Not until the “Vernichtung” of the Whites
Auschwitz is the new Sinai.
Jewishness is not anymore about being the people most loved by God, but about
being the people most hated by men.[1] This
new version of chosenness requires that Jewish suffering be “uniquely unique,”
unparalleled in all human history. This in turn requires that Nazi cruelty
against Jews be supreme, absolute — the unprecedented manifestation of pure
metaphysical evil. In this new Holocaust religion, miracles do happen.
Professor Simon Baron-Cohen suffered no ridicule for telling in his book The Science of Evil (2011) how, as “one of the many
‘experiments’ they had conducted,” “Nazi scientists had severed Mrs.
Goldblatt’s hands, switched them around, and sewn them on again so that if she
put her hands out palms down, her thumbs were on the outside and her little
fingers were on the inside.”[2]
Jewish sanctification is not
the sole purpose behind the endless demonization of Hitler and Nazism. Another
purpose is to make the anthropological bases of National Socialism unspeakable
and unthinkable. Some fundamental ideas that once could be recognized as true,
and even self-evident by a majority of people, are now banned from public
discourse under the pretext that they are reminiscent of Nazism.
The “naziest” of these ideas
is, of course, the greatness of the White race. Hitler spoke of the Aryan race,
by which he meant all Germanic peoples, including the Dutch, Swedes,
Norwegians, Finns, Swiss, as well as the English, whose leading ethnos is
primarily of Anglo-Saxon and Norman descent.
“All human culture, art,
science, and invention which surround us are almost exclusively the creative
product of the Aryan race. This very fact justifies the deduction that the
Aryan alone was the founder of a superior type of human life and is the
prototype of what we mean by the word ‘man’ today. He is the Prometheus of
humanity from whose brilliant mind the divine spark of genius has always
sprung, ever rekindling the fire which, in the form of knowledge, has
illuminated the night of unspeakable mysteries, and thus sent man up the road
to lordship over the other creatures of this earth. Take him away, and perhaps
within a few thousand years, profound darkness will descend again upon earth,
human civilization will vanish, and the world will become a desert.” (Mein Kampf 255).[3]
Vienna State Opera, painted by Adolf Hitler, 1912
Toward the end of his life,
Frederick Lindemann (1886-1957), Churchill’s Jewish wartime advisor,[4] and
the inspiration for the British “strategic” bombing of German cities, “made a
remark on more than one occasion with such an air of seriousness that he seemed
to regard it as his testament of wisdom: […] ‘Do you know what the future
historians will regard as the most important event of this age? […] It will be
the abdication of the White man.”[5] In
other words, the Nazis’ defeat will mark the beginning of the end of White
civilization. What the Nazis did, Whites will pay for, until they are destroyed
morally, psychologically, demographically, genetically. The insane 1944
“Morgenthau Plan” against Germany, which US Secretary of War Henry Stimson
condemned as “Semitism gone wild for vengeance,”[6] was
not fully implemented, but Jewish vengeance grew into a more far-reaching plan
against the White race. The current cancellation of the White race is the final
phase of the denazification project. This is why anti-Nazism (or anti-Fascism)
is, still today, the banner of the conspiracy against Whites and their
traditional values.
The excellent Andrew Joyce
recently wrote:
“There really is no question about the fact that White identity politics is
post-modernity’s only radical political evil, and Adolf Hitler is its Great
Satan, looming over a horde of contemporary minor demons.” Joyce suggests that,
since White nationalism is identified as unredeemably evil in mainstream
discourse, it cannot fight from that position with rational arguments. What is
needed is a “fight fire with fire” strategy, that is, exposing the evilness of
those who, under the guise of moral principles, are simply engaging in a slow
genocide of their own race. “Aren’t they riddled with the most malevolent of
intentions? Don’t they bleat endlessly about eugenic policies of yesteryear
while paving the way for ‘after-birth abortion.’ They’re not wrong, my friends,
they’re evil.”
I agree, but I want to suggest
a complementary approach. Since the elaborate mythology of Nazi perversity is
the weaponry of the post-modern assault on White civilization, there is no
winning this cultural war without neutralizing it, breaking the spell of
the Reductio
ad Hitlerum. Before
White nationalists or “race realists” can hope to emerge from their trenches
and launch a successful offensive, they will have to first keep pounding at
what Brenton Bradberry calls the “Myth of German Villainy”.
What mainstream culture calls “Nazism” is a bogeyman. We need to deconstruct
this fantasy, by studying the real thing. It starts by calling it by its proper
name, National Socialism.
I am reminded of the story —
can’t remember where I heard it — of a European man who once got a haircut in
India. Unpleased with the result, he complained, “I look like Hitler!” The
barber, flattered, answered with a big smile: “Yes, yes, very nice!” Let’s
learn from the Indians. Next time someone tells you that you sound like Hitler,
say, “Thank you!”
More seriously, de-demonizing
Hitler and National Socialism is not the same as idealizing or promoting them.
There is much to be criticized in Hitler’s philosophical, anthropological and
political views (his anti-Slavism, for instance). They have to be
contextualized, anyway. Ian Kershaw wrote in his introduction to his biography:
“the answer to the riddle of his impact has to be found less in Hitler’s
personality than in the changed circumstances of a German society traumatized
by a lost war, revolutionary upheaval, political instability, economic misery
and cultural crisis.” In truth, Hitler’s personality was shaped by Germany’s
circumstances. History is the mother of psychology. At the end of World War I,
Germany had been stabbed in the back, betrayed, humiliated, dismembered,
ransacked, starved, and Hitler felt like Germany.
Whatever we think about
Hitler’s personality, there is no justification for the ban on balanced or even
positive appraisals of his thought. Should favorable studies of Hitlerism be
banned because of the Third Reich’s alleged crimes against humanity? Let’s
compare, then. The political theory of Karl Marx inspired the most bloody
regimes on earth, responsible for the death of up to one hundred million people
by torture, mass execution, deportation, forced labor or planned starvation,
according to the authors of The Black Book of Communism (1997).[7] And
yet Communists are still allowed to claim that Marx’s theory is true, and that
ideal Communism should not be confused with — and not even blamed for — the
horrors committed in its name. By contrast, the bloodless National Socialist
revolution of 1933 is universally condemned as an evil conspiracy against
humanity, although it performed a social and economic miracle from 1933 to
1939. After visiting Germany in 1936, former British Prime Minister David Lloyd
George wrote (Daily
Express,
September 17, 1936):
“I have now seen the famous
German leader and also something of the great change he has effected. Whatever
one may think of his methods — and they are certainly not those of a
parliamentary country —, there can be no doubt that he has achieved a marvelous
transformation in the spirit of the people, in their attitude towards each
other, and in their social and economic outlook. He rightly claimed at
Nuremberg that in four years his movement had made a new Germany. It is not the
Germany of the first decade that followed the war — broken, dejected and bowed
down with a sense of apprehension and impotence. It is now full of hope and
confidence, and of a renewed sense of determination to lead its own life
without interference from any influence outside its own frontiers. There is for
the first time since the war a general sense of security. The people are more
cheerful. There is a greater sense of general gaiety of spirit throughout the
land. It is a happier Germany. I saw it everywhere, and Englishmen I met during
my trip and who knew Germany well were very impressed with the change. One man
has accomplished this miracle. He is a born leader of men. A magnetic and
dynamic personality with a single-minded purpose, a resolute will and a
dauntless heart. […] As to his popularity, especially among the youth of
Germany, there can be no manner of doubt. The old trust him; the young idolize
him. It is not the admiration accorded to a popular leader. It is the worship
of a national hero who has saved his country from utter despondency and
degradation.”[8]
The merits of Hitler’s
political theory should be judged by what it achieved in peacetime, as it was
intended. “If Providence preserves my life,” Hitler declared in January 30,
1942, “my pride will be the great works of peace which I still intend to
create.”[9] What
happened during the war is a different matter. So here is my modest
contribution to a dispassionate study of Hitler’s political philosophy. It will
shed light on Lindemann’s prophecy.
February 26, 1936: Hitler approves of the Volkswagen model, which
he helped design
Germany and the organic political theory
First, some historical and
theoretical perspective. Hitler’s political philosophy was rooted in a German
tradition that included Fichte, Nietzsche, Kant, Hegel, and Schopenhauer (whose
work Hitler said he carried “throughout the whole of the First World War”).[10] Yvonne
Sherratt, in her book Hitler’s Philosophers (Yale UP, 2013), claims that Hitler misinterpreted them all.
And of course, we cannot know how those great thinkers would have judged
Hitler. But we know at least that Martin Heidegger, the greatest philosopher of
his generation, joined the NSDAP in 1933, and there are enough other examples
to dismiss the silly notion that Hitler’s popularity was only due to his
mastery of propaganda — which was indisputable.
All of “Hitler’s philosophers”
were critical of Jews. Fichte, for instance, wrote in 1793: “Within almost
every country in Europe lies a powerful state, animated by hostile sentiments,
which is continually at war with all the others, and which, in some of them,
terribly oppresses the citizens; I mean the Jews.” Fichte recommanded to treat
Jews with the compassion due to all human beings, but added:
“But as for giving them civil
rights, for my part, I see no other way than to cut off the head of each one of
them one fine night and replace it with another devoid of any Jewish idea.
Otherwise I don’t know how to defend ourselves against them, if not to conquer
their promised land for them and send them all there.”[11]
Fichte’s Addresses to the German
Nation (1808)
had a major influence on German nationalism. In his eighth address,
he seeks to answer the question “What is a people?” as a prerequisite for
answering the question “What is love of fatherland?” In the process, he defines
a nation as a collective being whose existence depends on those who love it
more than themselves. His premise is that man finds meaning in his life by
contributing to “the unending progress in the perfection of his race.” Blood is
what connects nature and culture.
“What man of noble mind is
there who does not earnestly wish to relive his own life in a new and better way
in his children and his children’s children, and to continue to live on this
earth, ennobled and perfected in their lives, long after he is dead? […] In
order to save his nation he must be ready even to die that it may live, and
that he may live in it the only life for which he has ever wished. […] He who
regards his invisible life as eternal, but not his visible life as similarly
eternal, may perhaps have a heaven and therein a fatherland, but here below he
has no fatherland […]. But he to whom a fatherland has been handed down, and in
whose soul heaven and earth, visible and invisible meet and mingle, and thus,
and only thus, create a true and enduring heaven — such a man fights to the
last drop of his blood to hand on the precious possession unimpaired to his
posterity.”
Fichte’s political theory
belongs to what T. D. Weldon calls the “organic theory of the State,” as
opposed to the “mechanical theory” (States and Morals, 1947).[12] “In
any organism,” Weldon explains, “the parts are subordinate to and dominated by
the whole. They therefore necessarily lose their essential character when they
are separated from it.” By contrast, “a machine is made up out of a number or
separate bits each of which exists before it is put into the machine and each
of which can be taken out and used in a different machine without any loss of
reality or, except by accident, of importance.”
By the “mechanical” category is
mostly meant “social contract” theories, initiated by Thomas Hobbes
(1588-1679). For Hobbes, men are social by necessity alone; by nature, “men
have no pleasure (but on the contrary a great deal of grief) in keeping
company.” They enter into social contracts out of fear of violent death. Hobbes
was a monarchist, but with Locke and Rousseau, the contractualist model became
attached to liberalism and democracy. It triumphed in the French Revolution and
remains to this day dominant in French political rhetoric; it is arguably the
basic paradigm of cosmopolitanist ideologues, who want to replace ethnonational
patriotism by a “rationally based loyalty” to constitutional law (Jürgen
Habermas).[13]
Organic theories define the
nation primarily by common ancestry, and regard the family, rather than the
individual, as the basic cell of the social organism. They developed in
reaction to democracy and the dissolving effect of its underlying individualistic
worldview. “If democracy demands equality of political status for all human
beings,” writes Weldon, “then no organic theory of society can be brought into
harmony with it. For the whole idea of an organism is that the elements in it
have different functions to perform and that these functions are not equally
important for the maintenance of the whole.” In reaction to the French
Enlightenment, then to French imperialism, German nationalism crystallized
around an organic and racial definition of the Volk. Before Fichte came Herder’s
ethnic theory of nationalities (Ideas on the Philosophy of the History of Mankind, 1784-91). Herder rejected the
French individualistic anthropology, which postulated an invariable human
nature. Nations are collective beings having each a particular “genius” (an
immortal soul), and nationality is not an accidental attribute of the
individual, but the most essential part of his or her being. Hitler was the
heir of this tradition.
Hobbes’ anthropological premise
that “man is a wolf for man” makes the inherent limit of the contractualist
model evident. It is disproved by modern anthropology, which confirms
Aristotle’s insight that man — like the wolf, for that matter — is a social
animal, and shows that all traditional human societies are held together
organically. Ludwig Gumplowicz has formulated in 1883, in Der Rassenkampf (“The Struggle of the Races”),
the natural law of “syngenism”, referring to the natural sense of kinship
between members of the same race. At the origin of the formation of the
syngenic feeling, there is above all consanguinity, although education,
language, religion, custom, law, and way of life play their part.[14] More
recently Philippe Rushton’s research has shown that empathy tends to be
naturally correlated to genetic similarity.[15] Human
sociability is not primarily rational. It is emotional and rooted in biology.
That is not to say that there
are no contractual processes in the formation of the polis. Laws, of course,
are largely contractual. The point is simply that the culture of sociability is rooted
in human nature, and that natural sociability is
conditioned by kinship or genetic similarity . If we assume that most
nations are held together by a certain equilibrium of organic (syngenic) and
contractual principles, National Socialism is a radical organic political theory.
This is best illustrated in the writing of its legal theorist Werner Best: “The
National Socialist political principle of totality, which corresponds to our
organic and indivisible vision of the unity of the German people, does not
suffer the formation of any political will apart from our own political will.”[16] It
worked for Germans at the time: it pulled their country together, socially,
morally and economically. This is the reason why Germans loved Hitler.
Hitler drew much inspiration
from Benito Mussolini, who gave the clearest expression to the organic,
anti-democratic ideal in The Doctrine of Fascism (1932):
“Fascism sees in the world not
only those superficial, material aspects in which man appears as an individual,
standing by himself, self-centered, subject to natural law, which instinctively
urges him toward a life of selfish momentary pleasure; it sees not only the
individual but the nation and the country; individuals and generations bound
together by a moral law, with common traditions and a mission which […] builds
up a higher life, founded on duty, a life free from the limitations of time and
space, in which the individual, by self-sacrifice, the renunciation of
self-interest, by death itself, can achieve that purely spiritual existence in
which his value as a man consists.”
It must be stressed that for
Mussolini, as for Hitler, the organic unity of the nation does not come
naturally: it is a superior reality created by the State.
“Anti-individualistic, the Fascist conception of life stresses the importance
of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests
coincide with those of the State, which stands for the conscience and the
universal will of man as a historic entity.”
Both the Duce and the Fuhrer
despised Parliamentary democracy because it is not conducive to the emergence
of true leadership, which is the fusional and energizing encounter between a
man’s inner calling to lead, and a people’s inner longing to be led. From the
organic or holistic viewpoint, men have a natural need for hierarchy and
authority, which drives them to collectively subordinate their own will to the
stronger will of a leader, for the sake of the whole.
Benito Mussolini
Hitler’s “race-based nationalist state”
Hitler’s goal, as he explained
in Mein
Kampf (MK), was to create a
“race-based nationalist state.” He believed that a nation’s most precious
God-given treasure is its collective genetic heritage, and that the most sacred
duty of men and women is to protect and transmit it, in order to make their
people eternal.
Like Italian Fascism, National
Socialism is holistic, heroic and sacrificial. “If we ask ourselves what forces
preserve a state, we can lump them all in one category: the ability and
willingness of an individual to sacrifice himself for the whole. These virtues
have nothing at all to do with economics. We can see this from the simple fact
that man never sacrifices himself for economics” (MK 129).
“This will to sacrifice, to
devote personal labor and, if necessary, life itself to others, is most highly
developed in the Aryan. The Aryan’s greatest power is not in his mental
qualities necessarily, but in the extent of his readiness to devote all his
abilities to the service of the community. In him, the instinct of
self-preservation can reach its noblest form because he willingly subordinates
his own ego for the prosperity of the community and is even willing to
sacrifice his own life for it, if necessary. […] This spirit of placing the
community’s prosperity before the self-interests of one’s own ego, is the first
essential element for every truly human culture. This spirit alone has brought
about all the great works of humanity. It brings only a small reward to the
originator, but rich blessings to future generations. This alone makes it
possible to understand how so many people can bear a shabby but honest life
filled with nothing but poverty and insignificance; they know they are laying
the foundation for the existence of the community. Every workman, every
peasant, every inventor, and every civil servant who labors without ever
attaining happiness and prosperity is a pillar of this high ideal, even though
the deeper meaning of his actions are forever hidden from him.” (MK 263)
For Hitler, there can be no
healthy nation without social justice: that is the meaning of “National
Socialism”. It aimed at creating a classless society, not by the violent
destruction of the bourgeois class, but by reducing class conflict through
cooperation in the higher national interest. “We can only prevail if we have
social peace, i.e. if not everyone can do what he wants to […], each is called
upon to show mutual consideration to the others!” (October 4, 1936). On May 1st, 1933, Hitler announced a
period of compulsory labor service for everyone, in order to bring the German
Volk “to the realization that manual labor does not discredit, does not
degrade, but rather, just as any other activity, does honor to him who performs
it faithfully and honestly.” Hitler took pride in having overcome class
hostility and created a genuine Volksgemeinschaft (people’s community):
“It was the gentle as well as
dogged conversion of the former state of classes into a new socialist organism,
a Volksstaat, which alone made it possible for the German Reich to become
immune to all attempts at Bolshevik infection. […] History will one day record
it as one of our greatest accomplishments that we succeeded in beginning and
carrying out the National Socialist revolution in this great state, without
destroying national wealth, and without restricting the creative powers of the
old classes, and, in so doing, obtained a complete equality of rights for all.”
(January 30, 1944)
The National Socialist state claimed
to bring a revolution in Law, by restoring the primacy of natural law. In its
hubris, the liberal judicial tradition has “denied that the natural world was
the foundation of values,” explains lawyer Hans-Helmut Dietze in Naturrecht in der Gegenwart (“Natural law in the present,”
1936). In reaction, “the new natural law wants to translate into legal terms
the order that exists in nature.” The racial laws of 1935 are “an allegiance to
the laws of nature,”[17] because
preference of one’s own kins over aliens is a natural right of all men, and the
preservation of genetic homogeneity a public duty.
Another National Socialist
lawyer, Werner Best, opposes two “conceptions of life”: the
“individualist-humanist” (or individualist-universalist) conception posits that
“the singular individual is the highest value,” and “individuals are of equal
worth.” No human phenomenon is superior to the individual, apart from “the
arithmetic sum of all individuals, which we call humanity.” In this view, the
end of the state is to protect the individuals. In contrast, in the “racial
conception”, the Volk is seen as “an entity which transcends individuals and
passes through time, an entity defined by a unity of blood and spirit.” The
people is the supreme value. “All lower vital values, including individuals,
must be subordinated to the preservation of this supreme vital value. If
necessary, they must be sacrificed for its sake.”[18]
The emphasis on natural law as
the foundation of moral values means that there is no place for such things as
feminism or homosexualism, not to mention trends still unimaginable in Hitler’s
time: “The German woman will never need to emancipate herself in an age
supportive of German life. She possessed what Nature gave her automatically as
an asset to maintain and preserve; just as the man, in such an age, never had
to fear that he would be ousted from his position in respect to woman” (Hitler,
September 7, 1934).
Hitler believed that Germans
were the bearers of the purest Aryan creative spirit, and were the natural
leaders in the hierarchy of continental European nations. He recognized,
however, that England was the rightful master of the seas, and envisioned a
partnership with her for the peaceful government of Europe.
Hitler’s conception of the
superiority of the Aryan race was not much different from the Anglo-Saxonism that
had flourished in Victorian England. It was even more sober than the “American
Destiny” propaganda that flourished during the Mexican War, holding that
“Anglo-Saxons were a superior race destined to rule over other races or to
ensure their extinction.”[19] And
Madison Grant’s The Passing of the Great Race, shockingly racist, was
published less than ten years before Mein Kampf.
Compared to Grant’s, Hitler’s
eugenic views were also rather moderate. Since eugenics is one key element of
the dark legend of Nazism, it must be reminded that “eugenics” was invented by
the British Francis Galton, Charles Darwin’s cousin, to correct the perverse
effect of civilization which “diminishes the rigour of the application of the
law of natural selection and preserves weakly lives that would have perished in
barbarous lands” (Galton, Hereditary Genius, 1869). Darwin’s son Leonard was the first president of the British
Eugenics Society founded in 1911. Winston Churchill happened to be a strong
advocate of eugenics, and acted as honorary vice president of the First
International Congress of Eugenics in 1912. “The improvement of the British
breed is my aim in life,” he wrote to his cousin Ivor Guest on 19 January 1899.
In December 1910, as Home Secretary, Churchill wrote a letter to Herbert Henry
Asquith, stating that “The unnatural and increasingly rapid growth of the
Feeble-Minded and Insane classes, coupled as it is with a steady restriction
among all the thrifty, energetic and superior stocks, constitutes a national
and race danger which it is impossible to exaggerate” (see here).
So, if Hitler’s German
supremacism and eugenic views were far from radical by British or American
standards, what made Hitler so unacceptable to the British and American elites?
The answer is simple: it was his strong hostility to Jews. Hitler came from a
German Judeophobic tradition, and felt strongly about the corrosive force of
Jews. He saw the Jews as not only responsible for the Bolshevik uprisings that
had almost overcome his country, but also as the source of the moral corruption
of the Weimar Republic. If the German people were to form a healthy organism
again, Jews had to be exposed and neutralized as an alien and parasitic nation.
“The Jew’s life as a parasite
within the body of other nations and states […] drives the Jew to lie and to
lie regularly and methodically in an orderly, businesslike way which comes as
naturally to them as warm clothes to those who live in cold climates. His life
within a nation can only continue if he convinces the people that Jews are not
a separate people, but merely a ‘religious community,’ although an unusual one.
But this itself is the first great lie.” (MK 270)
When he wrote that “The Mosaic
Law religion is nothing but a doctrine for the preservation of the Jewish race”
(MK 128), Hitler was echoing
what many Jews, and especially Zionists, were saying. Lucien Wolf, journalist,
historian and editor of the Jewish World, had written in 1884 that, “in Judaism the religion and the
race are almost interchangeable terms.”[20] And
in an Essay
on the Jewish Soul, written four years after Mein Kampf, Isaac Kadmi-Cohen described Judaism as “the
spiritualization that deifies the race, jus sanguinis”; “Thus divinity in Judaism is
contained in the exaltation of the entity represented by the race.”[21] No
wonder some Jews like Harry Waton considered, erroneously, that “Nazism is an
imitation of Judaism.”[22]
In contrast to Hitler’s Judeophobia,
the British elites’ Anglo-Saxon racial pride had combined with a strong
Judeophilia from the time of Oliver Cromwell. This was most manifest in what is
known as Anglo-Israelism, the theory that the English are the direct
descendants of Jews (the lost tribes of Israel). That this weird theory had
remained influential throughout the Victorian era,[23] testifies
to the cultural ascendency of Jews over the British aristocracy. There was
actually some truth in the latter’s sense of their Jewishness, for during the
sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, many mariages had united rich Jewish
families with the old destitute landed aristocracy, to the extent that,
according to Hilaire Belloc, “with the opening of the twentieth century those
of the great territorial English families in which there was no Jewish blood
were the exception.”[24]
Churchill held the Jews in the
highest esteem, and his thoughts, he once said, were “99 per cent identical”
with those of Zionist lobbyist Chaim Weizmann.[25] He
wrote in 1920 an article for the Illustrated Sunday Herald titled “Zionism versus Bolshevism:
A struggle for the soul of the Jewish people” which began
by these words:
“Some people like Jews and some
do not; but no thoughtful man can doubt the fact that they are beyond all
question the most formidable and the most remarkable race which has ever
appeared in the world. / Disraeli, the Jew Prime Minister of England, and Leader
of the Conservative Party, who was always true to this race and proud of his
origin, said on a well-known occasion: ‘The Lord deals with the nations as the
nations deal with the Jews.’”
This is highly revealing of
Churchill’s ultimate motives and, indeed, of his personality. Replace “the
nations” by “the individuals” in the last sentence and you have the explanation
for Churchill’s pro-Jewish policies. His hatred of Hitler was strongly
motivated by Hitler’s hostility to Jews.
Benjamin Disraeli
Hitler himself refered more
than once to Benjamin Disraeli, saying for example in April 26, 1942: “The
British Jew, Lord Disraeli, once said that the racial question is the key to
world history. We National Socialists have been raised in this belief.”[26]Hannah
Arendt wrote that Disraeli was a “race fanatic” who had “evolved a plan for a
Jewish Empire in which Jews would rule as a strictly separated class.”[27] Disraeli
expressed his deeper thoughts through Sidonia, a character appearing in three
of his novels, who was really a cross between Disraeli and his close friend Lionel
de Rothschild, according to Robert Blake.[28] “All
is race—there is no other truth,” claims Sidonia in Tancred. And in Coningsby:
“The fact is, you cannot
destroy a pure race of the Caucasian organisation. It is a physiological fact;
a simple law of nature, which has baffled Egyptian and Assyrian Kings, Roman
Emperors, and Christian Inquisitors. No penal laws, no physical tortures, can
effect that a superior race should be absorbed in an inferior, or be destroyed
by it. The mixed persecuting races disappear; the pure persecuted race
remains.” (Book IV, chap. 15)
By “a pure race of the
Caucasian organization,” Disraeli/Sidonia means here the Jews, and the implicit
idea is that the Jews will finally prevail, provided they remain a pure race
and their enemies do not. Hitler’s views actually seem to mirror Disraeli’s,
when he writes that the Jew
“wants to destroy the hated
white race through bastardization. He continues to bring negroes in as a flood
and force the mixing of races. This corruption puts an end to white culture and
political distinction and raises the Jew up to be its masters. A racially pure
people, which is conscious of its blood, can never be defeated by the Jew. In
this world, the Jew can only be the master of bastards. This is why he continually
tries to lower the racial quality by poisoning the blood of individuals among
the targeted peoples.” (MK 290)
Hitler had only contempt for
the American “melting pot”, which he saw as a Jewish idea for the Goyim (the
expression was coined by Israel Zangwill, who happened to be a leading figure
of Zionism). “It is incredible,” Hitler declared on January 18, 1927, “that the
Jew who has been in our midst for thousands of years and yet remained a Jew,
has managed to persuade millions of us that race is completely unimportant, and
yet for him race is all-important.” Benzion Netanyahu (father of Benjamin) can
write that marrying a non-Jew is, “even from a biological point of view, an act
of suicide,”[29] but
will call you a Nazi if you, a non-Jew, entertain such thought.
From the following statement by
Anti-Defamation League activist Earl Raab in the Jewish Bulletin in 1993 (quoted from Kevin
MacDonald’s The Culture of Critique), we can better understand why, still today, the very possibility
of a pure Aryan race has to be permanently destroyed:
“The Census Bureau has just
reported that about half of the American population will soon be non-white or
non-European. And they will all be American citizens. We have tipped beyond the
point where a Nazi-Aryan party will be able to prevail in this country. We
[Jews] have been nourishing the American climate of opposition to bigotry for
about half a century. That climate has not yet been perfected, but the
heterogeneous nature of our population tends to make it irreversible — and
makes our constitutional constraints against bigotry more practical than ever.”[30]
The same agenda has prevailed
in Europe. Clare Ellis shows in The Blackening of Europe (read Andrew Joyce’s review here) that
the European Union has turned into “a politically engineered cosmopolitan
project” by which
“indigenous Europeans and their
political and cultural institutions and identities are undergoing processes of
erasure — stigmatisation, marginalisation, deprivation, and replacement — by
mandated immigration ism, multicultural ism, and other methods of forced diversification, while resistance to
their political and cultural marginalisation and demographic dispossession is
criminalised.”[31]
Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf, volume 2: “If current events
are allowed to develop unhindered, the final result will be the realization of
the Pan-Jewish prophecy, and the Jew would devour the peoples of the earth and
become their master” (MK 413). Hermann Goering shared Hitler’s vision: “This war is not a
Second World War. This is a great racial war. In the final analysis it is about
whether the German and Aryan prevails here, or whether the Jew rules the world,
and that is what we are fighting for out there.”[32] Germans
lost the war, and here is the result today, as described by Benton Bradberry in
the concluding paragraph of his book, The Myth of German Villainy:
“At the beginning of the
twentieth century, the white race dominated the world. The First World War
dealt Western Civilization a deadly blow, though Europe might have recovered
from that. But today, some six and a half decades after the devastating Second
World War, a war which could easily have been avoided, the white European race
faces the danger of eventual extinction. Its birth rate now hovers below the population
maintenance level, while hoards of non-white, non-Christian immigrants swarm in
from all sides — both in Europe and the United States — polluting, diluting,
factionalizing and Balkanizing our once homogeneous populations, to the point
that the process now seems irreversible. If ‘Demographics is destiny’, then the
destiny of the West is in inexorable decline, while the fortunes of
International Jewry are in the ascendency.”[33]
Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi,
founder of the Pan European Union in 1946 (supported by Churchill and financed
by the Warburg bankers), had prophesized in 1925 both the disappearance of the
White race into a mixed “Eurasian-Negroid race of the future,” and the
supremacy of the Jews, the only remaining pure race: “Instead of destroying
European Jewry, Europe, against its own will, refined and educated this people
into a future leader-nation through this artificial selection process. […]
Therefore a gracious Providence provided Europe with a new race of nobility by
the Grace of Spirit.”[34] Should
we accept the inevitable (whether by Providence or Darwinian law), let the Jews
rule the world, and get over it? I sometimes contemplate this idea. But I
always come back to the same point: Jewish power is the rule of the Lie (read my previous article “The Devil’s Trick”).
“Truth is God.” I haven’t read
much of Gandhi’s words, but this aphorism strikes me as the most profound and
the most practical wisdom. Not “God is Truth”, but “Truth is God,” which means
that truth-seekers are God-lovers, no matter what they think about the concept
of “God”. The Egyptian word for Truth is Ma’at, which also translates as Justice or Wisdom
— the Sophia of the Greeks. Ancient Egyptians expected their soul to be weighed
against the feather of Ma’at after they die. I hope it still works that way,
because I intend to follow Gerard Menuhin’s advice: “Tell the Truth and Shame
the Devil.”[35]
Adolf Hitler, Mother Mary with the Holy Child Jesus Christ,
1913 (Wikipedia)
Laurent Guyénot has collected
his earlier Unz Review articles in “Our God is Your God Too, But He Has Chosen Us”: Essays
on Jewish Power. He is also the author of From Yahweh to Zion:
Jealous God, Chosen People, Promised Land … Clash of Civilizations,
2018, and JFK-9/11: 50 years of Deep
State,Progressive
Press, 2014 (now banned from Amazon).
Notes
[1] Jews
are “the people chosen for universal hatred,” had proclaimed in 1882 Zionist
pioneer Leo Pinsker in Auto-Emancipation.
[2] Simon
Baron-Cohen, The Science of Evil: On Empathy and the Origins of Cruelty, Basic Books, 2011, kindle
edition, as can also be read in the online edition at archive.org.
This passage is reproduced, in a slightly altered form, in the New York Times.
[3] All
citations of Hilter’s Mein Kampf (MK) are from the Wewelsburg
Archives edition, 2018, online at archive.org. All other citations of Hitler are
from Adolf Hitler, Collection of Speeches, 1922-1945, online at archive.org.
[4] The
son of an Alsacian engineer and of the widow of a banker named Davidson,
Lindemann is listed among Oxford Jewish Personalities by the Oxford Chabad Society.
According to Ronald Hilton (“Men Behind Roosevelt and
Churchill”), he was a member of a group of Oxford Jewish
intellectuals around Isaiah Berlin.
[5] As
reported by Roy Harrod in The Prof: A Personal Memoir of Lord Cherwell,Macmillan, 1959, pp. 261-262,
quoted from Mike King, “The Evil Professor
Frederick Lindemann.”
[6] Quoted
in David Irving, Nuremberg: The Last Battle, Focal Point, 1996, p. 20.
[7] Stéphane
Courtois, ed., The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression, Harvard UP, 1999.
[8] Published
in the Daily
Express, September
17, 1936, online here.
[9] All
citations of Hitler other than from Mein Kampf are from his Collection of Speeches,
1922-1945, online at archive.org
[10] Yvonne
Sherratt, Hitler’s
Philosophers,
Yale UP, 2013, p. 23.
[11] This
text has not been translated in English. The German version is online here. I have
translated from the French version: Johann Gottlieb Fichte, Considérations destinés à
rectifier les jugements du public sur la Révolution française (1793), Paris, 1859
(online here), pp.
183-185.
[12] T.
D. Weldon, States and Morals: A Study in Political Conflicts, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1947,
online at archive.org.
[13] Clare
Ellis, The
Blackening of Europe: Volume I. Ideologies & International Developments, Arktos, 2020, p. 119.
[14] Ludwig
Gumplowicz, Der Rassenkampf (“The Struggle of the Races”), 1883, quoted from the French
translation, La Lutte des races. Recherches sociologiques, Guillaumin, 1893 (online
at archive.org),
pp. 242-261.
[15] MacDonald, Cultural Insurrections, p. 32-33
[16] Johann
Chapoutot, La Loi du sang. Penser et agir en Nazi, Gallimard, 2014, 2020, p.
271.
[17] Johann
Chapoutot, La Loi du sang. Penser et agir en Nazi, Gallimard, 2014, 2020,
pp. 201-202.
[18] Ibid. pp. 263-264.
[19] Reginald
Horsman, Race
and Manifest Destiny: The Origins of American Racial Anglo-Saxonism, Cambridge UP, 1981.
[20] Lucien
Wolf, “What Is Judaism? A Question of Today,” The Fortnightly Review XXXVI, (1884), pp. 237-256,
online here.
[21] Isaac
Kadmi-Cohen, Nomades: Essai sur l’âme juive, Felix Alcan, 1929 (archive.org),
pp. 115, 98, 143, 27–28.
[22] Harry
Waton, A
Program for the Jews and an Answer to All Anti-Semites: A Program for Humanity, 1939 (archive.org), p.
54.
[23] With
such publications as John Wilson, Lectures on Ancient Israel and the Israelitish Origin of the
Modern Nations of Europe (1840) or Edward Hine, The English Nation Identified with the Lost
Israel (1870),
mentioned in André Pichot, Aux origines des théories raciales, de la Bible à Darwin, Flammarion, 2008, pp. 124-143,
319.
[24] Hilaire
Belloc, The
Jews, Constable
& Co., 1922 (archive.org),
p. 223.
[25] Martin
Gilbert, Churchill
and the Jews: A Lifelong Friendship, Henry Holt & Company, 2007.
[26] Hitler
had made the same remark in November 8, 1941.
[27] Hannah
Arendt, The
Origins of Totalitarianism, vol. 1: Antisemitism, Meridian Books, 1958, pp. 309–310.
[28] Robert
Blake, Disraeli (1966), Faber Finds,
2010, p. 202.
[29] Benzion
Netanyahu, The Founding Fathers of Zionism (1938), Balfour Books, 2012.
[30] Quoted
in Kevin MacDonald, The Culture of Critique: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Jewish
Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements, Praeger, 1998, kindle 2013, k.
246–7.
[31] Clare
Ellis, The
Blackening of Europe: Volume I. Ideologies & International Developments, Arktos, 2020, p. 6.
[32] Quoted
in Michael Burleigh, The Third Reich: A New History, 2000, p. 591.
[33] Benton
L. Bradberry, The Myth of German Villainy, AuthorHouse, 2012, p. 288 in
the archive.org edition.
[34] Count
Richard Nikolaus Eijiro von Coudenhove-Kalergi, Praktischer Idealismus:
Adel – Technik – Pazifismus, PanEuropa Verlag, 1925 , online at archive.org,
pp. 22-23 and 27-28. This quote appeared in Coudenhove-Kalergi’s Wikipedia
page, was screenshot by Adam Green (here at 19:30), and
deleted from Wikipedia soon after. For a detailed presentation of the “Kalergi
Plan” and its influence, read Clare Ellis, The Blackening of Europe:
Volume I. Ideologies & International Developments, Arktos, 2020, pp. 10-29.
[35] Gerard
Menuhin, Tell
the Truth and Shame the Devil, The Barnes Review, 2015, on archive.org.
https://www.unz.com/article/will-the-denazification-ever-end/