Kriminalgeschichte, 11


Saul of Tarsus, later known as Paul, who in his epistles claims to be Jewish was the true creator of Christianity. In his book Deschner discusses how Paul strongly criticised his co-religionists and then writes:

Unsurprisingly, the Jews counterattacked. This fact was very prominent by German Catholics in Hitler’s time, for example in Heilige deutsche Heimat, with ecclesiastical censorship, which continually recalls how the Jews ‘calumniated, cursed and persecuted’ Paul, that ‘wonder of the Spirit and of Grace’, how they conspired against him for being ‘a friend of the Gentiles’, how they ‘planned to kill him’ and ‘organised various attacks against him’, ‘expelled him from the synagogues as though he was a stench or a leper’, they banished him ‘to the most inhospitable places under the sky, to the forests and to the deserts where only the beasts live’, etcetera.

In one of the thousands of endnotes in Deschner’s ten-volume work, he cites his source (Walterscheid, J., pp. 1139f, II pp. 40f, Heilige Deutsche Heimat. Das deutsche Kirchenjahr mit seinen Festen, Seinem Volksbrauch, den Volksheiligen, religiöser Literatur und religiöser Kunst, 1,1936). Deschner adds:

This educational inspector from Bonn cites on the first page of his huge text in two volumes (prologue p. XIII) the work Die deutsche Volkskunde of the Nazi Reichsleiter Adolf Spamer and glorifies militarism, e.g. pp. 1128ff esp., 133ff and other pages, where he alludes for example to the old Nazi abbot Ildefons Herwegen ‘during the days with the Führer at Maria Laach’, where the Grand Brotherhood of St Sebastian ‘has found an indispensable help in the ideas of the new State’ since it ‘goes back to the same old roots of the German force’; celebrates in addition ‘the thunder of the canyon’ and ‘the perfect parades’. The pious Catholic author dreams of no less pious Catholic squads armed with ‘real shotguns’ and so on. The fact is that the Bible and the gunpowder go together the whole history of Catholicism… under ecclesiastical imprimatur.

All this would seem wonderful to people like Andrew Anglin, whose The Daily Stormer can now be seen in Tor. As a title for a periodical, The Daily Stormer is inspired by a German newspaper of the 1930s. (And let’s not talk about how the pious Christian Vox Day, who sounds like Sean Hannity, recently debated Anglin on National Socialism.)

But what Deschner writes is misleading in many ways. The faction of Christianity that would finally prevail in Christendom is not, say, that of a Richard Wagner whose operas fascinate me, including the Christian ones Tannhäuser and Parsifal (Parsifal is my favourite opera). It was its antithesis: the Calvinist faction of Christianity that restored the Old Testament in what became the most powerful country in the West, the United States. As to Catholicism, in the times when the Nazi abbot Herwegen wrote the above a more powerful figure, Pope Pius XI, stated on 29 July 1938: ‘One forgets today that the human race is a single, large and catholic [universal] race’.

The last political attempts to harmonize Christianity with racialism died in Nazi Germany. Now we have to question the Galilean cult from its root—and to question also the silliness of what Vox Day and many others are trying to do: harmonise Christianity with Aryan preservation.


Siege, 16

Loyalty Only To Ourselves

Note of the Editor: Just compare the very first phrase of Mason’s article below with Andrew Anglin’s recent exchange with Greg Johnson that only normal American flags should be used in pro-white rallies. The difference between white nationalists and the real thing cannot be more conspicuous.

There is nothing outside Revolutionary National Socialism to which we can owe any loyalty. What we do, we do because it is the right, proper and manly course of action to take. We are in defense of nothing. We are everywhere on the attack.

When we cease attacking it will only be because the System has fallen and all its former members have been killed. At that point, we will be the State and the time will be for building. No individual, no manifesto, no abstract concept of any kind can we allow to influence our thinking or our actions. We find ourselves in the midst of a monster and circumstances dictate to us that our every move must be calculated toward killing the beast. No frills, no fanfare, no frivolities. Only practicalities, realities and necessities.

Mere fanaticism alone is not the ultimate indicator of a revolutionary movement whose time, it can be justifiably said, has come. All this must be in answer to the commands of the genes in our blood. This immediately rules out all the “Jim Jones”, all the “Hare Krishnas”, all the “Moonies”, and at the same time it rules out all the Reds and the off-brand socialists. We now state that only the affirmative answer to the call of the BLOOD decides which movement shall be the redeemers of an entire race of people.

For that reason it could have happened nowhere else but among the most hardcore of National Socialists. Consequently, we can trashcan any fantasies about the course of events in this country following the course they did in Germany.

Hitler could justifiably conjure up slogans of duty to Germany because the Germany he spoke of was still intact and the people were with him. The United States is GONE and that statement by itself means that the people inhabiting this piece of real estate are the very “goyim” that the Jews claim they are. And a “goy” can never be a National Socialist. To us they are merely the unconscious, unwitting, and unwilling carriers of the genes that can, under the proper care and leadership, re-achieve greatness and pull this planet out of its quicksand.

So much for “loyalty” to them!

It has got to be loyalty only to ourselves or else the rest may as well never have existed in the first place.

NSLF is the name under which those who are answering the call of their blood are doing so in the only manner in which victory has ever been achieved: armed struggle! That is who we are, why we are, and where we came from. With the decade of the Eighties now fully upon us, the decade of George Orwell’s 1984 upon us, with the liberal element now having accomplished its work, with the enthronement of a conservative regime to usher in—literally—1984, it is well for us to keep all this in mind.

Vol. X, #1 – January, 1981

Order a copy of Siege (here)

Published in: on September 3, 2017 at 10:46 am  Comments (1)  

Carolyn on Kevin

In my previous post I wrote: ‘White nationalism is an impossible chimera between truths and lies, between courage and cowardice, light and darkness’. This abridged article by Carolyn Yeager on Kevin MacDonald supports my claim.

Kevin Macdonald recently participated in a videocast of “Torah Talk” with Luke Ford, a non-Jewish student of Torah and Talmud, and two young friends or students of his. It lasted one hour and 50 minutes and resulted in some interesting insights into Kevin’s limitations as a leading White Nationalist voice.

MacDonald was taken by surprise with the first question asked of him: What are your thoughts about holocaust revisionism?

Yeah, um, I guess I’m not, uh, I’ve never had any sympathy really, before—I, I haven’t seen, I haven’t seen anything that I would really, you know, convince me. And I have—frankly, I haven’t dealt into it very much. My view is that it’s not important for what I’m doing and I don’t think it’s really important—I, I think what’s really important is the culture of the holocaust, you know how it’s taught in school, how it’s used to defend Israel, and it’s used as a weapon against people who oppose immigration, and all those things—ah I think those are very important things to discuss. So whether it actually happened, exactly [slurs some words] and all that is something that I don’t think uh is possible to even go there anymore, is just… just uh… third rail.

Hey, wait a minute! Is this the reputedly brilliant professor of evolutionary psychology speaking??? This sounds not only downright dumb but also evasive as hell.

  • I’ve never had any sympathy
  • Never seen anything that convinced me
  • Don’t think it’s really important
  • Haven’t dealt into it very much (weakening the above three comments, if not nullifying them altogether)
  • Not possible to “go there anymore”

Not possible to go there anymore? But then he adds… “third rail.” He should have added the word “comfortably”—it’s not possible to go there comfortably, without putting oneself at risk. By that he signals premature defeat: The Jews have won on this and we have to allow them their victory. It’s too late to do anything about it. The price exacted is too high. By calling it “third rail” he’s dubbing it too dangerous, too highly charged for any sensible man to approach.

Are these brave men or foolish men? Kevin clearly considers them foolish, and maybe not too bright. He’s saying that what he’s doing is important but what they’re doing is not important.

  • What’s really important is the culture of the Holocaust

But wait a minute! If the Holocaust didn’t happen, how can a “culture” of it exist? Or the trappings of such a culture be justified? So he obviously thinks the Holocaust did happen, or believes he must accept that presumption, but doesn’t want to come right out and say so. Because? Because so many listening to him would argue with him about it.

I’m afraid we have caught our evolutionary psychologist in a posture of dishonesty here. I know it has been our position to give Kevin a free pass on this subject, one that goes like this: He has shown so much courage in standing up to the accusations of antisemitism at his university; if he doesn’t want to get into even more trouble over “holocaust denial,” he certainly doesn’t have to. That was a position I myself took back when I had an Internet radio show on which he was a guest four times. I did not even bring it up.

But now he is retired and it is only his professional reputation at stake, not his job. And he is being asked these questions and he is answering them (see here). And I have revised my thinking about giving others so much leeway to think as they want about it. We need all hands on deck on this issue. In Kevin’s case though, I think it would be better were he to simply say, “I’ve made it my practice not to speak about this topic which I have not studied,” and leave it at that, rather than put forth uninformed opinions as he’s doing. Of course, that would be wimpy but at least not dishonest.

But perhaps he’s afraid that would cause his peers to suspect him of being a secret denier, which he clearly does not want. So instead he hems and haws around about “importance”—that the “culture of the Holocaust” has importance while the “happening of the Holocaust” doesn’t.

That’s an odd position. Maybe we can find some insight into his thought process in his answer to the next question asked him: What are your personal feelings toward Hitler?

Toward who? Oh God, I think that the only term I can use is a disaster. I think that his own personality—I just don’t know much about it but I think his own personality got in the way of them carrying out their strategic military [goals?] in World War Two. I think he was, you know, he thought of himself as a general or something. You know, he interfered with policy that should have been left to professionals and I think that that was a—you know, that was horrible, that was a disaster. There are a lot of other things, but uh, so I think that he is not the ideal person to be in that situation.

  • Hitler was a disaster
  • Don’t know much about it
  • Interfered with military policy

His reactions toward Hitler are more vehement than toward Holocaust. They reflect the standard Anglo narrative that Hitler bungled the war, that his generals despised him, he was a flawed personality who all by himself created the disaster that occurred in Germany. No fault is directed toward Jews, or the Allied collusion with Major Jewish Organizations, or the German traitors (including in the Wehrmacht) who conspired to defeat their own country and turn as many people as possible away from their leader. As MacDonald said, he doesn’t know much about it, but the “common American wisdom”, the national narrative, is good enough for him. But then he has a few second thoughts:

But you know, having said that, if you look at the old newsreels from 1930’s in Germany, you know, the people loved Hitler and he really managed to develop a sense of sort of a very unified, culturally unified nation. Uh, they were really on page with this, and I think that was an incredible accomplishment. It’s just unfortunate how they used it, what happened in the end. Just a disaster. I-I think that is the—the, uh, the result of the Second World War is uh has essentially given us the war that we’re in now. I think the triumph of the Left is the result of WWII. I think uh is also um critically important for the rise of Jewish influence. And that is what is now with us. And can’t be undone.

  • Hitler was loved by the people
  • Unified the nation
  • Incredible accomplishments
  • The war was a disaster

Amazing. Kevin goes from admiring how Hitler unified the nation, an incredible feat, directly to the misuse of it, though he doesn’t explain how they misused it. Apparently by going to war. As though Hitler could have avoided war, with Stalin plotting to his east and Roosevelt plotting from the west (see the Potoki Papers). For some reason (we know what it is), he accepts the non-mention of the Jews behind the scenes in all this. MacDonald’s simplified history credits the triumph of the Left and the rise of Jewish influence (which are one and the same) as being brought about by Hitler’s ‘disastrous’ war. Does he have any idea how strong the Left was in Germany when Hitler started? It was an actual revolution that resulted in a communist government for a time in Bavaria!

Jews were already in a strong position since WWI. So our Kevin is not much of an historian of this period and, here again, should be answering, “I don’t know.”

The final questions in this series are:

What kind of world do you think we would have if the Axis had won?

It’s impossible to know. I uh I just don know. If the Axis had won, if they crushed the Soviet Union and then occupied Britain, um there probably would have been a stand off at that point. And then I do think it would have been bad for the Jews, in Europe, if that had happened. But I don’t think Europe would be overrun as it is now with all these non-Whites. I think Europe would have remained a White, Christian-based civilization if that had happened. I—That’s my best guess.

  • Bad for Jews
  • Europe still a White, Christian-based civilization

It sounds like he wishes the Axis had won and now blames Hitler for failing to pull it off.

Do you think there is any hope for Europe at this point, or what do you think would have to happen to fix the situation?

For Europe? You’d have to have a complete change in mental outlook, uh you’d have to have the political will to do something. They could still do something but it’s getting, you know, they don’t and it just keeps getting worse and worse. And I think everybody go—you know, the popular opinion polls do reflect anxiety about it, concern, uh, and yet they can’t seem to vote in a government that will actually do something.

So until that happens… um… they could still do it, I mean the percentages of Muslims in France and the West German countries in Europe (sic) are still pretty small. They could do something. They could just deport. Really, I mean a lot of them have no right to be there. The so-called refugees, they can go back to wherever they came from. They can repatriate these people. It just takes a political will which they are a very long way from being there.

So until that happens, it’s just going to fester and there’s going to be more and more anxiety, and more and more disillusion with these elites… But, I’m amazed at the staying power of… it did look with Brexit, Trump victory and now… but then you see you’ve got the victory of Macron in France, so… and Wilders got defeated very badly in the Netherlands, the Swedish government doesn’t seem to be going away. It looks like Merkel’s going to win in Germany, so it doesn’t look (chuckles wryly) that anything’s really changed.

  • Need complete change in mental outlook
  • No mention of removing Jews
  • No political will even for removing Muslims
  • Voters falling short

Notice he doesn’t mention anything about Jews as a problem, only Muslims. Is that a problem with mental outlook? He said later in the program, speaking of white nationalists he approves of (like Jared Taylor)—when they get together they “don’t talk about gas chambers” (said somewhat sneeringly), they talk about white interests. Understand this as: We are not “disasters” like Hitler, who did have the political will to carry out an anti-Jewish policy. For them the Jews are here to stay because there’s no will to do anything about it. They’re grappling with the Muslims now. They can live with the Holocaust.

@40 min. participant Casey said: “I had to watch Schindler’s List in 8th grade, but that was it. But I got it—Hitler’s a bad guy.” His question: How to change education to give kids a more complete historical context, for example like what was happening in Weimar?

Kevin answers by shifting to Blacks and Slavery, away from holocaust.

@46 min. Luke Ford asks: A line from an article you published was “Jews are genetically driven to destroy Whites.” Is that a fair description?

Kevin: No, it’s not. I wrote a book called Culture of Critique—it’s about culture, not genetics. How they identify themselves, think about themselves. I would like to see a cultural shift.

Luke added: Andrew Joyce wrote in an essay published at TOO: “The Jews of the middle ages did no labor—almost all lived parasitically from money-lending.”

Kevin did defend this, but said, “I don’t use the word parasite… much… I don’t think you can use that word for American Jews.”

@1 hr 44 min. Kevin: “I don’t like people who have swastikas on their websites; identify with Nazism. It’s a non starter in American context. We have to be an American party, we have to be about white people, and we have to give up the sort of National Socialist idea of the past. Which was a disaster, partly of its own making. I don’t think it was well led. So we have to get away from them. It’s just bad PR.”

Kevin MacDonald tries to act casual when it comes up in interviews, but he is clearly not casual in his feelings about it. He is incredibly careful of leaving any opening for an association with him and Holocaust revisionism. By doing so, he helps the Jewish drive to keep Germans forever guilty of “unspeakable” and unnatural crimes, and unable to rise (“on their knees” as it’s been coined); which in turn helps the Jewish drive to wield their weapon of antisemitism against all Europeans; which in turn hinders all whites from feeling enough pride to defend their race because the one who is most famous for doing so is seen as a disaster to his race by his own people. But of course, Kevin would deny all this.

If Whites could stick together and work together on Holocaust revisionism, I believe success could be had. I don’t know of a single person who, willing to really look at the evidence and give it a chance, continued to believe the official narrative of the big H. It’s always a political decision to insist that it must have taken place because too much is a stake politically if it didn’t. The entire WWII global order would be shaken to its core. This is the position MacDonald is in, it seems to me, along with so many other White activists who say they put White survival and sovereignty first. They don’t. They are afraid some element in the social fabric that they don’t like will get control, and that bothers them more than giving control to the non-White. This is incredible but true.

During this program, Kevin spoke of how some anti-Jewish material he reads “makes him sick,” he didn’t want to think he played any part in encouraging it. However, he was quite easygoing when it came to the subject of Jewish behavior—no similar strong feelings emerged. He thought some Jews were aligned with White interests and could participate well in White societies. Clearly it is a matter of culture for him.

In closing, I have seen again and again that behind the reluctance to confront the Holocaust taboo lies the stronger fear of the Adolf Hitler taboo. Many truly believe the propaganda that Hitler was a disaster for Europe, thus to keep anyone like him from returning to power, Hitler must remain the one responsible for the horrible Holocaust and the Holocaust must remain real. What they don’t seem to consider is that as Germans disappear as a consequence, Europe will die along with them. Without a genuine Germany, there is no Europe.

Andy chats with Greggy

Today Andrew Anglin discussed with Greg Johnson on Tara McCarthy’s show. I heard the live show on YouTube but you can listen it on McCarthy’s BitChute account.

The amiable discussion between Johnson and Anglin shows once again what I have said: that white nationalism is very far from National Socialism. Even Anglin, who on The Daily Stormer has used Nazi paraphernalia, said that instead of swastikas in future rallies like Charlottesville it will be necessary to use ordinary American flags, not even the Confederate flag!

Anglin completely ignores that the double DNA helix that founded his country—capitalism and Christianity—are more serious factors of white decline than Jewish intrusion. It was precisely for a similar reason that Hitler had to reject the Weimar flag and devise another flag. If American white nationalists knew about the double helix (Murka was prewired to become New Zion) they would design a new Aryan flag that had nothing to do with horizontal stripes and pointed stars.

Unsurprisingly, Johnson went even further away from National Socialism than Anglin. He said: ‘Nothing that we do depends on what happened in 3rd Reich Germany’ and ‘I do not think we have to rehabilitate the Reich’.

Johnson also complained that Hitler had wanted to colonise the Slavs and Ukraine: ‘Their plans for the Slavic East were really genocidal and that’s immoral’. Johnson omits that the entire Soviet Union was Judaized under Stalin. To my way of thinking, as in William Pierce’s novel every white people who tolerates Judaization deserves to be mercilessly conquered by an Aryan empire (as the country where Johnson and Anglin were born is now Judaized).

Johnson also spoke of the ‘well defended set of taboos’ created by Jews and white traitors over Hitler’s Germany, and that these are ‘triggers they have planted on people’ so it is ‘foolish’ to use the example of Germany.

The terrifying error of this position is that Johnson doesn’t realise that what is happening today is neither more nor less than the expansion of the Morgenthau Plan to all whites! War is not only the physical fighting, but also taking over the official narrative. Tom Sunic himself has said that the Second World War has continued after 1945. Since the Morgenthau Plan not only continues but has metastized throughout Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand, what happened in WW2 must be at the centre of our vision. From this angle, the worst omission in the cordial debate between Andy and Greggy was their deafening silence about the real Holocaust of Germans perpetrated by the Allies.

Regarding the holocaust of Jews, Anglin said ‘the holocaust is a religion’, the central religion of today, and that is the ‘basis of the idea that white people are not allowed to have their own country’. He added that ‘the holocaust is the framework’ on which the narrative of today rests. Johnson countered that revisionism over the Jewish holocaust is ‘a very hard sell’.

He is terribly wrong again! Nothing could be easier than pointing out the YouTube videos that show how the Jewish press was already doing propaganda to the figure of 6 million before 1942. The press even played with the figure of 6 million fearing that the Tsar’s pogroms were to kill that number of Jews! All that is very easy to see in the videos photographing old newspapers in close-up so that visitors can see the letters (see e.g., here).

Understand me well. If life permits, I will add more translated passages from Deschner’s Criminal History of Christianity because they show that the Imperial Church invented the vast majority of Christian martyrs allegedly martyred by pagans. The Imperial Church did this to make the supporters of Greco-Roman culture feel guilty and thus justify the destruction of their temples, libraries, sculptures… If the ancient Romans had known that the martyrology was fake news they would have had more weapons to resist the destruction of their civilisation.

In other words, those who actually perpetrated the conquest by the sword were the Christians, who blamed the pagans for their own crimes. Same thing about the Jewish holocaust. Those who actually perpetrated a German Holocaust were the Allies, who in turn blamed the Germans for their own crimes.

How Johnson and Anglin do not see something so obvious is only explicable if we give plausibility to my claim that white nationalism is an impossible chimera between truths and lies, between courage and cowardice, light and darkness. Johnson sincerely believes, in his most cordial discussion with Anglin, that a white takeover of his society without revisionism is possible. As I said, the pair did not even mention The Hellstorm: the atomic bomb that potentially could destroy the Judeo-liberal narrative because it goes straight to the emotions of the masses, who ignore what actually happened in the war.

The pair also spoke of Charlottesville, religion and spirituality but it is no longer necessary to follow them.

Three-eyed raven, 2

Indented paragraphs are taken from Who We Are by William Pierce:

The four centuries between the Dorian invasion and the flowering of the literate Classical civilization are referred to by most historians as “the Dark Age,” for much the same reasons that the period between the fall of Rome, more than fifteen centuries later, and the flowering of Mediaeval civilization is also called “the Dark Ages.”

In both cases a people of an older civilization, who had begun to succumb to racial mixing and decadence, was overwhelmed by a more vigorous and racially healthier but culturally less advanced people from the north. And in both cases a period of gestation took place over a dozen generations or so, during which a synthesis of old and new elements, racial and cultural, occurred, before a new and different civilization arose from the ruins of the old.

Unfortunately, most historians tacitly assume that the records of political and cultural activity which have come down to us from periods of civilized literacy provide all the data needed to yield an understanding of the historical process. The state of development and degree of organization and complexity of city life are taken as a yardstick by which to evaluate the significance or historical importance of a particular period. And if one’s standards of value are geared to such things as the volume of commerce, the gross national product, or even the intensity of scientific, literary, and artistic activity, such a yardstick may seem, at first glance, to be proper.

But there are other standards of value, such as those of the National Alliance, which differ somewhat from the customary ones. For it is not in the external forms of organization and activity of a people that we see the most important criteria for making a judgment as to the significance of a particular period, but rather in the actual racial constitution of a people and in the dynamic processes which, for better or worse, are influencing that racial constitution.

Unfortunately, those are not the standards of white nationalists. For instance, it is common among anti-nordicist WNsts to use the card of the Iberian conquests of the 16th century and the Iberian colonisation in the following centuries as proof that Iberians were equal to the English—completely ignoring the fact that in those centuries Iberians were polluting their blood both in the Americas and in the peninsula itself; in the case of Portugal, even with Negroes.

Although the basic racial constitution of a people is always intimately related to that people’s achievements in commerce, science, industry, art, politics, and warfare, still the two sets of criteria can lead to fundamentally different evaluations of a given historical period. This is a consequence of the fact that race building and decay are usually strongly out of phase with civilization building and decay.

Thus, the long ages between the periods of maximum civil activity—ages which the historian customarily ignores as being of only slight importance—may very well be periods of the greatest interest from a standpoint of racial dynamics.

It is, of course, true that the periods of maximum civil activity are precisely those which yield a maximum of written records, artifacts, and the other raw materials from which the historian builds his tale. But relative abundance of evidence should not be interpreted as equivalent to relative historical significance, regardless of the historian’s value criteria.

The record of the rise and fall of pure races constitutes the primary history of mankind, and the rise and fall of civilizations occupy a place of secondary importance. This statement may seem self-evident to those already accustomed to looking at history from a racial viewpoint, but it is by no means generally accepted by historians today. Until it is, much historical writing will continue to be flawed in a fundamental way.

This meta-perspective radically changed my normie POV of History. Now I see that the Early Middle Ages (or early medieval period), lasting from the 5th to the 10th century CE, is pivotal to understand Europe. Without the Raven’s powers of retro-cognition and his chapters on Greece and Rome, it would never have occurred to me that the periods when the race is consolidating in its purity are the fertile ground on which the best Aryan culture will grow. It is enough to compare English-speaking countries in this continent with those speaking Spanish and Portuguese to prove it. (Unlike ignorant white nationalists I don’t use “North America” because this term, in fact, includes Mexico.)

Something similar could be said about Europe. The anti-nordicism among many white nationalists is so religiously blind that they have not even been able to assimilate the genetic catastrophe that happened in Portugal. Anti-nordicism is one of the many reasons why I believe that white nationalism must die in the United States in the pursuit of a new religion for whites that embraces the ideals of German National Socialism.

Changing the subject, on Skype I have discussed with my friends about the Nazi symbols. Correct me if I am wrong: but it seems to me that you do not believe that we should use the symbols of the Germans of the last century.

My answer is that the swastika is a universal symbol for the Aryan race. Why not create a pro-white movement on both sides of the Atlantic using flags with the colours of the flag of each nation? From this angle, the swastika flag of American nationalists will include red, blue and white—in contrast to red, black and white in the flag that Hitler devised.

Note: The above quotations of Pierce’s book are contextualized in The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour (available: here). If life permits, next Tuesday I will comment on another passage from the same visionary chapter on Greece coming from the pen of the American Raven.

NS poster, 3

This poster seems to be dated 1924, a period during which the National Socialist Party was banned after the 1923 Beer Hall Putsch. The caption reads: “Germany’s Liberation.” It likely came from one of the substitute parties founded to continue the movement while the NS Party was illegal.

Published in: on July 19, 2017 at 8:46 am  Leave a Comment  

NS poster, 2

This is a typical early National Socialist poster from 1921. The first National Socialist posters had bright red backgrounds and a lot of text. This one announces that Hitler will speak; gives the topic, and notes that Jews are prohibited from attending. In Mein Kampf Hitler wrote:

“We chose red for our posters, since it is vivid and was the colour that most aroused our opponents. It forced them to notice and remember us.”

Published in: on July 12, 2017 at 9:00 am  Comments (2)  

Why we are antisemites

by Adolf Hitler

Excerpted from a speech in a public meeting in the Great Hall
of the Hofbräuhaus organised by the National Socialist
German Workers Party in 15 August 1920:

My dear countrymen and women! We are quite used to being generally referred to as monsters. And we are considered particularly monstrous because, in a question that certain gentlemen in Germany are nervous about, we are marching at the head—namely in the question of the opposition to the Jews.

Note of 20 September 2017:

Carolyn Yeager, who translated the speech, has just threatened: “Take it down from your blog. You don’t have permission to post it. I will file a complaint with WordPress if you don’t.”

Note that I didn’t reproduce her whole translation, only excerpts. No male racist that I know, except her ol’ friend Tan, has reached this level of hysteria.


by Joseph Goebbels

A passage from Der Nazi-Sozi, Elberfeld: Verlag der Nationalsozialistischen Briefe, 1927:

“You make a lot of noise about the fact that you oppose the Jews. Isn’t anti-Semitism outdated in the twentieth century? Isn’t the Jew a human being like everyone else? Aren’t there decent Jews? Isn’t it bad that we 60 million fear 2 million Jews?”

“You miss the point. Try to think logically:

If we were only anti-Semites, we would be out-of-place in the twentieth century. However, we are also socialists. For us, the two go together. Socialism, the freedom of the German proletariat and thereby of the German nation, can only be achieved against the Jews. Since we want Germany’s freedom, or socialism, we are anti-Semites.

Sure, the Jew is also a human being. None of us has every doubted that. But a flea is also an animal—albeit an unpleasant one. Since a flea is not a pleasant animal, we have no duty to defend and protect it, to be of service to it so that it can bite and torment and torture us. Rather, our duty is to make it harmless.

The same is true of the Jew.

Sure, there are decent (weiße) Jews. More of them every day. That however, is not evidence for the Jews, but rather it is evidence against them. The fact that one calls scoundrels among us decent “Jews” is proof that to be Jewish carries a stigma, else one would call deceitful Jews “decent (gelbe) Christians.” The fact that there are so many decent Jews proves that the destructive Jewish spirit has already infected wide circles of our people. It is encouragement for us to carry on the battle against the Jewish world plague wherever possible.

It is a bad sign for you, not for us, that 60 million fear 2 million Jews. We do not fear these 2 million Jews, but rather we fight against them. You, however, are too much of a coward to join this battle, and behave like a cat on a hot stove.

If these 60 million fought the Jews as we do, they would have nothing more to fear. It would be the Jews’ turn to fear.”

Published in: on July 5, 2017 at 10:05 am  Leave a Comment  

NS poster, 1

This poster announces a National Socialist meeting in Munich in May 1920. Hitler is to speak on the topic “What do we want?” The text below the title reads:

“Citizens! Do not believe that the Germany of misfortune and misery, the nation of corruption and usury, the land of Jewish corruption, can be saved by parties that claim to stand on a foundation of facts. Never!”

Published in: on July 5, 2017 at 9:15 am  Comments (3)