus’ war (167-164 BCE)

“He ordered his soldiers to cut down without mercy those whom they met and to slay those who took refuge in their houses. There was a massacre of young and old, a killing of women and children, a slaughter of virgins and infants. In the space of three days, eighty thousand were lost, forty thousand meeting a violent death, and the same number being sold into slavery.” —2 Maccabees, 5:11–14.

The siege of Jerusalem (63 BCE)

Jews were massacred by invading Romans. The event marked the end of Jewish independence.

The Samaritan Revolt (36 CE)

The Samaritans rebelled against the Romans. The rebels were ruthlessly massacred by order of the Roman Procurator.

The First Jewish-Roman War (66-73 CE)

Jews were massacred by Romans throughout the war; 97,000 enslaved. It was the first of three major Jewish revolts against the Romans. It resulted in the destruction of the Holy Temple and a devastating depopulation of the Jewish population as the massacre wiped out a large percentage of their population. (Again, compare Titus’ deeds with what Donald Trump did a couple of months ago in what remains of that temple.)

Bar Kokhba revolt (132-136 CE)

Decisive Roman victory. The Romans enslaved many Jews of Judaea, massacred many Jews, suppressed Jewish religious and political authority, banned Jews from Jerusalem, and renamed and merged Judaea into the Syrian Palestine province. The war meant another devastating depopulation of the Jewish population.

If white nationalists, so overwhelmed by Judeo-Christian ethics, are not committing ethnic suicide how do you explain that they are not celebrating such victories?

Greg Johnson

“Greg, you do good sermons. Perhaps you missed your calling.”

Johnson’s fan

Swedenborgian Church (San Francisco, California)

It’s true what I said earlier today: that in a dispute between White Nationalists I don’t take sides—because I am not a WN. But I’d like to rephrase what I already wrote on December 2012 about Johnson:

Take note of what he said in a 2010 lecture at the Swedenborgian Church of San Francisco. The lecture was “outed” in the WN community, much to his embarrassment. At the Swedenborgian meeting Johnson said:

“What most inspired me was his [Emanuel Swedenborg’s] discussion of the life of Christ and the meaning and the mystery of that… Swedenborg gave us the means to understand that mystery.”

After quoting Scripture Johnson asked, “What does it mean to say that ‘God is with us’?” and went into a theological peroration where he added:

“…a child was born. A child that somehow was the God of eternity. This unique incarnation is the great mystery. It is the conundrum of theologians and metaphysicians. Why was Jesus born? Why did God become man? Swedenborg claims that this was not part of Plan A… Jesus was Plan B… because of certain contingencies that [should not have] happened.”

Johnson then used autobiographical vignettes mentioning his childhood and his father to illustrate “Plan B,” presumably what God felt obliged to do when mankind fell into the original sin. He even mentioned the word “salvation.” At some point Johnson seemed to endorse the infinitely monstrous belief that it’s within God’s freedom to send us to Hell. (As an aside, see my piece on eternal damnation: here.) After speculating on the Second Coming, Johnson finished his lecture with an “Amen” and the Swedenborgians started to pray.

Listen this audio to hear, in Johnson’s own voice, his traditional homily. It sounds like the Catholic doctrine I was taught as a kid before my First Communion.

Johnson has been both a critic of Christianity on his webzine, and a pious Christian at his church in San Francisco. He literally had it both ways before his activities with the Swedenborgians were outed. As to his other persona, take note of what Johnson commented on The Occidental Observer:

[Christianity] did undermine racial exclusivity for nearly 2,000 years. Racial and subracial differences were no bar to marriage, as long as both parties were Christian.

And on another WN forum:

Christianity will not be dead until its secular offspring, liberal universalism, is dead as well. But you know that, don’t you? Christian fanatics are precisely the ones who believe that blood differences don’t matter.

See my brief collection of anti-Christian comments authored by Johnson: here. Even today, five years after I wrote the above, Johnson still can’t see that misleading both his WN readership and his church was wrong.

Published in: on June 19, 2017 at 5:09 pm  Comments (4)  
Tags:

Books for Germans

Germans who want to read relevant literature in their native language can purchase books here (my humble Daybreak Publications only has one title in German, William Pierce’s Jäger).

Update: Today Richard Spencer and Greg Johnson are fighting over the forums (see e.g., Spencer’s Twitter and Facebook accounts and Johnson’s webzine). Of course: those of us who sympathize with National Socialism don’t take sides in personal disputes between white nationalists. We have more important stuff to read…

Published in: on June 19, 2017 at 9:44 am  Comments (3)  

Psychological Rubicon

Open thread

Caesar paused on the banks of the Rubicon

 
In “Iceland – Normie Land” I confessed last week:

When I lived in Normie Land this was the path, my steppingstones that helped me to cross the psychological Rubicon:

1st stone: Robert Spencer and other online counter-jihadists (late 2008)

2nd stone: Larry Auster, who went beyond counter-jihadism onto stepping a racial and anti-feminist stone (but he was Jewish)

3rd stone: Jew-wise white nationalism, especially the webzines under the watch of Greg Johnson in the late 2009 and 2010 (in the following years I became disillusioned because of some ethno-suicidal traits of Johnson & the broader WN movement)

At the other side of the river I found the very solid ground of National Socialism.

And which was the path of your psychological Rubicon?

Published in: on May 27, 2017 at 8:59 am  Comments (5)  
Tags:

White nationalist critic

(It’s me in my personal library.)

This blog used to have the triple of visitors before I embarked on the ambitious project of writing the now aborted From St Francis to Himmler. Earlier this year I even planned to abandon this site until the financial accident happened.

Now that I have much free time the idea has occurred to me to make a series of YouTube podcasts with the provocative title “White nationalist critic.”

As recent visitors of The West’s Darkest Hour know, last week I made some critical remarks about what Matt Heimbach, a well known figure in white nationalism, said on The Daily Shoah. Yesterday I spent an inordinate amount of time listening to three podcasts featuring another well known figure, Greg Johnson. I liked what Johnson said, with his host Millennial Woes, about France’s elections last Sunday (here), especially why we must reject democracy as the political system of the West.

However, in an interview with a Seventh Day Adventist who converted to Judaism (here) Johnson rejects William Pierce’s methods of bringing to justice white traitors and Jews after the revolution. He proposes, instead, a “no fault divorce” with the Jew. It is not the first time that Johnson speaks of non-bloody solutions in this age of treason.

In the other Counter-Currents radio podcast I listened yesterday, Johnson talks with Hunter Wallace (here). Johnson says it is time for pro-white advocates to give up infighting. Andrew Anglin said something similar on The Daily Stormer after the most diverse factions of white advocates united forces last month at Kentucky against the antifa.

I respectfully disagree. Although white nationalists are the best men we have in the West, unlike national socialists most of them still cling to some meta-ethics that are ethnosuicidal. Here I explain why there is a substantial difference between white nationalism and National Socialism; and why the former is a steppingstone at best and a blind alley at worst.

As far as I know, there is no podcast that presents National Socialism to the listeners. Why not start one?

Published in: on May 9, 2017 at 1:09 pm  Comments (16)  
Tags:

Trump!

heil trump

“November 9, 2016” – by Greg Johnson

Metapolitics

Greg Johnson’s preface to North American New Right, vol. 1, contains these paragraphs:

NANRVol1“Metapolitics” refers to what comes before the political, i.e., the foundations of politics, including both (1) political ideas, i.e., the intellectual case for a particular political order, and (2) a concrete community that embodies those ideas in the present and will serve as the seed of a new political order to emerge in the future.

Before the White Republic can become a reality, it must first be a fantasy, a dream, a vision of a possible world.

The trouble I see with this is that Johnson and the rest of white nationalists fail to follow the steps of the Nazis. The heroic Germans didn’t sit in armchairs with “metapolitic” projects. They formed a tough, virile political party to move the masses.

The same could happen in our days with Greece’s Golden Dawn, especially after the financial accident that is coming. Why have the Americans eluded the creation of a tough political party and resort instead to essayism, effete “communities” and conferences admitting women?

Published in: on September 14, 2015 at 6:50 pm  Comments (3)  
Tags:

The burden of Hitler

by Greg Johnson



Adolf Hitler was born April 20, 1889. Every April 20th, White Nationalist websites inevitably see an increase in discussion and debate about Hitler and his legacy. Positions usually array themselves between two poles: Hitler is the problem and Hitler is the solution.

The claim that Hitler is the problem is basically a rejection of an intolerable burden of guilt by association. Hitler is the most hated man in our whole Judaized culture. Indeed, hating Hitler is the only moral judgment not stigmatized by modern moral relativists. The only absolute moral standard we are allowed is the evil of Hitler, and all other evils are judged by their proximity to Hitler—which ultimately means that all white people are evil due to our kinship to Hitler.

The “blame Hitler” argument boils down to this: If only Adolf Hitler had not started World War II, killed six million Jews, and tried to conquer the world, White Nationalism would get good press and perhaps make some progress in the political realm. Hitler is the reason why race realism, eugenics, immigration control, and nationalism have been discredited in the eyes of whites the world over. Thus if White Nationalism is to have any chance of changing the world, we need to ritually condemn and repudiate Hitler and everything he stood for, as well as all his present day followers.

I find this argument to be morally contemptible and politically naïve.

It is contemptible, because it is essentially an attempt to curry favor with our enemies and pander to ignoramuses and fools by throwing a loyal white man under the bus. And make no mistake: Adolf Hitler, whatever his faults, was a loyal white man who fought and died not just for Germany, but for our race as a whole.

Blaming Hitler is also morally obscene because it absolves a whole host of villains who are the real architects of our race’s doom: the slave traders and plantation owners who introduced blacks into the Americas, the railroad magnates and other plutocrats who brought Orientals to our shores, the traitorous capitalists who are destroying the white working and middle classes by importing non-white labor (legal or illegal) and shipping American jobs to the Third World—and of course every politician who has done the bidding of these powers.

Blame must also be placed on the organized Jewish community which has used its control over the entertainment and news media, academia, and the professions, as well as its vast wealth, to corrupt all aspects of American politics, business, and culture and to engineer and promote multiculturalism, mass non-white immigration, miscegenation, racial integration, and a poisonous culture of white self-hatred and anti-white truculence.

Blaming Hitler is also politically naïve. Our race was not set on the path to destruction when Hitler was elected Chancellor of Germany in 1933. The problem started long before then, but a real turning point began in the 1880s with the immigration of millions of Jews from Eastern Europe to the United States, a country that was simply not culturally or politically capable of understanding and containing the threat they posed. By 1917, the organized Jewish community—operating through a cabal around Woodrow Wilson—had sufficient power to bring the United States into the First World War as a quid pro quo for the British Empire’s Balfour Declaration, which paved the way for the foundation of the state of Israel.

When Jews arrived in America en masse, they found a largely innocent and trusting people and only the weakest barriers to their rise to wealth and power. And what gratitude did the Jewish community feel toward America and its people? As soon as they were able, they traded the lives of 116,000 of the sons of those trusting Americans, plus the suffering of 205,000 more young men who were wounded, some of them unspeakably, plus the mental anguished suffered by ten million soldiers and their loved ones, plus the years robbed from the lives of the ten million soldiers and all those who worked to support them, plus the untold millions of Europeans who suffered and died because America’s entrance prolonged the war—all in order to gain a British promise to allow Jews to displace the Arabs of Palestine to found a Jewish state.

This was a pivotal moment in world history: In the United States, it became clear that whites had lost control of our destiny to Jews, and ever since then, Jews have been able to use their hegemony in the United States to take control of the destinies of white nations around the world and turn more and more of them onto the path of to extinction.

No, their control was not absolute. In 1924, white Americans passed immigration restriction. But by 1941, Jews and their allies had delivered America into another World War; in the 1950s and ’60s they spearheaded, funded, and controlled the civil rights movement; and by 1965, after more than 40 years of lobbying, Jews were pivotal in opening America’s borders to non-white immigration.

If Hitler had never been elected Chancellor of Germany, if the Second World War had never happened, Jews would still have lobbied for open borders; they would still have promoted multiculturalism, feminism, and generalized cultural decadence; they would still have promoted pseudo-scientific race denial, racial egalitarianism, and racial integration; they would still have corrupted our political system to pursue Jewish interests at the expense of American interests. How do I know this? Because they were already doing all these things long before Hitler came to power.

Jews are promoting conditions that are leading to the genocide of the white race. They are not doing this out of “self-defense” against Hitler’s aggression, since they were doing it when Hitler was just a common soldier in the Great War. Indeed, the truth is that Hitler did whatever he did in self-defense against Jewish aggression—the same Jewish aggression that we are suffering today in a much intensified form.

The “blame Hitler” argument also commits what I like to call the “one little thing” fallacy. The way some people talk, Adolf Hitler is the one thing standing in the way of our victory. If only he had remained a painter, we would be living in a White Republic today. But history is not that simple. History is the net result of billions of causal factors interacting with one another. Therefore, chances are “one little thing” is never responsible for any large scale historical phenomenon, good or bad.

A choice example of the “one little thing” fallacy is a spurious quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin that floats around right wing circles. According to this legend, Franklin claimed that America needed to exclude Jews from the very beginning, else that one little thing will undo our otherwise perfect culture and political system. This kind of thinking is appealing because it simplifies matters considerably and a spares us from the necessity of reflecting on broader, deeper, systematic problems that might implicate us as well.

Blaming Hitler is just another form of blaming ourselves for our ongoing racial decline. It deflects attention from the real culprits—white traitors and aliens—and replaces righteous anger at our enemies with demoralizing self-reproach and self-doubt. Anger motivates action. Self-reproach promotes passivity. So our march to oblivion continues uninterrupted.

White Nationalists who feel like Hitler is a burden on our cause need to recognize that ritually condemning him on his birthday does no good. Hitler is dead and cannot be harmed. And they are still goyim slated for extinction. The only thing that has changed is their own moral status. They may have won the esteem of knaves and fools, but better men see them as ignorant and vile. What good is the friendship of the corrupt and cowardly if it costs you the friendship of the honorable and upright?

How, then, can one lessen the burden of “Hitler”—the Hitler of anti-white propaganda? If a person damages your car, cursing him might feel good, but the only way to fix things is to get some sort of compensation.

How can Hitler compensate us for the burden of “Hitler”? All he has to offer us today is knowledge. So if we can learn something from Hitler that actually helps our race, that would at least contribute to lessening or lifting the burden of “Hitler.” If you really believe that “Hitler” is keeping the white race down, then pick Hitler up: read Mein Kampf, Hitler’s Table Talk, etc. and see if you can glean some useful truths.

There is a lot of truth there: about race, history, the Jewish question, political philosophy, economics, culture, religion, and the dead ends of bourgeois liberalism and conservatism. Mein Kampf is filled with practical advice about radical political organizing and propaganda that remains valid to this day.

Hitler was right about another thing as well: “The National Socialist doctrine, as I have always proclaimed, is not for export. It was conceived for the German people” (Hitler-Bormann Documents, Feb. 21, 1945). What he means is that the ideas behind National Socialism may be universally and eternally true, but the National Socialist movement—its political platforms, symbolism, and other external trappings—are the products of a particular time and place. Thus people who dress up like Storm Troopers in 21st century America have only a superficial understanding of Hitler’s teachings. A real follower of the Leader would look as American as apple pie.

You might also pick up a few good books about Hitler and the Second World War, just so you do not fall into the trap of discussing them in terms of preposterous war propaganda like “Hitler started the Second World War” and “Hitler was out to conquer the world.” Begin with Patrick Buchanan’s Churchill, Hitler, and “The Unnecessary War”: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World. I would also look at A. J. P. Taylor’s The Origins of The Second World War. And be sure to read David Irving’s enthralling and fact-packed books The War Path and Hitler’s War, available in a single volume: Hitler’s War and the War Path. Lesser researchers routinely plunder them, so you might as well go back to the source.

I do not think that the progress of White Nationalism in the 21st century requires the rehabilitation of Hitler and the Third Reich, which in any case would be an infinite task for scholars and a distraction for political activists. But when historical clichés are regularly lobbed at us like grenades, every responsible adult needs the basic knowledge necessary to defuse them. We don’t need to be doctors of revisionism, but we should be able to apply some battlefield first aid.

Perhaps the most subversive thing one can do regarding Adolf Hitler is simply to ignore those who hate or love him blindly and instead discuss him rationally and objectively, like any other historical figure. If you follow this advice, I guarantee that the burden of “Hitler” will begin slowly to fade.

But you also may discover that the burden of thinking “Hitler” was wrong is nothing compared to the burden of believing that Hitler was right.