A new translation of Adolf’s talks

Or

The younger brother of Boromir

Before we begin translating each talk from Werner Jochmann’s 2000 edition, published in German, I must clarify a few points.

Hitler’s after-dinner talks have been repudiated both by some white nationalists (those who are Christian and sympathetic to National Socialism), and by anti-Christian liberals like Richard Carrier who resent the idea that Hitler might have harboured anti-Christian ideas. Both base their arguments on the botched English translation currently on the market. The way to shut them up is simply to translate into English a reliable edition of the original manuscript, which we will do for The West’s Darkest Hour.

Each Hitler after-dinner talk will be accompanied by a hatnote linking to this PDF: the translated introduction by Werner Jochmann and a very brief text by David Irving (the original in German can be read: here). Since Jochmann’s introduction consists of 34 pages, we have taken the liberty of adding some subheadings to make it less of a chore to read: Heim, Picker, Bormann, Hitler, Master Plan East, Final solution and Christianity (the subheading This edition does appear in Jochmann’s original text).

The Christian question is central to understanding not only the dark hour, but the resounding failure of white nationalists. Recently, some commenters and I made use of LOTR and the character Boromir to understand the problem. While I agree with what Krist Krusher said about Tolkien, the metaphor is splendid to illustrate why using the One Ring—Christianity—to save the race will always end in the destruction of whoever dons the ring.

The point is that ‘No one here can wield the ring: it only answers to its Master’. And the Master is none other than the Jew who wrote the Gospel! (even though he now only lives disembodied in the amorphous form of Sauron). The One Ring answers only to him and to him alone. When a racialist Christian wants to put on the ring to fight the dark hour he falls into the trap set by Sauron: precisely what I recently said about an old article published on this site: ‘Silly Christian apologetics on The Occidental Observer’.

I’d like to end this entry with what I said a couple of days ago in the comments section: ‘Even the toughest Americans are willing to put on the One Ring to fight Sauron rather than understand—as Frodo’s servant, Sam, finally made Faramir understand—that it was impossible to use it for Gondor’s purposes’.

In his private talks, Hitler understood what American white nationalists still fail to understand.

Quotable quote

‘The white nationalist is like Boromir’.

—César Tort

Forbidden ring

by Adit

Christianity used to have a lot of political clout, and they think they [the American white nationalists] can somehow harness that clout. It reminds me of the Lord of the Rings where it is suggested they could wield the ring against the enemy. ‘No one here can wield the ring: it only answers to its master’. Ethno-nationalists can’t wield Christianity because it is Universalist. If you try it will only corrupt and consume you. I wish they could get that through their heads.

Replying to Spencer

Richard Spencer has been harshly criticised on racialist forums (see for example the thread on Occidental Dissent, here). A couple of days ago I quoted a tweet in which Strom was replying to Spencer, but the latter has just tweeted:

Russia could drop a nuclear bomb in Western Europe, and the Traitors Coalition (Dissident Right and Dirtbag Left) will continue to yammer about NATO expansion, the Donbas region, and wokeness in America and the EU. I genuinely don’t think there is a limit to their insanity.

What people like Spencer don’t quite understand is that mushrooms over the Western capitals would represent the destruction of Mordor, after throwing the ring into the lava. If Mordor is burned down—the System’s capitals—, the white race will have a chance of salvation. (In Tolkien’s LOTR the story doesn’t end with the destruction of the ring. After that the Shire still must be saved and Saruman killed.)

Mixing metaphors, Spencer hasn’t read the book we are translating from French into English by Savitri Devi. Had he read it, he would have noticed that only Kalki saves, and this means genocide on an unprecedented scale—even, if necessary of our loved ones (see, e.g., our Savitri post today).

Reflections of an Aryan woman, 80

It is impossible to say to what extent the Thüle Gesellschaft [a German occultist and Völkisch group] was in possession of this priceless heritage, coming from the depths of the ages. Certainly some of its members were—Dietrich Eckart, Rudolf Hess, and the Führer himself had it. One of the traits of the initiate would be the ability to feign anger, madness, imbecility, or any other human state whenever he deemed it appropriate for his purposes. The Führer forced himself, as he said,[1] to ‘appear tough’.

And his all-too-famous fits of rage—the existence of which the enemy pounced on with delight, as if they were a source of ridicule, exploitable ad infinitum—were, according to Rauschning, ‘carefully premeditated’ and ‘intended to disconcert those around him and force them to capitulate’.[2] Hermann Rauschning, who at the time of writing his book hated his former master, had no reason to destroy, as he does, with the stroke of a pen, the legend that aimed to discredit him in the eyes of more than one well-meaning man. Or rather, if he had a reason, it could only be, despite everything, a remnant of intellectual honesty.

As for Rudolf Hess, the comedy of ‘amnesia’ that he played so masterfully at the Nuremberg trial has fooled the most experienced psychiatrists. And the ‘normal’, sometimes even playful, tone of his letters to his wife and son[3]—tone that disconcerts the reader, in a man who was captive for more than thirty years—would be enough to prove his superhumanity. Only an initiate can write, after three decades in a cell, in the light-hearted and detached manner of a husband and father on holiday from his family for three weeks.

The Führer apparently outgrew his masters in the Thule Society (or elsewhere), and escaped the influence that some of them—one will never be clear which ones—would have wanted to have on him. He had to do it, being sovereign, being one of the visages of the One Who Returns.

And if, suddenly, the war took a wrong turn; if, to say the least, the point of no return was Stalingrad, which according to some, was the very site of the ancient Asgard, the fortress of the Germanic Gods, it is undoubtedly because, for some hidden reason, it had to be so. And hadn’t the young Adolf Hitler had that revelation under the night sky, on the summit of Freienberg, at the gates of his beloved city of Linz, at the age of sixteen?

The immediate material cause, or rather the occasion of the fatal turn, must have been not a strategic error on the part of the Führer—it is acknowledged that he never made a mistake in this area—but some sudden and unfortunate stiffening in his attitude towards the adversary. Siegfried, the superman, once showed pride of the same magnitude by refusing, so as not to appear to give in to the threat, and therefore to fear, to return to the Daughters of the Rhine the Ring which was theirs by right.

This gesture would have saved Asgard and the gods. The hero’s refusal precipitated its downfall. The new Siegfried, undoubtedly, also not to appear ‘weak’, although no challenge had been thrown at him, refused to exploit, as he certainly could, the goodwill of these people of Ukraine—anti-communists, aspiring to their autonomy—who had initially received his soldiers as liberators.

(March in Ukraine, historical; SS-Volunteer Division.) Did he do so knowingly, realising that the loss of the war, inscribed in the stars from all eternity, was a necessary catastrophe for Germany and the entire Aryan world, which only the trial by fire could one day purify? Only the gods know. The speed with which Germany, in the first years after the war, took the bait of material prosperity without any ideals, shows how much, despite the enthusiasm of the great National Socialist rallies, it was only incompletely freed from its comfortable humanitarian moralism, and only superficially armed against the Jewish influence, both ‘political’ and profound—that is, in the field of values.
 

______ 卐 ______

 

Editor’s note: This is central.

A few years ago, I used to say that the primary cause of the Aryan decline was that they succumbed to the One Ring, obviously referring to Wagner’s magnum opus, his Tetralogy (see for example: here).

And last year, when I promised myself that I would learn German and started to study it hard, I gave up when I discovered, just by reading the German grammar book I was reading, that the Germans betrayed themselves horrendously after the Second World War. What is the point of learning the language of the Nazis if German speakers are now anti-Nazis?

On this site I have been saying some very harsh things about the Americans. But however flawed their patriotic racialism may be (like what I recently said about Jared Taylor), they at least represent a firm step over the psychological Rubicon in the sense that American white nationalists are no longer in Normieland. They just need to finish crossing it, and The West’s Darkest Hour provides the stepping stones to do so.

What have the Germans done after their Fuhrer lost the war? The traitors donned one of the surrogate rings of the One Ring and have now become wraiths of what they were! I have already said it but it bears repeating:

In Tolkien’s universe, the Ringwraiths, the nine fallen kings or black riders, became the dreaded ring-servants of the Dark Lord Sauron. These Ringwraiths are Great Britain, France, Italy, Germany, Sweden, the other Nordic countries, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. All of these wimp countries of the American Empire consider the anti-white wars that occurred in the 1860s and the 1940s to be good.

The fiat currencies of the Ringwraiths are pegged to the dollar. When the One Ring is destroyed—when the US dollar crashes—, like Sauron, the kings of these reigns will also lose their power. Mordor’s power comes from the One Ring, from the privilege that its banknotes have become the world’s reserve currency. Since the ring will fall into the Mount Doom lavas in the not-too-distant future, such a milestone will mark the beginning of the fall not only of Mordor, but of the nine Ringwraiths.

If after such a catastrophe the Aryan race manages to survive, it is not clear which Indo-European language will be adopted by the survivors.

________

[1] Rauschning, Hitler m’a dit, page 34.

[2] Ibid., page 84

[3] Frau Ilse Hess published two collections of letters of her captive husband: London, Nuremberg, Spandau and Prisoner of Peace.

On LOTR

In a one-volume edition celebrating the 50th anniversary of Tolkien’s book, I read The Lord of the Rings from March 2011 to February 2012, while listening to the audio of LOTR voiced by Rob Inglis.

I must say that since I wanted to be a film director, I think that only the first film of Peter Jackson’s adaptation was good. The other two suffer from the typical stridency of Hollywood in recent decades, especially the extended battle scenes. Tolkien’s novel has no stridency. On the contrary: it has a very slow development. And what is most striking are his descriptions of the countryside: something that those of us who live in large cities have completely lost and must recover if, after destroying the ring, return to the Shire.

But that doesn’t mean that I loved LOTR. I think it’s a children’s tale, not even a teenager’s, which is noted in a passage where King Théoden, once Gandalf broke his spell, spares Wormtongue’s life instead of killing him. (For having spared his life, Wormtongue later conspired with Saruman to exterminate the people of Rohan.)

I confess that this passage irritated me a lot, both in the film and in the novel; and we can only forgive it if we read LOTR to our little children, night after night, until the book is finished. But the problem I see with contemporary Aryan man is his long childhood. A Viking teenager wouldn’t have even understood why sparing the life of a Jew-like character who would only bring enormous evil to the kingdom.

When I finished reading LOTR I wrote: ‘What I say in El Retorno de Quetzalcóatl about Don Quixote by Cervantes compared to Bernal Díaz del Castillo’s book applies here: It talks ill of Westerners and Englishmen who have this work (fiction) at the top and know nothing about the Führer’s actual words—history, epic, and real tragedy—in the book I’m reading and will use in my next entry, “Hitler on Christianity”. An edition of such luxury [that of LOTR] for his talks should incorporate a very long prologue by David Irving’.

In that soliloquy, I wanted to tell myself that just as it bothered me that Spanish speakers preferred to read Cervantes’s fiction rather than Diaz’s non-fiction about the conquest of Mexico, it also bothered me that English-speakers preferred Tolkien’s fiction to Irving’s non-fiction. Having said this, the words of LOTR in which I projected myself were:

‘I wish it need not have happened in my time’, said Frodo.

‘So do I’, said Gandalf, ‘and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us’.

I had already collected it as a quotable quote. I also liked: ‘It was an evil fate. But he [Frodo] had taken it on himself’ (page 644). I projected myself even more in some words that in Jackson’s version appear at the end, when Frodo writes LOTR and says in soliloquy that there are such wounds that it is no longer possible to bear them.

All in all, I wouldn’t recommend LOTR to young people as what we need are real-life stories that inspire them, like the lives of Leonidas and Hermann. Movies and TV series about them and Hitler are missing from the point of view of the fourteen words.

When in the past century I lived in Manchester a native English man invited me on a peripatetic outing to the countryside with others and I am ashamed to say that I declined the invitation. Yes, I would recommend LOTR to those who want to get out of the monstrosity that Saruman did with his arboreal destruction, iron industry and multiplication of Orcs—a symbol of the soulless London—and want to reconnect with Nature (bucolic England).

If I were a film director and wanted to make a children’s movie, I would bring LOTR to the screen by retrieving all those detailed descriptions of the field in Tolkien’s prose.

The Ringwraiths’ fate

The explosion in Lebanon is of no importance to the priest of the fourteen words. Let’s better remember a 2011 article by Michael Colhaze, ‘Lords of the Ring’. Pace the Christian Colhaze, who apparently asked Kevin MacDonald to remove his articles from The Occidental Observer, what really matters is understanding the process of white decline and being willing to sacrifice Semitic-inspired worldviews to save the West.

I kept thinking about the last two paragraphs of my morning post and it seems clear to me that the One Ring means gringo gold, or speaking without metaphors, the status of reserve currency that the US dollar maintains in the world.

Remember that the Ringwraiths, the nine fallen kings or black riders, became the dreaded ring-servants of the Dark Lord Sauron. These Ringwraiths are Great Britain, France, Italy, Germany, Sweden, the other Nordic countries, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. All of these wimp countries of the American Empire consider the anti-white wars that occurred in 1860s and the 1940s to be good.

The fiat currencies of the Ringwraiths are pegged to the dollar. When the One Ring is destroyed—when the US dollar collapses—like Sauron the kings of these reigns will also lose their power. Mordor’s power comes from the One Ring, from the privilege that its banknotes have become the world’s reserve currency. Since the ring will fall into the Mount Doom lavas in the not-too-distant future, such a milestone will mark the beginning of the fall not only of Mordor, but of the nine Ringwraiths.

As we have also seen, Tolkien’s novel differs from Peter Jackson’s third movie in that in the novel the drama does not end with the destruction of the One Ring. The drama continues in a war that is waged in the Shire: a war in which Gandalf does not participate, but allows Frodo and his compatriots to fight by themselves (a war by the way in which Saruman dies).

All this seems to me like a metaphor for how the white man should behave after the ring falls into the rivers of red-hot fire from which it arose. The destruction of the American empire of steel, iron and imported Orcs will only open a window of opportunity to recover the bucolic Shire. But full recovery will be the job of the Hobbits, who are now only little characters who don’t dare go out for fear of Sauron and his slaves, the Ringwraiths. The good news is that, like Sauron, the wraiths also have their time counted. Salvation will lie in that, after the ring is destroyed, the Hobbits put their shit together on both sides of the Atlantic.

Empathy

Only the overman will be able to develop empathy at the level of what in my books I call the priest, or rather ruler, of the four words. But without going so far, the philosophical problem of who should govern arose from the times of Plato.

In popular culture that has reached the masses, only fiction writer George R.R. Martin apparently has dealt with the problem of this philosopher-king. The viewership for the finale of Game of Thrones, ‘The Iron Throne’, included 13.6 million people who watched the episode on HBO at 9 p.m. Sunday about a year ago, making it the most-watched telecast in the network’s history. But of all these millions of normies only one understood Martin’s philosophy: the vlogger who correctly predicted who would be crowned in the finale.

Below is a transcript of Yezen’s ‘Why Bran Stark will be King’ video, which was uploaded twenty days before the finale. Compared to Yezen, all the fans of the famous series who keep commenting on YouTube seem Neanderthals to me. Not only did they fail to predict who would be the king: they were angered by the finale because they don’t understand why only someone with sovereign empathy must rule.

For those who have already seen the above-linked video and are interested in a transcript, let me say that the emphasis of the red words is mine. Yezen said:
 

______ 卐 ______

 

First off, I want to say how much I appreciate all of the support this channel has been getting in the past couple weeks, so today I’m gonna try to drive everyone away by giving one of my more controversial predictions. In the end of Game of Thrones, the person who will sit in the Iron Throne and rule Westeros is… Bran Stark.

Yup. King Bran the Broken. The Bird Kid, First of our POV’s, Lord of the Awkward Stare, and Producer of the Memes, because ‘Chaos is a ladder’. And Bran is the best at climbing. Also, he’s the best at sitting… [LOL!]

Okay, but really, without getting into Children of the Forest conspiracies, or a convoluted lecture on the line of succession for Harrenhal, let me explain why it’ll be Bran. And before I get a million comments reminding me that he’s not Bran anymore—I get it, he’s not totally Bran. But it’s also not that simple. The actor Isaac Hempstead Wright has confirmed that there is some Bran ‘left over’ in the Three-eyed Raven, so it’s a complicated entity.

Anyways, hang in there. Here it goes.

Tommen: ‘It means I’ll become King’.

Tywin: ‘Yes, you will become King. What kind of King do you think you’ll be?’

Tommen: ‘A good King?’

Tywin: ‘Huh. I think so as well. You’ve got the right temperament for it. But what makes a good king, hmm? What is a good King’s single most important quality?’

In many ways, Game of Thrones was intended as a response to The Lord of the Rings. Bran is Frodo. Aegon is Aragorn. Arya is Aeowyn. The Night King is Sauron. Sam is Sam, and Sean Bean dies.

And George R.R. Martin’s equivalent for the titular Ring of Power has always been the Iron Throne. Like the One Ring, the Iron Throne is the central object of absolute power, around which the narrative revolves. Though not inherently evil like the Ring, the Iron Throne is isolating; it brings men to war, and tends to destroy those who hold or pursue it. And, at the end of The Lord of the Rings, the ring is cast into the fire that forged it, and destroyed forever, ridding the world of its corruption, and restoring moral order.

So why can’t we expect the same from Game of Thrones? Why can’t the Iron Throne simply be destroyed in the dragon-fire that forged it, thereby ending the evil of war?

Tommen: ‘Holiness?’

Tywin: ‘Hmm’.

Well, the answer lies in the differences between how Tolkien and Martin depict good and evil in relation to power.

In Tolkien’s world, good and evil are distinct, and the Ring represents power in a strictly evil sense. All power that is just or lawful is considered to be separate from the corruption of the Ring.

Yet, in Martin’s world, morality is ambiguous, and exists in shades of gray. The Iron Throne has no inherent moral alignment, and represents the power for both good and evil. Though there is certainly symbolism to destroying it; whether there’s a spiky metal chair or not, people will still seek power. And the Seven Kingdoms can still be conquered, and will still be ruled. Melting the Iron Throne isn’t a real solution. Power must pass to someone.

Of course, the obvious candidate would be King Aegon—Jon Snow Targaryen. After all, he is modelled after Aragorn, who is the King that returns. And in the season 8 opener, we already see Davos suggesting the possibility of Jon and Daenerys getting married, binding their alliance and forming a dream-team power couple to rule Westeros better and fairer than ever before.

Davos: ‘What if the Seven Kingdoms, for once in their whole shit history, were ruled by a just woman and an honourable man?’

Yet, as is typical of this story, the fact that someone has predicted this outcome in dialogue, implies that it’s unlikely to come to pass. The Northerners seem outright opposed to Targaryen rule, and whether or not Daenerys can accept joint rule with Jon, the story will not give us an ending exactly as Davos suggested.

And, to be totally frank, there is no way Martin created the feminist icon that is Daenerys Targaryen just to force her to give up her life ambition to her husband, whether it’s by bending the knee or by dying.

While the Lord of the Rings ends with Aragorn ruling, Aragorn is never charged with the Ring. Rather, just as Tolkien begins his story with the Ring passing to Frodo, Martin’s will end when the Throne passes to Bran.

Tommen: ‘Justice?’

Tywin: ‘Hmm. A good King must be just’.

After the catastrophe of the ending, House Targaryen as well as most of the other Great Houses, will be brought to ruin. And in the wake of that ruin, the Seven Kingdoms will need to restructure its leadership. And so, the Wolves [the Starks] will have their time.

Bran ‘I’m-not-Bran’ Stark, will be the enigmatic, apathetic Fisher King.

Sansa ‘I-learned-a-great-deal-from-her’ Stark, will leave Winterfell and govern the Seven Kingdoms through Bran, just as Cersei once governed on behalf of Tommen.

And Lady Arya ‘don’t-call-me-that’ Stark, will inherit the North and rule as the Warrior-Lady of Winterfell.

Essentially, Bran, Sansa and Arya, will be the Stark version of Aegon, Rhaenys and Visenya. Just without the dragons or the incest.

In the books, this is set up pretty early on by Ned Stark, who after Robert’s rebellion, inherits the life and position meant for his elder brother, who had died during the rebellion. This is also set up pretty well by Littlefinger, whose life goal is: ‘…a picture of me, on the Iron Throne, and you [Sansa] by my side’.

In the end, this vision will sort of come true. It just won’t be Littlefinger on the throne. But that’s all the time I’ll spend on evidence, because whether I’m right or wrong, there’s only about a month until we see this play out.

Tommen: ‘What about strength?’

Tywin: ‘Hmm, strength…’

On a fundamental level, Game of Thrones is an exploration of power, and different characters coming to power convey different messages about what it takes to rise up in the world.

The rise of Daenerys emphasises strength and justice and ambition.

Jon champions honour and righteousness.

Someone like Littlefinger, deception and opportunism.

While Cersei emphasizes ruthlessness and vanity.

Meanwhile, King Brandon would convey a more mysterious meaning that, although strength, lineage, deception and ruthlessness each play a part, all of them are bound up by FATE.

Not in a divine sense, but in the sense that, regardless of our flaws or virtues, the universe is chaotic and beyond our control. What may be in one place in time a virtue, is in another a flaw. And whoever rises to power is, to some extent, a consequence of being in the right place at the right time. Just as the Targaryens, Baratheons and Lannisters had their time, the Starks will have theirs, and so the throne will pass to Bran.

Tywin: ‘So, we have a man who starves himself to death, a man who lets his own brother murder him, and a man who thinks that winning and ruling are the same thing. What do they all lack?’

This ending would serve as a strange marriage of idealism and cynicism. In many ways, Bran begins the story as the most powerless character, lacking even basic bodily autonomy. And as fate would have it, Bran ends up the most powerful. Yet that power comes at the cost of isolating Bran from his own humanity, and never gives him the thing that he really wanted.

Arya: ‘He wants to be Knight of the King’s Guard. He can’t be one now, can he?’

Ned: ‘No’.

The story which built itself on the tragedy of the Starks will end in their triumph. But despite that triumph, the Starks never really get back the home or the innocence they once had. Yes, there’s the physical place [of a home], but never the feeling of having a complete family. Never the trust, innocence, or joy of childhood. In the deepest sense, what is lost in war, is never truly reclaimed in war.

And look, I know you probably still don’t buy it, or you still think it’s gonna be Jon, and you really might be right about that, but hear me out just a little longer, because there is a glimmer of idealism to this ending.

Though many will die, and the wheel might not break, Bran just might make a good king after all. Despite having lost so much of himself to the Three-eyed Raven, Bran, perhaps more than any other character, has grasped one of the most essential lessons of the story, which is the importance of EMPATHY.

Tommen: ‘Wisdom?’

Tywin: ‘Yes!’

Tommen: ‘Wisdom is what makes a good king’.

Tywin: ‘Yes, but what is wisdom, hmm?’

Despite their history, Bran is able to look at Jaime Lannister, the man who once shattered his life, and to see good in him, to see Jaime as a man who was protecting the people he loved. And to not only forgive him, but to protect him. This simple act of understanding demonstrates what the war-torn kingdoms of Westeros have been so lacking: not strength, or cunning, or even honour, but real wisdom.

For a world that’s been so damaged by people’s inability to see from one another’s perspective, maybe a broken boy is the right ruler to heal a broken kingdom.

Maybe not the one you want, certainly not the one we’d expect, but the one the ending needs. After years of war and hatred, I think maybe the Kingdoms of Westeros will get the little bit of understanding that they deserve. And that is an encouraging thought. [Music]

Bran: ‘Theon’,

Theon: ‘…’

Bran: ‘You’re a good man. Thank you’.

But okay, despite what I said earlier, don’t leave, stick around. If I’m wrong, which I probably am, you can come back later and leave a comment to tell me.

So you better subscribe just so you don’t forget. In the meantime, there is more to come. So, until next time. Peace.

Hitler v Siege

Face it: The Aryan race is so starved of inspiring stories like LOTR that you ought not to be surprised that GOT (visually, pure Aryan esthetics), which was written as a response to Tolkien, became the most popular series of the decade. But since the grand finale it has come to my attention that, unlike Patrick, very few commenters add something substantial about what I have been saying about Game of Thrones.

I think that is due to a terrible way of understanding education. Except for Vig, few commenters have an artistic background. Unlike Hitler, who liked classical music, painting and the old architecture of Italy so much, the common white advocate lives under the mistaken impression that the West can be recovered using only the left hemisphere of his brain (say, the dry academic articles published by MacDonald in his webzine).

That could not be farther from the truth! Remember that it is the stories that galvanise the white population, like all those stories of the epics that inspired J.R.R. Tolkien and George R.R. Martin for their novels. Only this explains the tremendous success of LOTR and GOT in the Aryan community. Hitler also understood this by wanting to popularise the Germanic myths that Richard Wagner rescued for his people. What we see in the revolutionary wing of the white cause is exactly the opposite of Hitler’s spirit, and Siege’s case symbolizes it.

Before I distanced myself from James Mason because of his ignorance, I tried to Europeanise Siege a bit using, for my Daybreak Press, a cover with a painting by Spanish painter Francisco Goya.

But I was wrong: the stark illustration of the original (reproduced below) is the one that actually reflects the content of the book. Two days ago Krist Krusher said in the comments section of this site:

“Siege-tard” is a term I myself created to describe those who you would call crazed dogs howling at the moon [Note of the Ed.: see The Fair Race, pages 647-51]. In the past I read Siege around the same time I read Ironmarch and was not very impressed. I investigated James Mason and became thoroughly unimpressed after I noticed his sudden change of personal faith: he went from being an atheist to being a sucker for the Jebus myth after the Larsson interview! Why?

Sometimes I still try to read what former Ironmarchers write these days and the current “successor” website is a shell. Ironmarch had problems but it was a decent communication center for real fascists. The present “continuation” [like James Mason, they admire Charles Manson too – Ed.] is an abomination.

“Fascist Forge” is about as fascist as Deviantart; garish web design that even the Italian futurists would reject, hideous psychedelic imagery masquerading as art on one thread, degenerate stories with themes of homosex and vore on another, caricatures of real NS—men photoshopped to have glowing red eyes and inverted xtian symbols for user avatars—, it stands as a proud bastion of what Siege readers become as a group. They even call historical fascists like Jose Antonio Primo de Riveria and Mosley “archaeo-fascists” and think everything on the line of “those guys like Hitler are dead. We live therefore we decide everything”!

Even on /pol/ Siege is seen as a joke. To read or write anything on Siege—even regarding the merits of what it has to offer revolutionaries—is to be seen as the dumbest of subhumans.

But it is useless to ask these people to abandon their ways and begin to make some contact with the old culture.

I would like to confess something that happened in my mind in 1996, when I got in my car and drove to the border with the United States in order to emigrate. Already on the other side (I passed legally), the first thought that came to me was that what I saw was ‘the country of absolute Neandertalism’ in the sense that, compared to the old European architecture (and remember that that was Hitler’s inspiration for his New Europe), the US was an empty shell. That happened to me while I was already driving on the roads of Texas on my route to Houston.

The souls of the Siege-tards are as desolate as the landscape I saw from my Shadow Chrysler more than twenty years ago. And that is an endemic problem even among non-revolutionaries, who also don’t make deep contact with European art.

Before the accident that forced me to become the Three-Eyed Raven (I don’t mean Bran, but the old man entangled in the tree) I had wanted to be a film director. Had I reached the peak and filmed Game of Thrones, my adaptation of Martin’s novels would not have been plagued by the feminism we saw in the HBO series. But the art that can potentially captivate the white race is all there, in those epic stories adapted to visual stories for the contemporary palate. Something like a Wagner of the 21st century: television series that the Nazis would surely be filming if Hitler had won the war.

What I want to communicate is the great going astray that represents everything related to American psycho Charles Manson. I would paraphrase Jordan Peterson in the sense that the recovery of the West must be initiated by cleaning our bedroom, yes: but emphasising that the bedroom—our soul—must be arranged based on the best art created by the fair race.

A grim vision like the one on the book-cover that appears within Krusher’s quote will never captivate the race. It’s time to leave Siege in the bookshelf and order a copy of Hitler’s Table Talk. After all, ‘The sign of the times is degeneracy. This term—degeneracy—sums up all that is happening to the West’. This includes Manson fans and SIEGE-tards.

Promethean fire

‘The Stars are not for man’
—a quote from Karellen
Childhood’s End (novel).

The following is a response to a comment in another thread about Robert Morgan.

My take on technology is different. I believe that the human race, whites included, are not ready for the Promethean fire—technology. It’s like empowering the Neanderthals with such fire: they would only destroy the world with it. Google how tons of nuclear waste are stored throughout the world and you get a Chernobyl-like picture for the future of planet Earth!

As a mortal enemy of Christian ethics, unlike ‘universal love’ I propose the opposite: ‘the extermination of the Neanderthals’. I would summarise it by paraphrasing Jesus: ‘Many genes will be called but few will be chosen’ in the day of wrath.

Morgan has failed to answer properly what would have happened in a world where Hitler had won the war. I very much doubt that that world would be as racially destructive as our world, in which Sauron won the war. Morgan assumes that, sooner or later, a triumphant Third Reich would misuse technology as much as the triumphant Allies (Sauron).

It would be fun if you discussed with Morgan at Unz Review. He is completely anti-tech. This is how the Anti-tech article on Wikipedia starts: ‘Neo-Luddism or new Luddism is a philosophy opposing many forms of modern technology. The word Luddite is generally used as a derogatory term applied to people showing technophobic leanings. The name is based on the historical legacy of the English Luddites, who were active between 1811 and 1816’. Morgan goes further. He endorses Ted Kaczynski, a.k.a., the Unabomber, and even Charles Manson for reasons still unclear to me.

Differences aside, Morgan has a point. As Kenneth Clark observed in his 1969 television series, ‘The only people who saw through industrialism in those early days were the poets. Blake, as everybody knows, thought that mills were the work of Satan. “Oh Satan, my youngest born… thy work is Eternal death with Mills and Ovens and Cauldrons”.’

Tolkien also saw it. His Lord of the Rings was a metaphor against how industrialisation in England murdered the beloved Shire of his childhood. As a protector of the forests, I’m as outraged as Ents at the widespread felling of trees by Saruman’s Orcs.

Evropa Soberana has also complained about how technological civilisation degrades the white man and Nature itself.

And, as I have stated many times on this site, ‘The Course of Empire is a five-part series of paintings created by Thomas Cole in 1833-1836. It reflected popular American sentiments of the times when many saw pastoralism as the ideal phase of human civilisation, fearing that empire would lead to gluttony and inevitable decay’ (see the five paintings by Cole: here).

Morgan seems to be saying that only after the fifth painting the surviving whites may regain their sanity again, always provided they never, ever try to surpass the pastoralist stage. Like Overlord Karellen, an extraterrestrial visitor of planet Earth, Morgan has made it very clear that humans will never be ready for the Promethean fire.

In my second book of the trilogy I propose something different: a mutated Aryan in an Earth populated exclusively by whites could finally be allowed to reach the stars. But from the psychogenic point of view, certainly He would be an altogether different White Man compared to those we see now. I refer to the development of the soul and, particularly, empathy: including empathy towards the animals, our Führer’s dream.

Unlike the Overman, present-day humans still have the soul of a Neanderthal (‘You have evolved from worm to man, but much within you is still worm’—Thus Spake Zarathustra).

In a blog entry it is difficult to convey the idea of what do I mean by surpassing the psychoclass that most humans belong to. But you can read the first novella by Arthur Clarke to get a rough idea: Against the Fall of Night and pay special attention to the city of Lys.