Wednesday, May 26, 2010


Hitler’s defeat
was the defeat of Europe.
And of America.
How could we have been so blind?

– Edmund Connelly

Last February represented a milestone in the development of my thought. Even though I had read The Gulag Archipelago in Manchester ten years ago, I was unaware that the Jews were over-represented in the crimes committed by Stalin’s willing executioners. Nor did I know that the Jews were over-represented too in the strenuously lobbying through more than a century to open the gates for massive, non-Aryan immigration into the United States: something far more devastating for the American soul than what the Muslims did on 11 September of 2001 (Tanstaafl’s appropiation of Auster’s First Law applies here, something that will be more evident in the next decades).

My awakening to the realities of the Jewish Question (JQ) was such that I am no longer on speaking terms with some conservative bloggers who are willfully blind to acknowledge that such JQ does indeed exist. The paradigm shift was so cataclysmic that in those February days I did not dare to tell the whole story of what was going on in my mind. Now that I have purchased some books and read what is perhaps the best on the JQ, Kevin MacDonald’s The Culture of Critique, I must confess a soliloquy I had in my private diaries. On my copy of Mein Kampf, on 27 February 2010 I wrote:

After the lightning bolt that pissed off Taksei so much, I realized that—oh irony of ironies!—Hitler was right about his “anti-Semitism” (though I still believe he was wrong about accepting the genocide of Jews in 1942). The irony is that in a very recent post [now removed from this blog] I say exactly the opposite, that anti-Semitism is wrong. Now I must settle the score with Hitler. Let’s see how much I can stand reading this book...
It was the same copy of Mein Kampf that I had started to read in 1996, when I was a staunch philo-Semite. In 1996 I was living in Houston and annotated that copy with many longhand footnotes about Hitler’s purported “paranoia” on the JQ (as I have said, most of my life I was unaware about what the Jews had done in Russia and in America). The “irony” I referred to above was my realization that, just as I had a lightning experience, young Adolf had experienced something quite similar before my grandma was born. Since in my second reading of Mein Kampf I no longer held that pondering around the JQ was by itself paranoia, the experience was like leafing through the book for the first time in my life. There’s a world of difference between reading it while one is sleeping in the Matrix and after one is violently unplugged from the Matrix. I don’t claim having read it all (it’s boring). But what struck me in my second try is what Arthur Koestler used to call “The angel of the library.” Right after the lightning that split my intellectual life in twain, the angel conducted me right to the page where young Adolf describes... his own lightning experience! Starting on page 55 of the translation by Ralph Manheim that I had acquired in Houston, Hitler wrote:
My views with regard to anti-Semitism thus succumbed to the passage of time, and this was my greatest transformation of all. It cost me the greatest inner soul struggles, and only after months of battle between my reason and my sentiments did my reason begin to emerge victorious. Two years later, my sentiment had followed my reason, and from then on became its most loyal guardian and sentinel.
Just compare it with the quotation of Mein Kampf I liked before the lighting struck me. It describes the mind of a teenage Adolf before the lighting struck him:
For the Jew was still characterized for me by nothing but his religion, and therefore, on grounds of human tolerance, I maintained my rejection of religious attacks in this case as in others. Consequently, the tone, particularly that of the Viennese anti-Semitic press, seemed to me unworthy of the cultural tradition of a great nation. I was oppressed by the memory of certain occurrences in the Middle Ages [pogroms], which I should not have liked to see repeated. (p. 52)
Last month Occidental Dissent published a short article on Hitler open for discussion. I was fascinated by the exchanges between Greg Johnson, the former editor of The Occidental Quarterly, and another nationalist. As I have done in my previous posts, I will not include ellipsis or most of the exchanges from other nationalists. The following debate exactly responds to what I had in mind when, back in February, I wrote that I needed to settle the scores with someone whom the politically correct world has turned into the archetype of evil. (Take note that, in one of his responses, Johnson included an article by Irmin that summarizes my current views, “Some Thoughts on Hitler” that I repost way below:)

Some responses to the article Open Thread — Adolf Hitler:

Jackson says: The continuing fetish of Hitler-love of some in the WN [white nationalist] movement is a huge impediment to any sort of racial solidarity today. How could you expect Poles, Hungarians, Czechs, French and all the other people’s of Europe, and their descendents, to “Sieg Heil” this beast? The sooner we leave him behind the better. It is most unfortunate that this otherwise interesting website is disgraced by his picture and a posting saluting him. Please let us be done with Hitler. We don’t need him.

Andrew says: 
I will repeat Jackson’s plea, “Please let us be done with Hitler. We don’t need him.” He is poison to our movement. Our founding fathers, who were committed White Nationalists, should be our guides to the awakening of the WN movement. They were superior to Hitler in almost every way.

Greg Johnson says: Hitler did not start the Second World War. He started a war with Poland, over German territory stolen at the end of the First World War. He started that war in exasperation, having exhausted diplomacy. 
The German-Polish war grew into a world war when the British declared war on Germany and others followed suit. Nothing compelled the British to make that decision. They had their reasons, mostly ignoble and spurious, but nothing compelled them. Their world position was safe; Hitler admired them and their empire. The world was big enough for the British Empire and a reunited Germany. But the British started a World War over a German-Polish border conflict, and tens of millions died, the British Empire collapsed, and half of Europe fell to Stalin. It is amazing that people still conduct discussions of a war that began in 1939 in terms of blatantly false propaganda clichés like “Hitler started the Second World War” and “Hitler wanted to conquer the world.”

Andrew says: Greg, With all due respect, Hitler must receive credit for starting the war. Britain and France had an alliance with Poland. Hitler knew this and attacked anyway. They should instead have let the invasion happen without response? Come on. His Ardennes gambit could have very well failed. If he truly loved Germany or his race, was another devastating war an acceptable risk? I would argue these were maniacal gambles, and it was completely irresponsible for Hitler to roll the dice with the fate of his supposedly beloved folk. 

Greg Johnson says: Britain allied herself with Poland, and stoked Polish intransigence, because they wanted to encourage a war. The elegant proof that the alliance with Poland was merely a pretext for the British to start a war with Germany is that Britain did not declare war on the USSR and Stalin, who also invaded Poland after the Germans had done the lion’s share of the work. And of course while Perfidious Albion was simulating moral outrage over German “aggression” (liberating Germans from foreign oppressors), they were rather less in a lather about Soviet aggression against Finland, Romania, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.

If the Germans had defeated the USSR, a vast, German-dominated, high-tech, racially unified blonde empire would have emerged stretching from the Rhine to the Urals. And a lot of us, I imagine, would prefer living there to what we have to endure today.

Daybreaker and the like: You can condemn Hitler till you are blue in the face, and that will still not alter your status as goyim slated for extinction. Do you really imagine that the only thing standing in our way is abominable Adolf? You remind me of the people who promote the spurious Ben Franklin quote to the effect that America would be perfect, were it not for the one small problem of the Jews, when the truth is that the system Ben Franklin helped create was systematically flawed, hence the rise of the Jews. These sorts of attitudes are appealing, because they spare us the need to reflect on broader, deeper, systemic problems that might implicate us as well.

Why do 99.99% of Whites in the post-war era reject explicit White Nationalism? Because they in no way want to be associated with the mass-murder carried out by the Nazis.
Do you really think that if we changed just one little thing—if Hitler had decided to stay a painter, for instance—that White Nationalism would be enjoying a good press today? Once whites allowed a Jewish take-over of the press, academia, etc., our days were numbered, no matter who became Chancellor of Germany in 1933.

Andrew says: Greg, The aftermath of World War 2 did see a massive shift in the Western public’s perception of Jews, from the widespread anti-Semitism of the 1930s to the widespread sympathy of the 1950s. While Jewish media is an important factor, the Holocaust storyline and Hitler’s swath of destruction are also very important contributors to that shift in public opinion. Without the Holocaust hype and Hitler’s horrors, White Nationalism would be in a much better position today.

Greg Johnson says: 
Andrew: That is a far cry from blaming Hitler for our problems. If Hitler had not existed, we would still be under attack. As long as we allow Jews to determine which leaders are positive and which are negative, all white nationalist leaders will be deemed negative except Jewish tools. The only “respectable” opposition is an ineffectual one. Today, that means one that is controlled by Jews or their tools.

“Some Thoughts on Hitler” by Irmin

1. Hitler as Multiracialist Propaganda

The argument advanced by some racial nationalists that any defense of Adolf Hitler, in light of the hostility and even revulsion that his name now evokes, risks alienating mainstream Whites is plausible on its surface and should receive a respectful hearing. But it is still on balance mistaken.

Although most nationalists in the United States and even in Germany do not consider themselves national socialists, multiracialists and anti-White Jewish advocacy groups call each and every one of us a “Nazi.” It is an undeniable fact that in our contemporary political climate any white nationalism, as recent events in the Balkans amply demonstrate, will be labeled Hitlerian and will summon, in breathless media presentations, “the specter of the Holocaust” and anguished fears that “it” might just happen again, if the goyim get too restless. That, after all, is the central lesson taught by the countless Holocaust Museums sprouting up, like noxious toadstools, throughout most of the West: that White racial consciousness is literally lethal and must therefore be actively combated, a lesson which we have now enshrined, in deference to Jewry, at the Holocaust Museum in Washington, a national memorial to our White wickedness.

We are thus obliged, like it or not, to live under Hitler’s shadow. Our enemies have ensured that any expression of White racial consciousness, however innocuous, will be officially pronounced hatefully Hitlerian and “Nazi,” whether we admire Hitler or despise him. It is therefore incumbent on us, as a simple matter of self-defense, to arrive at a balanced view of Hitler and the movement he founded.

Anyone who doubts all this should recall the abuse that Pat Buchanan received at the hands of the controlled media and the organized Jewish community during his campaigns for the Republican nomination. Buchanan is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a national socialist, nor even a conscious racialist. He is, instead, a traditional Christian conservative, with all the virtues and liabilities that entails. But he was persistently labeled a “Nazi” nevertheless. [After] his 1992 speech at the Republican National Convention, Jewish columnist Molly Ivins opined, “probably sounded better in the original German.” Her meaning was clear: She was identifying Buchanan as a “Nazi,” delegitimizing his nationalism and social conservatism with the most potent weapon in the Left’s rhetorical arsenal.

So as racial nationalists we can either manufacture false “anti-racist” credentials by claiming to hate Hitler just as much as Abe Foxman does, a subterfuge that I very much doubt will convince anyone, least of all Abe, or we can tell the truth.

The truth is that the maniacal Hitler of popular demonology is a World War II propaganda fiction, and the principal purpose of the fiction’s incessant repetition more than fifty years after the war is to stigmatize any nationalist movement, NS or otherwise. Hitler now represents not a specific historical figure and the political party he led, but nationalism of any variety, from timid anti-immigration conservatives to angry White-power skinheads. The System’s anti-Hitler orthodoxy, invoked almost daily, is in effect tacit propaganda for multiracialism and a potent device to keep all nationalists perpetually hiding in closets, too afraid of labels like “racist” and “Nazi” to openly say what we sincerely believe. We have, therefore, a real interest in demythologizing Hitler, and we have no hope of escaping our association with what he now represents. We can’t run away from Hitler, however much some of us want to.

2. Let’s Notice the Obvious

The crucial facts about World War II are uncomplicated and readily available in mainstream sources. NS Germany had limited war aims: the recovery of territory taken from Germany at Versailles, the acquisition of living space for the German people in the East, and the destruction of the Marxist Soviet Union, history’s most brutal regime. Insofar as the United States had any stake at all in the outcome of the war, it would have been to help Germany and her Axis allies, including thousands of Russian patriots, accomplish the latter. Absent the campaign conducted by the Western democracies to save Stalinism by defeating Hitler, the Soviet Union would have collapsed.

Since America had no national interests in the conflict in Europe, our government deliberately lied about German war aims in order to manufacture the perception that we did, claiming that Hitler had global territorial ambitions, a plan for “world domination.” Over fifty years later most Americans still accept the lies.

The predictable result of the Allied victory and the German defeat was Stalin’s occupation of half of Europe. A war that ostensibly began to restore Polish sovereignty ended with Poland, along with the rest of Eastern Europe, being handed over to the Communists. And in quite concrete terms no American would have died in Vietnam if Hitler had destroyed Soviet Communism, arguably the central objective of his political career; American soldiers fought in Europe so that their sons could die in Southeast Asia.

None of this should be the least controversial. It is a symptom of the effect of persistent propaganda that so many of us fail to notice the obvious.

It is only a slight exaggeration to say that multiracialism itself, along with our servile deference to Jewry, is founded on the mythical image of Hitler as evil incarnate, Satan’s secular counterpart in modern history. Remove the false, childishly simplistic Hitler myth, and a significant ideological justification for multiracialism would collapse. The simple question, “Were Hitler and NS Germany really as evil as everyone says?,” therefore has huge repercussions, and an entire machinery of propaganda—ranging from Hollywood films and “Holocaust education” in the public schools to off-hand comments in the controlled media (“better in the original German”)—has been designed to discourage anyone from even contemplating the obvious but heretical answer.

3. National Socialism

Hitler defined his own national socialism as a uniquely German movement:
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)
In other words, German National Socialism arose at a specific time in a specific place under the pressure of a unique set of historical circumstances, none of which could ever be precisely replicated elsewhere. In particular, the autocratic Führer state, central to NS Germany, would never be acceptable to Americans; our republican political culture and belief in individual rights are, thankfully, far too strong. Hitler was a dictator and his government authoritarian; Americans prefer their political and civil liberties.

Which doesn’t mean that NS Germany was a police state. It had in fact fewer policemen per capita, and far fewer secret police, than either modern Germany or the United States, despite the misleading image most of us have of legions of sinister Gestapo agents kicking down doors in the middle of the night.

The basic principles of national socialism are, nevertheless, universal: that God (or Nature) has assigned each of us to a racial group and has endowed each group with distinct qualities; that a nation is not simply a geographical concept, a set of lines arbitrarily drawn on a map irrespective of the people living within them, but instead derives (or should derive) its political institutions and national objectives from the character of the people themselves; that a nation organized to preserve a race and develop its distinctive character is therefore “natural”; that the strength and social cohesion of a nation derives from its sense of a common identity, of which race is the most important determinant; that in addition to our individual rights we have larger social obligations, not only to the present generation of our nation but to its past and future generations as well; that the primary purpose of a nation is not economic, but the preservation and advancement of its people, economics being subordinate to the volkisch (racial/national) objectives that should be a nation’s core reason for existing.

“The [Nation-] State in itself,” Hitler wrote, “has nothing whatsoever to do with any definite economic concept or a definite economic development. It does not arise from a compact made between contracting parties, within a certain delimited territory, for the purpose of serving economic ends. The State is a community of living beings who have kindred physical and spiritual natures, organized for the purpose of assuring the conservation of their own kind and to help towards fulfilling those ends which Providence has assigned to that particular race or racial branch” (Mein Kampf, I, iv). [Image: NS propaganda poster: “The NSDAP Protects the Racial Community.”]

In the generic sense of the term national socialism is (arguably) not inconsistent with democratic institutions, despite Hitler’s own view of the matter; its true antonyms are multiracialism and capitalist, one-world globalism. Nor is national socialism inconsistent with an American “melting pot” view of ethnicity, provided that the various ethnic groups that comprise the nation are sufficiently similar that each can see a common identity and common destiny in the others—that is, insofar as they, despite their ethnic differences, are branches of the same race and can, therefore, be effectively acculturated to a common set of national ideals.

I consider Hitler less a model to be followed than an avalanche of propaganda we must dig ourselves out from under. Never in human history has a single man received such sustained vilification, the basic effect and purpose of which has been to inhibit Whites from thinking racially and from acting in their own racial self-interest, as all other racial/ethnic groups do. Learning the truth about Hitler is a liberating experience. By the truth I mean not an idealized counter-myth to the pervasive myth of Hitler as evil incarnate, but the man himself, faults and virtues, strengths and weaknesses. Once you’ve done it, once you’ve discovered the real Hitler beneath the lies and distortions that have buried his legacy, you’ll be permanently immunized against anti-White propaganda, because you will have seen through the best/worst the System has to offer.


The above article by Irmin
was originally posted in Racial Nationalist Library.
It represents the food for thought I'd been looking for - Chechar


That said, costume Nazi groups, uncritical Hitler-worship, debating the minutiae of the Second World War, etc. are easily parodied by the enemy and usually do not help our cause.

Andrew says: Greg [wrote]:
The argument advanced by some racial nationalists that any defense of Adolf Hitler... risks alienating mainstream Whites... is still on balance mistaken... It is an undeniable fact that in our contemporary political climate any white nationalism... will be labeled Hitlerian... We are thus obliged, like it or not, to live under Hitler’s shadow.
This line of reasoning is not logical. If White Nationalists will be labelled by opponents as Satanic, does that mean we need to find a way to defend and apologize for Satan and live under Satan’s shadow? Defending Hitler, Genghis Khan or Ivan the Terrible, or having anything whatsoever to do with those historical figures, is completely unnecessary. It is true that in the debate, WNs will be labelled with any handy disparaging epithet and compared to any negative stereotype that has the potential to smear. But in a debate, the best tactic is to completely reject those labels and comparisons.

American White Nationalism should have its roots in the writings and designs of the founding fathers. Benjamin Franklin wanted “lovely White” people to populate the nation, not the “tawny” ones. Jefferson wrote quite a bit about race realism, he and Madison wrote about the impossibility of Blacks living in the same government as Whites. Lincoln was a WN as well, and his successor Andrew Johnson talked about America as a “White Man’s Nation” as did most major public figures of the time. Truman’s quote from his diary about America being meant for the White Man is also useful. We have a vast arsenal of immigration law, government policy and writing by the greatest Americans in history that all defines, supports and defends the WN position. Hitler has absolutely nothing to do with American White Nationalism, and I would argue he should be rejected completely as a foreign leader of an enemy nation in an old war fought by our grandfathers.

Greg Johnson says: Andrew, what will you say when someone replies to your all-American version of White Nationalism: “But if Jefferson, Franklin, and the rest were racists, then they were just like Hitler!”? Evading the issue will not help.

Andrew says: While on this topic, Greg, a massive opportunity that lies before the WN movement right now is the Tea Party movement, which is almost all White, politically active, patriotic and angry, under continual verbal attack as “racists.”

Euro says: Whatever the merits or demerits of the Nazi regime this much is clear: it wasn’t any variation of the “respectable right” that put up any meaningful resistance to Leninist-Stalinist designs on Western Civilization. Far from it. Parliamentarism, Capitalism and various Christian ecclesiastical outfits were almost invariably on the Leninist-Stalinist side. This is the crux of the whole matter. That’s the point. Whatever failures the Nazi/Fascists are responsible for, without their enormous efforts we today would be utterly doomed. We should celebrate them for that.

Junghans says: Greg, you’ve tested the waters here with a very hot topic. I’ve refrained from entering this thread until now. No White person, and especially a WN, can escape the shadow of Hitler, and that should be obvious to any sentient person. This is an issue that will not go away, and will eventually have to be dealt with by Whites. In this vein, I think that the article by Irmin that you quoted in post #67 is basically balanced and explains the “Hitler ghost” dilemma about as well as anybody can. The destruction of nationalist Europe in 1945 was a severe blow to White ethnic interests, and a watershed event of disastrous proportions. We are all still stunned by the fratricide, and are trying to dig out of the moral and intellectual rubble. We wish it hadn’t happened, but it did.
Stormfront has a sub-forum on the Second World War that discusses these issues, and that’s where passions of the subject are regularly vented.

Greg Johnson says: 
Andrew writes:
If the opposition claims that the founders were racists, they grant WNs a significant victory. If Jefferson is a racist, the opposition grants that the Constitution and founding document of the U.S. (written largely by Jefferson) is a White Nationalist document for a WN nation. Most White Americans, or at least a very large number, regard the founders as intellectual and moral giants. If they are “racists” and thus associated with the WN movement, it greatly legitimizes us. It would be pretty hard to convince Whites that Benjamin Franklin, the kindhearted inventor and postman, and the other founders are “Hitlerites,” or evil.
Andrew, I don’t think that you are right about this. As long as the establishment has the power to demonize the founders as racists, and demonize racists as “like Hitler,” then people will stop thinking of the founders as intellectual and moral giants and start thinking of them as monsters. Indeed, that process has been underway for a long time, chipping away at their reputations.

Jared Taylor made the point in his essay in Race and the American Prospect that the creation of an anti-racist, multiculturalist America means the repudiation of the Founders, the constitution, and most of American history, and he is right. But as long as people are so cowed by charges of “racism” and “Nazism” that they are giving away the future of their country, their race, their progeny, what makes you think that they are going to rally to save their past from obliteration as well? “Racism” and “Nazism” are only verbal sticks to beat us with. If those sticks don’t work, they will just be replaced. The deep underlying problem is the squishiness at the core of Americans and whites in general that make us feel like we need to apologize for ourselves, our ancestors, etc.–apologize to our inferiors and enemies, I might add–and to no avail, because these people will never like us anyway.

“I’m not racist, but...”

You don’t need to complete the sentence, because everything you say is negated by communicating the need to apologize according to a moral code created by our enemies to destroy us. You are playing against the house, and you are going to lose in the long run, because they get to make the rules.

“I’m not a Nazi, but...”

Same problem. The cure is not merely to rehabilitate racism or Hitler (although those things would help some). The cure is to rehabilitate the white character, to get back to the sheer will to live, the self-assertiveness that characterizes every healthy animal.

Andrew says: Greg, You make a valid and insightful point that we cannot simply run away from certain figures because they are considered “racists.” It is also very true that the Left is busily critiquing the founders, and will attempt to make all pro-White symbols, historical figures and spokesmen radioactive through criticism and labelling them as “racists,” etc. However, there is a very important distinction here. Hitler’s legacy is indefensible for a White Nationalist. The Germans did liquidate millions, such as the Slav prisoners of war. Whatever the truth of the Holocaust, many Jews did die, and everyone has seen countless depictions of the horrible piles of bodies being bulldozed into pits. This is ground that we cannot defend, and no amount of pro-White media could rehabilitate Hitler. Even if Hitler was in fact a true hero, another Charles Martel, responsible for saving Western Civilization, he is irretrievably radioactive, his image is toxic death when attempting to persuade someone.

On the other hand, the founders were a “raging festival of awesome” if I may borrow a quote. They are the high ground, a thoroughly defensible fortress of ideas and imagery. In America Besieged! we talk about bulletproof George, surviving horses shot from beneath him, his hat shot off and bulletholes in his coat. Attacking him as a racist plays into our WN hands. His image is everywhere, sternly looking at us from the dollar bill, his name blazoned on streets and schools. It’s one thing to demonize Hitler, but quite another to brand the founders as evil. There is no horrible footage, but rather a vast literature about liberty and morality, as well as paintings and other imagery showing them in heroic poses. They are in some ways like our Greek gods, mythical beings we rightly revere. When the Left attacks them as racists, they offend the very people we want to persuade, patriotic traditional Americans. In spite of the Left’s influence, the ability to demonize the founders is substantially limited.
“Racism” and “Nazism” are only verbal sticks to beat us with. If those sticks don’t work, they will just be replaced. The deep underlying problem is the squishiness at the core of Americans and whites in general that make us feel like we need to apologize for ourselves, our ancestors, etc.

I agree that words such as “Nazi” and “Racist” are simply tools of intimidation, and it is imperative that we develop an immunity to such (this is discussed in America Besieged!, I hope I am making you curious enough to read it). The correct method to deal with smears is to reject them, not defend them. It helps us immensely to be standing on the shoulders of giants such as the founders, where we are in a very strong ideological position that is very attractive to other Whites. That said, you make a strong point that we must hold our ground with the founders, we cannot retreat from them when they are assaulted as slave-owners, racists and Indian-annihilators. The difference is that the founders, who are now legends, can be defended (as opposed to Adolf, who has become the personification of evil incarnate). The fact of the matter is that Adolf really has nothing to do with America or the WN movement here, there is no convincing connection that can be made between men like Franklin and Hitler that is persuasive for traditional Whites.
The cure is not merely to rehabilitate racism or Hitler (although those things would help some). The cure is to rehabilitate the white character, to get back to the sheer will to live, the self-assertiveness that characterizes every healthy animal.
A big part of winning the debate is to point out that every ethnic group has ethnic interests, and that it is absolutely moral and right to protect and assert those interests. I do not think we can rehabilitate racism or Hitler, or that it would be productive to even try. Instead, we reframe the debate, pointing out that it’s all about ethnocentrism, ethnic interests and ethnic conflict, which is completely normal and universal, with deep roots in our human brains and behavior patterns. Ethnic conflict is inevitable, and ethnic separation is the only reasonable solution (of course this is all discussed in America Besieged!).

Svigor says: Whites Unite [wrote]:
Why do 99.99% of Whites in the post-war era reject explicit White Nationalism? Because they in no way want to be associated with the mass-murder carried out by the Nazis. As long as you persist in Hitler admiring, you will be rejected by the vast majority of your own people—not because of “Jewish propaganda,” but because the vast majority of our people embrace universalistic concepts of right and wrong, as they have since the days of the Stoics and especially since the advent of Christianity.
That’s horseshit. Most whites, like most people, are sheep. The bleat how they’re told. Nowadays that means how their media-government-academic complex tell them to. It has nothing to do with a considered, thoughtful opinion on anything for the sheep.

- end of excerpts from the Occidental Dissent exchange -

My present take on the subject is that because the U.K. and the U.S. literally sided with Stalin to crush Germany (photo), whites are now literally threatened with extinction. If unlike Hitler and the Nazis—cf. the NS propaganda poster above—we persist to ignore the Talmudic admonition that “the best of the goyim must be destroyed,” we’ll go extinct. I believe that Johnson was right way above when he said that the system that the mythical founders helped to create was systematically flawed, hence the rise of the Jews. Read this trilogy to see what do I mean.

I know, I know... This does not justify the atrocities committed by the Germans with the Polish Slavs, the people of Belarus and the Jews in the heat of the Second World War. But I must end this entry paraphrasing Nietzsche: “He who fights monsters —‘the best of the non-Jews must be destroyed...’— should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster.”


Chechar said...

A very typical comment coming from Germanophiles that bothers me is something that usually goes like this: “The only thing that went wrong with Hitler and the Nazis is that they lost the war.” This way of phrasing it means that it’s the product of someone still sleeping in the Matrix.

The photo I included above is worth of a thousand words. What Churchill and Roosevelt did was nothing less than the most catastrophic political blunder in the entire history of the West since Constantine handed over the empire to the bishops at the dawn of the Age of Darkness. Anyone who has freed himself from the Matrix would rephrase the sentence thus: “The only thing that went wrong is that the United Kingdom and the United States ganged up on Germany resulting in that all of us lost the war against Stalin.” In the Occidental Dissent commentariat section a Hitler letter to Mussolini was quoted: “At this point it makes no difference whether America officially enters the war or not, it is already supporting our enemies [Stalin included] in full measure with mass deliveries of war materials.”

As can be surmised in my footnote to the Yalta Conference photo, Churchill and Roosevelt were the most notorious useful idiots of Western history. Failing to see them as such, failing to condemn these idiots publicly in the parliaments, the academia and the media, can only mean that the Matrix is still in command, and will be in command, of the minds of most Westerners.

These are my proposed steps to diminish Jewish influence (i.e., the Matrix) for those who have awakened: Let’s normalize the Second World War narrative and stop demonizing Hitler and his Reich more than they deserve.

Anonymous said...

We should also reevaluate Franco who saved Spain from the scourge of Jewish Bolshevism.

Chechar said...

Agreed. Franco, who had an alliance with Germany, must be vindicated too.

Hitler’s dream was an alliance with the British Empire. But it was the British Empire that declared war on Germany, and it was Churchill who rejected Hitler’s offer of peace in July 1940. In Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War, Pat Buchanan believes that the Second World War was the result of British blundering on a colossal scale. He even raises the possibility that the Holocaust could have been averted hadn’t Churchill committed the blunder of the century:

But because Britain issued the guarantee to Poland and declared war on Germany, by June 1941 Hitler held hostage most of the Jews of Western Europe and the Balkans. By 1942, after invading Ukraine, Byelorussia, the Baltic states, and Russia, he held hostage virtually the entire Jewish population of Europe.

Yet neither the Allies nor the Soviets were focused on the potential fate of the hostages Hitler held. At Casablanca in 1943, Churchill and FDR declared their war aim as “unconditional surrender.” At Quebec in 1944, Churchill and FDR approved the Morgenthau Plan calling for the destruction of all German industry. Goebbels used the Morgenthau Plan to convince Germans that surrender meant no survival. Annihilation of their hostages was the price the Nazis exacted for their own annihilation.

Wandrin said...

"He even raises the possibility that the Holocaust could have been averted hadn’t Churchill committed the blunder of the century:"

That's the problem with this line. What it does is take the blame for all the bad stuff that happened off the Germans and dump it on the Anglo-Americans. This is no doubt popular with certain groups but the end result of a never ending argument between anglos vs germans and irish is not very helpful.

Instead of arguing about the early years of the war WNs should focus on the Bolshevik holocaust from 1917 onwards and Hitler's rise to power as a reaction to that. This makes the fault for all that came after lie with the Bolsheviks.

Anonymous said...

I found this from F.Britton's book 'Behind Communism which was written in 1952'
Propaganda in the Movies
For many years Hollywood limited its activities to the more subtle types of propaganda, but in recent years this has changed. Hollywood has now committed itself to producing at least four "race" pictures annually. Most of these pictures are destined beforehand to lose money, and are made for purely propaganda purposes. Some are so inflammatory they cannot be shown in certain sections of the United States.
Typical examples of this type of picture are: "Intruder in the Dust," "Pinky," "Crossfire," "Gentleman's Agreement," "No Way Out," and "Home of the Brave." Invariably these pictures seek to inflame minority groups by portraying them as being abused and persecuted by white "bigots." Such propaganda is frankly designed to arouse race hatred among Negroes, Mexicans, Jews, and other so-called minority groups. These people are being systematically taught to think and act in terms of race—they are being taught a hate philosophy. But there is another aspect to this kind of propaganda. While minorities are being taught race consciousness the white majority is instilled with a sense of guilt for these "wrongs" committed against minority groups. We are taught that consciousness of race is "un-American" and a manifestation of bigotry. We are told that all races are the same, and that we should discard the concept of race.
In this respect, all Jewish propaganda squares exactly with the communist line. There is a popular misconception to the effect that communism strives to set one race against another. This is a half-truth, which means it is more dangerous than a lie. The one thing communists fear more than anything else is a rebirth of race consciousness among the great white majority of the Christian world The communists remember that the very instant the German people became race-conscious, they turned with deadly fury against Jewish-communism. They know the same thing could happen in this country. Therefore, all communist—and Jewish—propaganda is directed in an effort to destroy every vestige of race consciousness among the white people. That is what red propagandists seek to achieve with their propaganda movies and their "tolerance campaigns."

Sam Davidson said...

If one takes an honest look at the situation around Germany, one will find that it was in fact looking for a fight - but not a world war. Hitler wanted to fight the Czechs or maybe Poland - but he never wanted to fight England. The blame for world war belongs to the Allies. They declared war on Germany for invading Poland but simultaneously ignored the Soviet Union's invasion.

As early as 1937 Roosevelt was making speeches for the necessity of "quarantining" Germany. That was before Anschluss, the Sudetenland affair, and the annexing of the Czechs! The United States was in a state of undeclared war with Germany until 1941. American ships opened fire on German ships in international waters, American ships reported German activities to the Allies, and American vessels sent shipments of supplies to the Allies.

Meanwhile, the Soviet Union attacked Finland and annexed numerous small countries on its borders. The Allies didn't even blink.

Is it necessary to rehabilitate Germany for us to confront the Jewish Question? I don't think so. We don't need to go all the way back to 1920s Germany to gain an understanding of the Jewish Question. There's plenty of things to talk about that's happening right now: the Jewish push for the second Gulf War, the Jewish banks being subsidized by the American government, and the nonstop flow of massacres and killings in Israel.

Wandrin said...

"Is it necessary to rehabilitate Germany for us to confront the Jewish Question?"

I think it's neccessary to at least partially rehabilitate the German people.

The multicult is built on white guilt. Our lack of defence to genocidal levels of immigration is based on taught white guilt. Anyone who tries to argue against genocidal levels of immigration is called a Nazi to shut them up.

The multicult version of history tells us that the German people voted for the Nazis out of racism, anti-semitism, madness etc. It may mention unemployment, inflation and Versailles. However what the official version always leaves out is in the 16 years between 1917 and 1933 when Hitler came to power the Bolsheviks murdered tens of millions of people a few hundred miles from Germany's eastern border.

That changes the picture somewhat.

The point being that when you add the Bolshevik holocaust into the equation you give the German people a perfectly understandable reason for voting for the Nazis.


This doesn't neccessarily change anything about the Nazis themselves but it makes it harder for the multicult to pretend the Germans were motivated by some inherent white evil that is always lurking and ready to come out, an idea that is then extended to all white people and used to try and make young white rabbits self-hating and culturally suicidal.

It's similar to multicult attempts in schools to paint the African slave trade as a solely white affair. This is similarly designed to make the young rabbits self-hating. WNs should always stress the Arab and African sides as much as possible to try and make sure the young ones are as vaccinated from this as possible.

The multicult's official version of both slavery and the rise of Hitler are weapons of psychological warfare directed particularly at young white rabbits and should be combated wherever possible. That's not to say we should pretend bad stuff didn't happen just that we need to stop the multicult brain-washing our young into thinking that they are *uniquely* evil.

Chechar said...

Wandrin, I agree with your latest post but don't understand what do you mean with "rabbit".

Wandrin said...


It's a habit i picked up from

Anonymous said...

Checar,I know you are an atheist but do you think there is anything in the fact that, as far as I know, the only country that managed to expell the Muslims and their Jewish facilitators and defeat the Jewish Bolshevists was conservative Catholic Spain? And judging from the reactions of the Spanish to foreign black football players or F1 drivers the Spanish are not very politically correct as far as race is concerned.

Chechar said...

Yes: there may be a connection between old-fashioned Catholicism and WN, as seen in the splendid the case of Poland: where authorities have not engaged in the typical population replacement we suffer elsewhere in the West.

Anonymous said...

The Catholic Church after Vatican 2 is an aberration.It has been infiltrated by Masons and Perverts ;deliberately I am sure. Protestanism to me is more Jewish than Christian. I am writing to you because you don`t demonstrate the knee jerk anti-catholicism that seems so prevalent.
I am a traditional Catholic and I believe that the huge difference between Catholics and Jews is firstly the Catholic belief in Incarnation and because God has lived in our material world He has elevated it.Hence the wonderful Art, Music and Architecture of Western Civilisation. Secondly, a belief in Life after death. I can't remember who but someone said that without belief in life after death there can be no virtue.
My worry is that Europe because of years of atheism will not have the philosophical or spiritual tools to resist Islam or a one-world atheistic dictatorship.

Chechar said...

I come from a very Catholic family. My own take on the subject of atheism is that it was good in the hands of the Nazis (although Hitler himself ended up as godfather of Goebbels’ marriage in a Christian church). They tried to create a new ethos, a new worldview. Christianity was on decline already in the 1930s and the Nazis rightly tried to capitalize on that. The big monstrosity is that the UK and the US sided Stalin, who unlike Hitler’s represented an atheism that was extremely toxic for the West. The UK and the US will have to pay historically for the greatest sin in Western history: siding with the bad guy.

C A W said...

Chechar wrote: "(though I still believe [Hitler] was wrong about accepting the genocide of Jews in 1942)"

Don't worry, the thought will grow on you, and you'll come around to it, sooner or later. Just give it a little time!

Chechar said...

CAW, I'll discuss this issue in my next entry.

In Tone-Deaf “White Nationalism,” a post about Greg Johnson’s sympathetic views on the Third Reich, Dennis Mangan didn’t let pass through most of my comments; not even a three-line comment with a link to Irmin’s article (cited in toto above). Instead, at the moment of writing Mangan accepts post after post by a teenage girl!

I better give up trying to post there. A Jewish commenter in that thread said: “It will be interesting to see how many WNs fall on your side [Mangan’s] of it, and how many on Greg Johnson's side.”

I believe that Johnson is right and that Mangan simply doesn’t get it.

Johnson did post a comment in that article. Mangan responded: “trying to rehabilitate the Nazis for the cause of white advocacy is dumb, and verges on complicity with evil.”

Isn’t this PC horseshit? Does Mangan know that the system that the American Founders created was flawed, hence the rise of the Jews?

To my mind, the Bolshevik Holocaust or Red Terror (Jewish Terror?) explains and justifies Nazism. But Mangan and those who would never dare to touch the red pill won’t see it.

I believe it’s possible to rehabilitate Nazism prior to Hitler’s military blunders and the genocidal actions of the 1940s. Hitler was the first powerful politician who understood the ultimate consequences of the conflict of interests between the German people and the Jews. He tried to solve it. Originally, his intentions weren’t genocidal (the Madagascar plan).

Yes: I understand that for most people Johnson’s stance on the Third Reich is difficult to accept after decades of invasive, carpet-bombing propaganda. But anyone who has read the Gulag Archipelago finds it surprising to see how different Solzhenitsyn—who had fought the Nazis—treats the Nazis compared to our MSM and intellectuals.

I would include a self-styled “reactionary” like Mangan among these intellectuals.

Wandrin said...

Chechar said...

Your latest response there hits the nail. I could have said something similar but for me, who think in Spanish and take a long time translating my thoughts into a reasonable English, it’s frustrating that an elaborated post doesn’t get through at Mangan’s (I’m done there). Anyway: thanks for replying to those who place blame squarely on the West (I tend to blame both: the frog and the scorpion): that’s everything but “shallow thinking”.

Wandrin said...

"I tend to blame both"

Same. I oversimpilfy on one side intentionally to compensate for the official version.

Anonymous said...

Chechar check out this hugely informative and illuminating collection of articles with regard to the destructive role of Jewry & Christianity for the White race & culture, by Revilo Pendleton Oliver, one of the early champions of the White Nationalist cause.
Greetings from a brown-skinned guy from India.... keep up the good work..... I am ideologically very supportive of White racial interests for the sake of the whole darn civilization.......

Anonymous said...

the url

Chechar said...

Thanks Puru (I got your name from your other post). Great link!

I’ll read that slim book, The Jewish Stategy by Revilo Oliver, as soon as I have time.


auroranorth said...

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin ? What is worse than a brainwashed White Liberal is a White Nationalist without the courage to step forward and face the hate, Saga says it best in her song at you tube ode to a dying race.

Chechar said...

“Stepping forward” is not so easy for the moment, except perhaps moving to the Northwest as the Old Man recommends...

Armor said...

Chechar : "I know, I know... This does not justify the atrocities committed by the Germans with the Polish Slavs, the people of Belarus and the Jews in the heat of the Second World War."

I won't say anything about the Jews since it is forbidden territory, but I wonder where can be found a believable account of large scale atrocities committed by the Germans against Polish Slavs and non-Jewish Belorussians during WW2 ?

I had a brief look at wikipedia. What I found reads like typical Jewish rubbish, even though it is not about the Jews.
1. Belarus 20th Century
2. Nazi occupation

An excerpt: "Not rarely the destruction of their village seemed to the inhabitants casual, without a reason, unexplainable, or they believed there had been a confusion. Coincidences, arbitrariness and blind violence may have played a part, but the German decisions about death or life generally followed strategic lines, which understandably remained hidden from the victims."

I didn't read further. I also looked up, but they don't have a lot on Belarus.

Chechar said...

It may sound a bit silly but when I wrote that sentence I had in mind a Russian film I watched long time ago, Come and See (Idi i smotri). I didn’t bother to check the accuracy of the film’s message.

Anyway, recently I saw a David Irving YouTube video. Irving recognized that Slavs suffered greatly under the occupation. He even used the word “crimes”.

I don’t see anything wrong with acknowledging the historicity of such crimes. What bothers me greatly is the black-and-white propaganda against Germany.

Armor said...

"I don’t see anything wrong with acknowledging the historicity of such crimes."

But we don't know what crimes exactly.

"What bothers me greatly is the black-and-white propaganda against Germany."

The wikipedia article I linked to is an example of black-and-white propaganda against Germany. Basically, as someone said on the IHR website, we are now told that the Nazis killed six million Jews... and six million Slavs.

Basically, they say that the German occupation of Eastern Europe was much harsher than the occupation of France, and the reason was German racial contempt for the Slavs. By contrast, Jewish racial hostility was not a factor at all in the massacres committed by the judeo-bolsheviks in Eastern Europe. How do we know? Because they tell us so.

But on, I find things like this :
Wartime Photo Journal of German Soldier Made Public
Uncover the Truth

The photo journal of a German soldier who documents his service and conditions in the occupied Soviet Union during the Second World War has been made public. The journal dispels myths about wartime German attitudes and policies in occupied Soviet Ukraine and Russia. It contains no mention of “superior” Germans, nor of supposedly “subhuman” Slavs (“Untermenschen”), and shows that religious expression was not hindered, in contrast to the anti-Christian policies of the Soviet regime. The soldier’s daughter, Christine Miller, authorized the online publication of the journal, which includes many photos.

Armor said...

Still on the same IHR website, a remark by Zündel (May 2000) :
Eastern Revisionism
"While we build monuments to the six, five, four, three, one, million, whichever million you believe, in Eastern Europe, in the Baltic states, and in Belarus they're building monuments to SS men. Latvian and Estonian veterans of the SS are marching down the streets of their capitals with people on the curb cheering and saluting them."

And an interesting article about communist duplicity :
Confusion on Khatyn & Katyn

Chechar said...

Armor: Have you deleted your recent comments? I can read them thru my email but I don't see them here.

Anyway, I agree on the need of an Umwertung aller Werte from what we have been told for decades. I am not familiar with the IHR but the videos I saw this week convinced me that I must read Irving’s work on this subject.

Armor said...

I haven't deleted anything. I suppose it will appear shortly ! If not, it doesn't matter.

Chechar said...

How strange: your posts haven’t appeared yet.

In the Occidental Observer (OO) thread where we met a commenter just posted this:

The Jew always wants to control the discussion and position himself as the only judge of what is acceptable. In pursuit of this, he won't hesitate to use censorship if you let him. If shouting you down doesn't work, he's happy to use smear tactics, or try flooding the thread with his nonsensical objections. Why does he do it? It's simple. You can search the Talmud and the Bible all you want, but you will never encounter any mention of free speech. That's a White value, one that Jews not only can't understand, but one that literally fills them with rage.

Accordingly, the self-admitted Jew [another OO commenter] always recommends the kosher path when it comes to White survival. He demands we stop any talk about Hitler or Nazis, because Jews and Judaized Whites think it's too scary. He also says Hitler is bad because he opposed American values like race-mixing and "free" elections where the electorate is offered a choice between a kosher Tweedledum and a kosher Tweedledee. He also named the Jew, rather than letting him direct things in silence from behind the curtain.

Yep, that Hitler was a very bad guy alright.