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.
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.”