Counter-Currents
2,125 words 
I saw a series of Telegram posts by Australian nationalist Joel Davis recently that I feel the need to respond to. Joel argues that rehabilitating the image of German National Socialism and Adolf Hitler himself is essential for the success of a nationalist movement. For a time, Joel and I were very closely aligned ideologically and collaborated a lot together. Our paths diverged somewhat when Joel embraced, for want of a better word, Neo-Nazism. To be clear, I still consider Joel a friend and the smartest advocate of the position he holds, but I think that position is misguided and have wanted to address it for some time.
Joel’s position isn’t exactly niche within nationalist circles now. In the past couple of years, there has been a great opening up of the topic of Jewish influence in the West, and this has brought with it a resurgence in revisionism and outright Hitlerism. This has real world consequences for our movement too. Justin Barrett, the former leader of the Irish National Party, has also chosen to go the route of embracing Hitlerism. Now self-identifying as a Nazi and donning replica SS coats to protests, he has done a tour of livestreams arguing that the only way forward for Irish nationalism is to educate our people on the success of the German National Socialist experiment.
I think this approach is not only misguided, but is leading people to a lot of wasted energy on projects that are doomed to fail, and often outright counter-productive for the growth of our movement. This isn’t to say the people involved don’t do some good work, and Joel’s recent courage in facing down the tyrannical speech codes in Australia is particularly admirable. But the argument that if we can’t rehabilitate Hitler we are doomed to extinction is painfully misguided and needs to be challenged.
There was a long time where I (at least partially) concealed my National Socialist sympathies and tried to pursue ideological projects which could circumvent the negative stigma. I realised these paths wouldn’t work, because they all required rhetorical (and often actual) compromises upon racial loyalism. At the core of the pathologisation of White Nationalism is its association with the spectre of National Socialism as a unique and ultimate evil. It’s simply not possible to avoid this association in good faith without damaging the conviction of your own position. The only solution to this, if you want the White race to survive, is the rehabilitation of National Socialism. There is no other solution. Stop wasting time.
I wanted to respond to this post in particular because it contains most of the common arguments from self-styled National Socialists around this topic, so it’s an opportunity to lay out my alternative case.
First off, Joel says not identifying as a National Socialist requires “compromises upon racial loyalism”. I think it’s quite the opposite. National Socialism was not a generic “pro-white” movement, but a German chauvinist movement bound up with Nordicist racial theory. Central to its project was the planned ethnic cleansing of tens of millions of Slavs, and the destruction of white countries like Poland, Ukraine and Russia. This is not some Hollywood meme history. Hitler expresses his desire to establish lebensraum in the East in Mein Kampf, in his unpublished Second Book, and in his Table Talks. In the Table Talks, Hitler expresses his desire to keep the population of Russia, capable of nothing but “hard work under coercion”, just literate enough to read road signs and serve the German occupiers. He says his plan is to make southern Ukraine “an exclusively German colony”.[1]
David Irving on the German treatment of Ukrainians — Hitler’s War, pg. 663
Do we need to rehabilitate that to get people to support nationalism in 2025? The strongest, most patriotic white countries today are found in Eastern Europe. I know nationalists doing excellent work in many of them. Must we force them to change their opinions on German imperialism over their lands? And doesn’t the fact that countries like Poland have had some of the strongest national resistance to globalism despite their strong historical opposition to Nazism undermine the whole idea that a positive view of Hitlerism is necessary for the flourishing of a nationalist movement?
The response of modern Hitlerists to this is usually denial. Typically, they may say the Table Talks are unreliable, although even revisionist historians like David Irving accept their authenticity and most of the skepticism around them concerns limitations like translation issues, rather than outright forgery. But even if we ignore the Table Talks, the same sentiment about Slavs, and the desire for a project of colonization in Eastern Europe, is clearly expressed in Mein Kampf and Hitler’s Second Book. Joel has had to engage in some historically flimsy apologetics himself, as when in an interview with Elijah Schaffer he justified the German invasion of Poland as a response to ethnic cleansing of Germans. This relies on little more than Nazi propaganda from the period (for example, Europa: The Last Battle had to rely on attacks on Germans that happened after the German invasion to make this narrative work.) In truth, Nazis won 1933 elections in Danzig and had complete control of the city. Footage from the period shows public buildings and roads lined with Nazi flags. Some German organizations suffered repression to Polonization efforts, but nothing of the scale required to justify an invasion.
Another response is to separate the concrete history of German National Socialism from the ideology. Anti-Slavic attitudes and German expansion were of a time and particular set of political circumstances, but most National Socialists today have some degree of pan-Europeanism and love their Slavic brothers. The ideology can be abstracted from the history. But at that point, why would National Socialism the historical movement need to be rehabilitated at all? If it just means a set of ideas like racialism, loyalty to folk, pro-natal state policies etc., then these can surely be better rehabilitated by decoupling them from Hitlerism altogether.
The chief argument though, is that white identity is viewed as evil because of its association with the ultimate evil of National Socialism, and so only saving the latter can save the former. It is true that the moral universe of moderns is centered on the satanic archetype of Hitler and all he is associated with. It doesn’t follow though, that the answer is to convince everyone that Hitler did nothing wrong. A lot of intelligent revisionists, such as the head of the Institute for Historical Review, Mark Weber, came to the conclusion that as the events of World War Two grow more distant, and the masses lose the most basic grip on the narrative — any narrative — about that war, our energies are better focused on what’s happening here and now. In the past couple of years, we’ve seen the legitimacy of Jewish Zionist power be fiercely undermined by the left, who focused on present day injustices and stepped right over the kind of special pleading for Jews that is centered on the Second World War. The mythos of WW2 that established the post-Nuremberg world order was always going to have a lifespan, and is now dying to apathy and ignorance as Hitler becomes just another historical figure like Napoleon or Genghis Khan to a generation with little sense of connection to the period.
As for the argument that if we don’t rehabilitate National Socialism we can be associated with it in a way harmful to us, that doesn’t matter. The truth is it can simply be stepped over. Leftists have overdone calling everything Nazism to the point of exhaustion, and the dividing lines between nationalists and conservatives are eroding as conservatives are regularly exposed to nationalist arguments from popular commentators, like the defence of white nationalism recently offered by Tucker Carlson to his millions of viewers. The leftists that invoke Hitler to say racism is bad aren’t going to have their mind changed by facts, and conservatives who are afraid to embrace white identity because of the spectre of Hitler are more easily red pilled by other topics anyway.
Very few people become nationalists because they have waded through tens of hours of Bitchute documentaries about the mid-20th Century. Those that do usually become the most forceful advocates of centering our struggle on their history hobby, but make no mistake, they are a minority. If they are honest, almost everyone who finds themselves in the NS camp will find they were moved to nationalism by rather simple arguments and moral appeals about our situation today. If someone is even willing to consider the 12 hours of historical revisionism in Europa: The Last Battle they are probably already pretty open to hearing an honest case for white identity politics. And, as my series on Europa is making clear, the popular Hitlerist narrative on the events of the 20th Century is more riddled with inaccuracies and a product of propaganda than the mainstream view is.
The argument about getting over the stigma is the main argument for rehabilitating National Socialism, but another is that it uniquely has the solution to our problems today. As I said, this is the main criticism the former leader of the National Party now has of its leadership — that National Socialism alone has “the answers” to our predicament today. Helpfully, Joel also lays out the case for this, writing that:
National Socialism is fundamentally the notion that the highest value in politics should be loyalty to one’s nation. Its repudiations of both liberalism and (proletarian) socialism, as well as its criticism and overcoming of conservatism, continue to provide a robust ideological orientation within the modern political paradigm. Its existential conception of life as struggle, its cultural racialism, its economic principles. These all remain just as relevant today.
I don’t see any principle unique to National Socialism that Europeans need to survive and thrive today. As I said, many Eastern European countries have had successful national populist movements that repudiated National Socialism. Every white nation has their own national story and heroes that can be harnessed to these ends. For me as an Irish nationalist, the vision of a comprehensive national idea can be found in our own tradition from the mouths of our own people, in a nationalist movement that predates German National Socialism and is not foreign to us. What did Pearse, Griffith or Mitchel not see that Hitler or Rosenberg did? (To be fair to Joel Davis, he claims to speak only in an Anglosphere context, but there are others who make the same argument for all white countries.)
Let’s go through Joel’s list: my national heroes considered loyalty to one’s nation the highest value in politics, sometimes to the point of martyrdom; they too repudiated liberalism and bolshevism; they too were revolutionaries critical of conservatism; and they provided an ideological paradigm still relevant today. As for the “existential conception of life as struggle”, this is a metaphysical view that is inessential to the success of a nationalist movement, and in conflict with the many Christians who may otherwise support white racial survival. Of course, if you push National Socialists enough, you will often find this principle is what it’s really all about: their National Socialism typically serves as a kind of religion for them based on this principle of eternal struggle and Nordicist racial hierarchies, and they simply wish to proselytise their religion. The arguments about the necessity of this for nationalism in the 21st century are just window dressing. They don’t want to rehabilitate Hitler to promote nationalism, but they want to use nationalism to rehabilitate Hitler.
Finally, as for the economic principles, the Nazis certainly had an enormously successful economic experiment that was essentially an early trial of Modern Monetary Theory. But economics is a practical matter, and I don’t see why any of the principles used there should be treated as sacrosanct either. I think tax credits for large families and stimulus programs are great, but I think you could probably sell people on the merits of those policies without explaining the monetary theories of Gottfried Feder.
So there is really nothing especially novel from National Socialism that nationalist movements need today. And if there were, it would benefit from being disassociated with the negative stigma of Hitlerism anyway. All the political steps I see as necessary to save my people from erasure can be carried through the vehicle of a regular old ethnonationalist movement — one that actually speaks to my people’s history, heroes and heritage.
This essay was first published on Keith Woods’ Substack. It has been reposted here with permission. Be sure to buy Woods’ new book Nationalism: The Politics of Identity, on sale now.
Notes
[1] Cameron, Norman, and R. H. Stevens. “Hitler’s table talk.” (1988)
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
143 comments
I am still very critical of the Holocaust narrative. However, one of the biggest mistakes of the pro-White sphere is allowing wignats and Hitlertards to make Nazism the gold standard for being a White nationalist. The globalists and antiwhites use this as ammunition to portray pro-White advocacy as kooky and antisocial. This scares away centrists and moderate conservatives from acknowledging the fact that Whites have a fact to defend their homelands. Hitler was not a pan-European or collective White savior that the online, low intelligent JQ memers portray him to be. He was a Nordic supremacist who viewed Slavic and Mediterranean Whites as inferior mongrels who had their racial purity diluted. In Mein Kampf, he talks about committing genocide against the Slavs and displacing them from their homelands. I understand that Whites throughout history delineated based on ethnic and tribal lines but it is really hilarious we have a lot of uninformed ppl who portray the Nazis as mythical saviors against the Jewish Cabal and Communism.
Hammer: March 7, 2025 ...[O]ne of the biggest mistakes of the pro-White sphere is allowing wignats and Hitlertards to make Nazism the gold standard for being a White nationalist. The globalists and antiwhites use this as ammunition to portray pro-White advocacy as kooky and antisocial...
—
What sincere racial nationalist gives a shit what globalists and anti-Whites, or you for that matter, think, Mr. Hammer, with your “Hitlertard” and “Nazism” slurs?
Mein Kampf was written by Hitler 100 years ago. Every racial nationalist should read that book to better understand where the great race-fighter was coming from with his National Socialist movement — the man who miraculously restored his nation racially after being vanquished in WWI. The most recent, and definitive edition is by Dr. Thomas Dalton, here: Mein Kampf Vol 1 and 2: Dual English-German Translation (paperback) by Adolf Hitler – Cosmotheism or his affordable ($20) condensed version: The Essential Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler – edited by Thomas Dalton – Cosmotheism
You would probably call me a Piercetard, Mr. Hammer. William Pierce developed NS beyond German Nationalism to Americanize it and make it pan-Aryan. When I read his editorial in April 1989, honoring Adolpf Hitler on what would have been his 100th birthday, is when I would answer that I was a National Socialist — not a Democrat, a Republican, populist or libertarian — when asked what were my politics: The Measure of Greatness | National Vanguard
You might think what’s needed for your brand of so-called “White nationalism” is to rehabilitate Roosevelt, Churchill or Stalin. ;o}
Why are you so quick to jump at people for daring suggest Mr. Hitler was not infallible, particularly with his military decisions? He’s not our MLK uncriticizable. It’s a legitimate question to ask why millions of captured anti-stalinist Slavs were not fashioned into a field army and used to annihilate the red ivans that could’ve changed the course of 20th century history. His treatment of the captives was not very 14 from 88 either. Or scoffing at the Spaniards, Portuguese, Maltese, Italians, Greeks, Slavs, and Balkan peoples as murky rassenschande experiments gone wrong falling short of the Germanic ideal.
Hitler was a man and certainly not infallible. But the idea that his military decisions were flawed is hugely overstated by many of his surviving generals in their memoirs, and it is mostly propaganda.
As far as not arming the Slavs or other volunteers, the fact is that Germany was stretched to the limit arming anything ─ and they were already trying to salvage anything that could shoot or any vehicle to try to improve their logistics and massive shortfall in motorization.
The bulk of the Wehrmacht was horse-drawn and only the spearheads and more elite forces were even motorized ─ no matter how hard Germany tried to overcome these shortfalls building cheaper but excellent tanks like the StuG, the Einheitsdiesel (uniform diesel) utility truck, the Opel-Blitz utility truck, the Kübelwagen, the Einheits steam locomotive (without which the war would have been lost in a fortnight) and so on ─ not to mention that even if Germany could build or buy more vehicles than she did, then they would not have been able to supply the necessary fuel for them. All of Europe including neutral Sweden was using Wood Gas or Charcoal Gas (chiefly carbon monoxide) for motor fuel during the war. Even the Swedish vacuum cleaner company Electrolux was making wood-gas generator units for vehicles (LINK).
That Germany could not supply enough guns is exactly what Belgian Leon Degrelle of the Wallonian volunteers said in his memoirs, and this is borne by the evidence.
Nobody was sending Lend-Lease to Hitler, and he rarely had the luxury of decent odds but still had to fight ─ and to hold out for as long as possible or things would have turned out much worse.
🙂
Forget about it
“I am still very critical of the Holocaust narrative.” Google: Bock,Ludwig holocaustencyclopedia.com “These two trials against defense lawyers created case law in Germany declaring it illegal to file motions for the introduction of evidence which challenge the orthodox Holocaust narrative. Ever since, it has been illegal for Holocaust skeptics to defend themselves in German courts of law.“
—————————————————————-
Holocaust Encyclopedia book, Germar Rudolf. Page 98 left column “British Radio Intercepts” starting in 1941 British were reading the encrypted German messages. British Intelligence analyst F.H. Hensley 1981 book “British Intelligence in World War Two” page 673:
“The return from Auschwitz, the largest of the camps with 20,000 prisoners, mentioned illness as the main cause of death, but included references to shootings and hangings. There was no references in the decrypts to gassing.”
————————————————————-
Page 263 right column: “Other historians have been more straight forward to admit that no order for the extermination of the Jews written or authorized by Adolf Hitler has ever been discovered.”
The above is just the tip of the iceberg.
Absolutely right. We, Russians, have not forgotten and have not forgiven the tens of millions of Whites killed and maimed during the WWII. For us it was an ethnic war of survival. Hitler did more harm to the Whites than the crazy Jews who seized power in Russia.
@Victor, what a bunch of nonsense. The Soviet jews systematically rounded up the best and smartest Whites and mass murdered them as in Katyn Forest with 20,000 of the Polish elite. 1 million ethnic Russians and as many Ukrainians were allied with Germany AGAINST their Bolshevik jew oppressors. According to Solzhenitsyn and many others, between 1917-1956 the Soviets murdered nearly 40 million Russians, Ukrainians and other Whites that came under their rule. Stalin was preparing to invade Germany and Western Europe by September 1941 which is why the Germans were able to encircle entire Soviet armies along the Soviet frontier with East Prussia, the German occupied General Government of Poland and Romania in the opening weeks of Barbarossa. Tanks are offensive weapons and the Red Army had thousands of tank formations all along their border with Germany and Romania. If it wasn’t for the United States supplying the Red Army with war matetial, at the cost of American forces in the Pacific and Asia, the Soviet Union would have been finished in December 1941 or the Summer of 1942 at the latest.
As someone partially Slavic myself, I agree with the author that Adolf Hitler’s “German chauvinism” was his biggest problem, from the perspective of White Nationalism, however, I disagree about the “Nordicism” part. The problem with Hitler’s anti-Slavism wasn’t that it was too Nordicist but that it wasn’t Nordicist enough. Hitler, in fact, failed to acknowledge the strong Nordic racial component of different Slavic-speaking nations (remember, Slavic and Germanic are linguistic terms, while Nordic/Alpine/Mediterranean are racial ones).
This can be seen in the fact that Hitler had friendly relations with most Mediterranean nations, i.e., Italy, Spain, Romania (the Mediterraneans are the most mixed, racially), while, at the same time, having unfriendly and, at times, genocidal relations with much more Nordic (and Alpine) nations, such as the Czechs (many of whom are blonder/more Nordic than the Austrians), the Russians (many of whom are more Nordic than, say, southern Germans/Bavarians) and so on.
Hitler made a fatal flaw here from the perspective of objective, racial science, in not accounting for the strong Nordic racial component among Slavic nations, with the Nordic, or more properly, Nordo-Alpine racial element, in fact, being a major reason why Slavic countries today are doing well and have mostly exceeded Mediterranean, Southern European countries such as Italy, Spain, Greece, etc., in quality of life, GDP, etc.
The author, therefore, in incorrectly tying Hitler’s German chauvinism (which is bad for White Nationalism today) to his Nordicism (which continues to be essential to White Nationalism today), is actually “throwing out the baby with the bathwater”, so to speak, and making a fatal flaw in his reasoning. Thus, the author, despite his good intentions, fails to establish White Nationalism on the only suitable foundations on which it can be established today – which is a strong Nordo-Alpine racial science that transcends national borders.
One quibble: Old racial science interpreted light colouring in Northeastern Europe as characteristic of the “East Baltic Race”, rather than the Nordic-Scandinavian one (at least in general). For example, Günther’s “The Racial Elements of European History” (http://www.theapricity.com/earlson/reeh/reoehchap2e.htm) distinguishes the East Baltic phenotype pretty strongly from the Nordic. Was this just Günther’s bias? Hardly
Modern genetics has also shown differences between NW and NE Europeans, see for example: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1GWhNZcfTQ2hMSK9Ni1IqG7aXHB00SRE5L6ED2osPs9M/edit?gid=0#gid=0
I further remember E.A. Ross’ very valuable anthropological observations (“The Old World in the New”) revealing significant differences between, for example, Finns and Swedes.
I guess what I’m getting at is that even Northern Europe is not monolithic.
~
I think the European Identitarians have the right approach to White identity in Europe, in that they’re recognizing 3 different levels of ethnic-cultural identity (regional, national and pan-European) and emphasize that all matter the same in principle, so that one person would be equally a Bavarian, a German and an European. I wrote “in principle”, because in practice, past conflicts and grievances on the regional and national level shouldn’t matter in the face of the current demographic threat.
You could say that everyone who wants to may continue playing petty nationalism once remigration is done ; )
Replying to Dominic Fox (March 8, 2025 at 4:53 am)
Yes, of course, if one follows Hans Günther’s school (and he is one of the foremost authorities on the matter) Northern Europe can be further divided between east and west, with the eastern part, as you say, corresponding to Günther’s “East Baltic” race. Southern Europe can be divided along similar lines, with the eastern part inhabited by Günther’s “Dinaric” race.
However, for the sake of simplicity, I prefer to talk about the Nordic, Alpine and Mediterranean racial, or sub-racial, areas, especially when talking to a general audience. According to this model, then, what Günther would call the “East Baltic” race in NE Europe, I would call a transition zone from Nordic to Alpine in NE Europe. In a similar way, when Günther speaks of a Dinaric race in SE Europe, I would describe it as a transition zone from Alpine to Mediterranean in SE Europe.
For, after all, looking at Northern Europe, if I were to take a Finn, a northwestern Russian, a northern Pole, a German from Dresden, a Dutchman from around Groningen (not a colonial/Jewish mongrel from Amsterdam) and an Englishman from Hull, you would see significant racial similarities between all of them (setting aside language, clothing, personality, etc.), even to the point of not being able to classify who was from where (although one might, especially with some training, be able to tell apart the eastern variety from the western). In any case, you would never confuse any member of this group with a Mediterranean, that is, an Italian, a Spaniard, a Greek, or even with a large part of southern Frenchmen or, say, Serbians or Romanians (although with the latter three groups there are more exceptions). Thus, we can safely say that all of the individuals in this group are Nordic.
You could do the same thing with individuals from Southern Europe, going from east to west (say, from Sofia, Bulgaria to Lisbon, Portugal), where you would have a harder time distinguishing them from each other but where you would never confuse any member of that group with the Northern one from above. You could, therefore, confidently say that that group is Mediterranean.* Of course, there are always individual exceptions/outliers, but we are talking about groups, not individuals.
Thus, there are certain distinct racial (or sub-racial) types in Europe that can be grouped geographically but that do not correspond to exact national (i.e., civic national) borders. And, the point of my original comment was that, just because Adolf Hitler based some of his ideas on a racial science that acknowledges and talks about this (this stuff was very popular in the late 19th/early 20th centuries), doesn’t mean, that, in setting aside Hitler, we need to set aside this science, as well (although, personally, I have a balanced view on Hitler – i.e., he did some bad things, some good). In fact, understanding this sort of racial science is crucial for both White Nationalism going forward into the 21st century, as well as for an overall understanding of the world.
I work full-time but would be happy to write more in-depth about all of this when I have time (especially since I see a lot of confusion regarding these issues on both CC and elsewhere), if Dr. Johnson is interested?
Best regards to Mr. Fox.
*The more ambiguous area is, of course, between these two poles, and that tends to fall into the broader category of “Alpine”, with the mountain range of the Alps providing a very convenient geographical point of reference. The Alpine region has different blends, such as Nordo-Alpine blends as you go further north of the Alps and Medo-Alpine blends as you go south, but this is a more in-depth conversation.
Thanks for the detailed response. I agree that the West-East axis is less relevant than the North-South one in Europe, which makes sense in terms of climatic zones and geography – after all, the six northern European groups you mentioned are all more or less adjacent to the Nordic “mare nostrum” (if this expression be allowed) i.e. the combined North + Baltic seas area. Madison Grant’s generalized scheme comes to mind: https://collections.lib.uwm.edu/digital/collection/agdm/id/6431
Btw, CC has a pipeline for people who want to submit articles: https://counter-currents.com/about/
Replying to Dominic Fox March 9, 2025 at 10:44 am
Thank you for the link 🙂
There’s still an unhealthy strain of thought, or rather anti-thought, in the less smart regions of WN that adhere way too much to epidermal literalism. Isn’t what’s beneath the skin (bone density, resistance to disease and chimpoutery, blood type, and natural orientation towards ideas on CC) more indicative of racial belonging that pure hue? Generally speaking, southern Europe is antique White (olive complexioned, parchment flax, pinkish beach sand, fair champagney, coconut husk) while northern Europe is floral White (porcelain and peach complexioned, seashell, fresh linens, old lace, corporate bathroom tiles). Antonio Banderas, Rafael Nadal, Vincent Pastore, and Nia Vardalos look nothing like Ed Sheeran or Erling Haaland but, just as eggshell and bone are darker than cocaine, all are White Europeans. The one drop rule is not a one gallon rule. Droplets of extra-European blood have not melanin bled through the south to make them less European as with mestizos/mulattos who, while approximately half White, are more anti-White than purer darks and behave and interpret the world as full negros and amerinds.
I wouldn’t describe Mediterranean Europeans as more “mixed” than other Europeans. Rather, all modern Europeans were formed by the coalescence of four ancestral populations, but in varying proportions and by different paths.
See this helpful diagram = https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10781624/figure/Fig3/
Present day Europeans are often described as a three-way mix of WHG, Anatolian Farmer and steppe Yamnaya. However, the Yamnaya ancestry itself resolves into EHG and CHG ancestry, and these two groups have different deep origins . . . . Therefore, we propose a model of four ancestral streams that lead to present-day Europeans. Six different paths that haplotypes can take from any sampled individual are shown in different colours in Figure 3. Path 1 = red, starts from the present day Europeans, going back through Neolithic farmers, Anatolian farmers, West Asians to the root. Path 2 = purple, starts at present day Europeans, going back through the Yamnaya, Caucasus hunter gatherers, then West Asians to the root. Path 3 = black, starts with present day Europeans, going back through Neolithic farmers to Western hunter gatherers and then through Northern Europeans to the root. Path 4 = orange, starts at present day Europeans, going back through the Yamnaya to Eastern hunter gatherers and then through Northern Europeans to the root. Paths 5 = blue, starting in the Bronze Age Anatolians and joins path 1 part. Path 6 = cyan, starts in Bronze Age Anatolians and joins path 2. When paths overlap, lineages from all overlapping paths can coalesce.
Note that the diagram separates Bronze Age Anatolia from the mainstream European population, and BA Anatolian is today a major component of Greek and S Italian populations, though not Romanians. (The dark Romanian features reflect a high proportion of Neolithic Farmer ancestry, as distinct from BA Anatolian. )) Note also, however, that BA Anatolia does not have any roots that are not shared by mainstream Euro populations.
Granted, Mediterranean Euros have necessarily had more contact with racial aliens than their N Euro kin, a simple fact of geography. But the actual level of admixture with Arabs, Syrians, N Africans, is quite low, i.e., less than 2% if even that.
In matters of population, the deep structure endures unless transformed by mass migration.
Of course they are more mixed, and it’s in part due to immigration from the Near East especially in Roman times: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7093155/
The paper shows that 25% of the immigrants in Rome were from the Near East.
Add immigrants from Northern Africa and later Arab & Berber influence and it should be considerably in excess of 2% for the southern parts of Spain, Italy etc.
Ancient Latins were genetically pretty close to modern Swiss (not to mention suprizingly blue-eyed), so there must have been a considerable south-shift since Roman Republican times in Italy (see Eupedia K12 analyses), most of which occured during the Imperial era with its immense immigration streams not unlike what we are seeing today .
No. First, that paper is simply looking at the port areas of Rome during the height of the Empire. What is true of Rome is not true of Italy as a whole. Rome attracted migrants, transients, merchants, strivers, but was also a population sinkhole, especially for lower orders of society. After the fall of Rome and, a century later, the destructive Gothic wars, Italy was repopulated from its own countryside, from the reservoirs of its own ancestral genetics. Second, aside from Sicily, Arabs never had much of a presence in Italy, and under Swabian rule they were eradicated, expelled, reduced to galley slaves, see the fate of Lucera.
It is mass or sustained movements of peoples that transform populations. I challenge you to point to any mass movement of people into the Italian South post-Empire. What we see, instead, are population flows from Anatolia and the Aegean into Italy up to Rome, flows that originated before the Bronze Age down and peaking during Magna Graecia. That’s why if you go to Ancestry.com or some such site, you will see that Southern Italians are closely related to Greek Islanders and the peoples of Western Turkey (who remain Greek-like beneath the Asiatic veneer). They share a common ancestry, often labelled “East Med,” which is misleading as it invites confusion between Anatolia with Syria, different lands genetically speaking.
Again, S Italians and Greeks (especially from the islands) are set apart from most other Europeans. But they are not more “mixed” or somehow non-European To say so is insulting. And if you insist on saying so, then you must cease to lay claim to Plato, Aristotle, etc. Classical Greeks were formed by three-way mixture of (i) Catacomb conquerors, (ii) BA Anatolians ever-moving west, and (iii) a Minoan-like population. Italians, in turn, were formed by a pincer movement of Italic tribes (descended from Corded Ware) moving from north-to-south, and Greek-like groups pushing west and north, both sets of newcomers mixing with preexisting Minoan-like farmer populations. And so modern Italy is a genetic cline, the north more akin to Corded Ware and Europe as a whole, the South more akin to Catacomb and BA Anatolia.
Herodotus held that the Etruscans came from Asia Minor. There are Etruscan images of people wearing peaked so-called Phrygian caps, which is consistent with this.
All this talk of how European Italians is, really is beside the point from an ethnonationalist point of view. Nordicists are always asking, “Are group X white enough for our empire?” The proper answer is: “Screw you and your empire.” Or, if you are Madison Grant, you worry if group X is Nordic enough for the Nordic empire he wished to construct in America. But that dream was already dead long before he set pen to paper.
If we have ethnostates, does it even make sense to say “Is this Italian Italian-enough for Italy?” By definition, Italy is the homeland of the Italians.
All this “whiter than thou” hairsplitting makes no sense if different peoples have their own states.
Even mixed race populations, like the Mestizos of Latin America, have ethnic-genetic identities and interests, thus they need to preserve their homelands.
I don’t think I claimed anywhere that Spaniards or Italians weren’t fully White.
Ancient Latin genomes score more northerly on the K12 than modern-day Northern Italians, which is why I likened them to the Swiss.
Data for the Latins: https://eupedia.com/genetics/genomic_analysis_ancient_europeans.shtml
Data for modern populations: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1GWhNZcfTQ2hMSK9Ni1IqG7aXHB00SRE5L6ED2osPs9M/edit?gid=0#gid=0
How do you think this south+east shift happened? The paper I linked to spoke of 24% of the immigrants being from the “Mediterranean” (~= Greece) and 40% from the “Eastern Mediterranean” (~= “Cyprus, Anatolia, and the Levant”) – in addition to the 28% (I misremembered that as 25%) from the Near East. Look at Fig 4. C.
Given that Rome had a population of about 1 million out of 7.6 million for the whole of Italy (Wiki), and that Central Italy was full of cities attracting immigrants (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_cities_of_the_Roman_world_in_the_Imperial_period.jpg), isn’t it plausible that Imperial era immigration changed the overall demographics of the peninsula? And there was a lot of time between this immigration and the fall of the Empire, so they would have already been mixed into the wider population by that point anyway, and not all cities were immediatly destroyed without people fleeing.
I don’t really see the problem with acknowledging that Southern Italians are partly descended from Imperial-era Anatolians or Levantines – those were centers of civilization in the ancient world (Lydia, Phrygia, Syria etc), whose population would be classified as Mediterranean White today.
Addenda:
Looking at more DNA from Italy (https://eupedia.com/genetics/genomic_analysis_ancient_europeans.shtml), we find that Late Antiquity Latium and Early Medieval Latium score much more Mediterranean/Southern than the Iron-Age Latins. Furthermore, we see that 8-12th century Tuscany scores much more Med than the ancient Etruscans.
In other words, Imperial-era mass immigration definitely changed the demographics of the region as a whole.
On a different note, I’ve studied Medieval/Renaissance Italian history in-depth for unrelated reasons and found that, while Rome was a cesspool and Tuscany the home of the bankers, the one part of Italy that reminded me the most of the Roman Republic was … the Republic of Venice. The Venetians pioneered the development of functional institutions, practiced the rule of law and were comparatively individualist and nationalist rather than clannish. And the way their young nobles were educated is extremely reminiscent of the ancient Roman cursus honorum!
The ” Yamnaya”, “Anatolian Farmer”, etc., stuff has some basis in reality, but a lot of it is pure obfuscation to distract from the concrete reality that most people (if they are being honest) can see with their own eyes. The data obtained from genetic testing can be interpreted in a lot of different ways, which is, once again, why continuing to look at reality concretely and directly is still crucial for racial understanding (i.e., a phenomenology of race, if you will). The fact that the contemporary academic establishment would use obfuscation to hide genuine racial realities should come as no surprise to anyone related in any way to White Nationalism today.
The basis of racial science (i.e., Nordic, Alpine, Mediterranean for Europeans) was laid down at the beginning of the 20th century, when (White) people had less technology but were more honest about their direct observations of the world. Contemporary technology and genetic studies, if they are being used honestly, can easily confirm these basic realities, however, honest discussions about race, sub-race and genetics have not been allowed since the end of the Second World War (a large part of this being due to the above-mentioned associations of racial science with Adolf Hitler).
Condemning Hitler and Nationalsocialism does not give you any kind of political acceptance by the normies and the political mainstream in general. Does not give you any kind of real political traction either. They are going to call us nazis/fascists/whatever anyways. Doing it is just a desperate need for jewish acceptance.
Look at the AFD. Their leader is a lesbian with a non white “partner”. Their politics are mildly Liberal at best. And they are called nazis everyday.
The best position, imho, is to never mention Hitler and NS at all. Not condemning them and not glorify them either.
Are “they” going to call us Nazis regardless of what we do or say? Well, certainly some people are. But those types of extreme leftoid creature are not who we are primarily trying to convince. Setting that aside, let’s assume “too many people will call us Nazis regardless of what we say or do.”
Is the solution to that problem to double down and be strutting around in full SS regalia? Your guess is a good as mine—doubling down is sometimes a good move—but I think probably not.
They’ll also call you Jews and homosexuals, so . . .
I haven’t seen much of that from the far left but I suppose it’s plausible they might say such things.
And feds. This is the new ‘my dog ate my homework’.
On the internet, everybody’s a fed.
We don’t need to rehabilitate National Socialism. But we definitely need to rehabilitate free debate and discussion about WWII. In some countries, you can be jailed for having the wrong opinion. This war is still mentioned several times a week ón MSM.
If we talk about Remigration, even in the most delicate way, we will be accused, sometimes indirectly, of being Hitlerites.
We must be ready with a truthful answer.
Some questions which will make our enemies avoid the topic:
Why did Adolf support the establishment of the state of Israel? (Ostfront veteran Hennecke Kardel wrote a whole book ón the topic)
Why did Adolf evacuate the villages which held the graves of his possibly Jewish ancestors? (Doellersheim and Strones. The Hitler surname appears in Jewish graveyards in Vienna and Prague. On his mother’s side, Poelzl is also a Jewish surname).
Where was Adolf when the Judaeo-communist rebellion in Munich was crushed? His book is remarkably quiet about the details.
Why did rich Zionist Jews give Adolf so much money and help? (Trebitsch Lincoln, Schroeder, Wittgenstein and dozens of others.)
These questions are questions that the “fluffy Adolf” crowd also are embarrassed to answer.
Ken Livingstone, the lefty former Mayor of London, made these allegations some years ago.
Christopher Jon Bjerknes, in his excellent book on Hitler, says that the first recorded case of a German calling for the genocide of the Slavs was none other than Friedrich Engels, writing in Marx’s newspaper.
Without committing to a “fluffy” take, I’ll have a go at the questions for the sake of historical interest.
First, Hitler supported migration to Palestine because he thought Jews didn’t belong in Germany and wanted them to move. The Transfer Agreement discusses the details. Heinz Weichardt also had some things to say about it.
As far as evacuating villages containing Hitler’s alleged Jewish ancestors, this is the first I’ve ever heard of it, despite being pretty well-read on the era. Therefore I have no explanation. That said, there’s been so much hearsay and outright disinfo about Hitler – such as the idea that he was a Rothschild scion – that I’m inclined by default to skepticism when I encounter factoids like that.
About the Liebknecht-Luxemburg uprising, that one lasted about a month. If I recall correctly, when it began, Hitler was in a military hospital being treated for a gas attack which left him temporarily blinded. In Mein Kampf, he discussed hearing about the revolt while hospitalized, a tremendous shock during his long recovery. So he was in no position at the time to participate.
Finally, as for support by Zionists (which Weichardt also discusses briefly), they also wanted their fellow tribesmen to move to Palestine. Most people aren’t inclined to pull up stakes and move to another country without reason, but heavy discrimination supplied the reason. This is not to say, though, that the Zionists were calling the shots in Germany the same way that the Israel lobby pushes around Congress these days.
The Liebknecht/Luxembourg uprising was Berlin. The Munich revolution lasted about six months. In Mein Kampf he says that he left Munich when it started, but returned for the last two months of the regime. Other sources say he was there the whole time, and was elected as a representative to the soldier’s Soviet.
The evacuation of his ancestral villages is described in Kardel’s book. Wikipedia mention them, very briefly. Austrian websites cover it.
I agree that while factoids are fun, they are difficult to prove. Even if a dozen sources say it’s true, it means nothing.
Kardel’s book is the the funniest, supposedly factual, WWII book I have ever read. Was it the intellectual inspiration for Mel Brookes comedy take ón Adolf, The Producers?
He starts the book with a chance encounter in the 1970s with a Spanish Austrian Jewish ex-army comrade from the siege of Leningrad called Jose Auslander. They go for a drink. The Jewish friend is wearing his Nazi war medals with full swastikas. Kardel asks him: As a full Jew, how come you’re wearing the swastikas? The guy laughs, and says :Scratch a bit ón Adolf, and after a while you will see a Vienna Jew like mé.”
Even if it’s not true, it’s definitely funny.
Perhaps comedy is the best response when we are accused of being Hitlerites. Musk and Bannon and that brave mixed race priest are doing their bit, in the places where it is not illegal.
Keith is right that the general population are starting to lose interest in WWII sob stories.
Here’s a statement that even a lot of lefties would agree with, and which would have the effect of stopping any Nazi talk in its tracks:
“The Israelis should stop whinging about what Adolf did to the Jews in the war. That gas chamber stuff is grossly exaggerated and he gave them lots of help to emigrate to Palestine. The Israelis should build a statue to Hitler in Jerusalem to honour the help he gave the Zionist movement.”
Adolf was fluffy with Jews, Englishmen, Frenchies and even black people. He was often very harsh with Germans and Slavs. If you want Nationial Socialism without tears, check out Otto Strasser.
Bjerknes is a mischling liar who makes a living writing nonsense about Hitler that “truthers” like his buddy, Adam Green lap up like starving stray cats. If Hitler was jewish people like Erich Ludendorff and Paul von Hindenburg would definitely have found that information out very easily. People who believe such obvious jewish propaganda are lacking in critical thinking.
Is there any specific error that you can name in Bjerknes’ book? What’s your view on Kardel – 12 wounds on the Ostfront and more fighting with the Lithuanian partisans in 1946? Did he invent the story?
What single error is there in Bjerknes’s book? The whole premise is absolute fantasy! A jew like Bjerknes claiming Hitler was a communist jew is just so ridiculous. It spits in the face of reason and EVERYTHING that is known about Hitler. If Hitler was a communist jew then why not let Germany win the war and install judeo-Bolshevism across all of Europe in the 1930s and 40s instead of the 21st Century? Why the Commisar Order and why even invade the Soviet Union in the first place then? It’s the most retarded thesis I have ever heard. It’s even more ridiculous than Irene Zisblatt shitting diamonds in Auschwitz!
Even if Bjerknes is Jewish, that is not proof he is lying. Israel Shahak was Jewish, but seems to have told the unpleasant truth, unpopular though it was. And what about Hennecke Kardel? He wasn’t Jewish, but he was an enthusiastic anti-Hitler National Socialist who was wounded 12 times on the Ostfront.
In answer to your questions, the theory has it that Hitler wanted to destroy Germany and kill as many Germans as possible. That would not have been possible if he had won the war.
It’s difficult to believe that Hitler wanted to destroy Germany. He spoke so passionately about his love for his country and up to the start of the war the Fascist countries were great places to live (as long as you didn’t criticise the leader too loudly). So he had a good track record, until the winter clothes didn’t turn up in time on the Eastern Front.
Is it possible that he spent 20 years living a lie, pretending to be a patriotic German, but actually some kind of Soviet Zionist agent? It’s unlikely in the extreme.
But then again, quite a few of our elected politicians today spend their lives living a lie….Apart from Thomas Massie in Congress, who else is there who is not living the lie?
But back to the original questions: Can you find a specific inaccuracy in either Bjerknes, or better still, Kardel’s book?
A – possibly Jewish – doctor called Leonard Sax has written a 36 page article on the topic, which seems to be a fair and objective examination of the topic.
I agree that it’s unnecessary to rehabilitate Hitler, but I do think that if, somehow, it happened, it would be good for us. An argument could be made that trying to make it happen would drive away more people than it wins us, but for the moment I’m happy to “let a thousand flowers bloom”.
Those Australian nationalists seem to be doing good work overall, even though I think they marginalize themselves by calling themselves “Hitler soldiers”, which is pretty cringe. In interviews I’ve seen with them, they’ve said that what they want is not German National Socialism, but instead an Australian “lowercase national socialism”, and I think that is defensible, but then they go and talk a bit too much about Hitler.
Mr. Hitler was not the monster the jews and company claim he was, should be our answer. Not hollywood Hitler the evilest satanic demon monster who ever lived, nor almighty savior messiah of the Aryan race. I’m somewhere on the rope in the mesosphere. “Restored Germany and accomplished many good things. But…what was he thinking on that one?”
A certain measure of Revisionism shall be necessary. Hitler, if not our official hero and martyr, must at least be looked back upon with neutrality, like one would a Bonaparte. An overly negative approach to Hitler is frankly a symptom of Talmudic slavery, there’s no two ways about it.
This article’s good message applies even more forcefully if your perspective is racial and pro-White rather than nationalist.
To survive in a world where we are targeted for destruction we Whites need to be an effective in-group. That means we need to suppress or at least diminish hostility and violence within the racially-defined in-group. We want peace with all races but above all with each other.
From this point of view Hitler doesn’t even begin. Hitler wasn’t even a flawed advocate of the brotherhood and common destiny of all Whites; he was an advocate for a totally different and violently incompatible project.
I totally agree. Adopting neo-Hitlerism would immediately split our movement into small national factions. Half of Europe has the struggle against the Nazi occupation as part of their national myth. Neo-Nazism attracts the worst characters on the principle of ‘I heard that Hitler was the great villain and the Nazis were the greatest villains, and because I want to be a villain too, I’m going to join them’. Our ideal must be a Christian knight, or at least a well-mannered white gentleman, not some loud-mouthed Nazi.
I’m not a shunner of National Socialists by default, but they do need to acknowledge criticism of Mr. Hitler when due especially if you claim to be proWhite. They shouldn’t see him as sacrosanct as negroes do mlk, or trump to the cringiest magatard in thrall, or reagan before donald.
Lots of straw-manning going on here. Is anybody seriously advocating for esoteric Adolf as the Tao of Whiteness?
One may not like National Socialism, but how can White Nationalists hide from White Power?
There is a good reason why billions and billions of dollars are spent memorializing the Holocaust; it is rather the elephant in the room.
Who do you think promotes race-mixing and radical egalitarianism?
There are Nationalist and Volkish movements that do take money from the Jews, and movements that do not.
What do you suppose the long-term success of a movement dedicated to White Racial Nationalism is if it must first hew to the Kosher line?
What can we say for think-tanks which cease publication of their loss-leader academic journals and then sell their mailing lists to the ADL?
Sounds like they are more effective in maintaining their sinecures than anything else that could be construed as a movement vying for power.
And if the Jewish Question frightens the Center-Right, then I’d say that this is a valuable feature to have and not a bug.
While the Center-Right is decidedly preferential to the Center-Left, it can’t avoid being “controlled opposition,” and therefore it will never carry anything to term at the finish line.
As a certain Commander long-ago observed, “Conservatism is trying to conserve what is already gone.”
I do not think that “fighting the Joos” is the proper course of political action at this time, nor for boot-srapping the important goal of racial instauration. That would put the cart before the horse, methinks.
However this is not to say that the Jewish Question should not have a prominent place on the table.
I also do not think that swastikas, political uniforms, or other nameless krinklejammers, is the right approach to our problem. Neither is that benighted skinhead aesthetic that I have always despised. Whomever came up with that look ought to have their party membership badge revoked.
The more effective a White racialist movement is, the more it will be slandered as Nazi.
The worst possible strategy is to try to apologize and to distance oneself from the only Socialism that is not Marxist and does NOT fetishize the class-struggle.
Populism has its merits, but it is inextricably tied to civic-Nationalism and Libertarianism, which have gone long past their sell dates.
Furthermore, the Truth MATTERS unless we are talking about Theology ─ in which case only the creed is what mattters.
Did the Allies float the thesis that millions of Jews and others were gassed?
And is their claim True or False? Yes or No.
This question matters today or billion$ and billion$ would not continue to be spent on the orthodoxy of a Good War fought in a galactic time zone far, far away.
And other things come to mind, what about Nazi soapmaking?
Well, the promoters of these atrocity myths say that this particular claim is not true. But they also claim, in polished Orwellian style, that the atrocity claim was NEVER made.
An octogenarian retired professor named Joachim Neander, whom I have corresponded with often, documented how the Human Soap fairy tale was sold in his native Poland after World War II, and how it resembled the German “corpse factory” black propaganda from the First World War, which he has also written on extensively. This kind of cautious scholarship is stretching the Kosher limits.
The more Revisionist scholarship and dialog, the better the History ─ and the better to guide us today.
We can chalk up the fact that the entire European continent did not wind up Judeo-Bolshevist or Stalinist to a certain avuncular warlord ─ and to the postwar deterrence of the atomic bomb.
So to summarize for the Tankies: Hitler was a man. Not a God. Not an avatar. He did not have wooden teeth nor chop down cherry trees as a boy. But he did go down with the ship after fighting the Good Fight.
President Trump routinely throws his clenched fist into the air ─ the old Communist and Black Power ─ salute.
If only we had real leaders in influential positions today who are unashamed to actually throw Hitlergrüßen and yell WHITE POWER.
We would be exploring the stars, cultivating authentic progress ─ and not be worring about getting Latin Mass restored to the globe, or whether the CIA is trying to put microchips into kids’ measles vaccinations, or hiding invisible shooters on the Grassy Knoll, etc.
🙂
Hi Scott,
I knew I’d locate you on this thread (lol). I responded to a very long comment you’d made to me at that Elon Musk/DOGE post by Morris van de Camp. Things move quickly here, but I thought I owed such a long response some acknowledgement.
As to your comment here, the proper tack for white preservationists is gradual radicalization, recognizing that victories beget victories. We start small, and build out. Any association with Nazis is the kiss of death politically. Why start there, when a firm national majority want the illegals deported? Once the illegals are deported (a huge achievement for those of us in the real world), we can move the goal posts for a new assault on replacement and wokeness.
Absent national collapse, we will not reach the “omega” Ethnostate from our present “alpha”. There are many intermediate steps. Getting from alpha to beta is made immensely more difficult if the omega-point is that with which we become publicly identified (and note: my omega is not Nazism, which I oppose, but the peaceful Ethnostate).
OTOH, I certainly support all historical revisionism aimed at puncturing the edifice of lies associated with WW2 – lies which continue to serve nefarious purposes today.
I agree with the author that Adolf Hitler’s “German chauvinism” was his biggest problem, from the perspective of White Nationalism, however, I disagree about the “Nordicism” part. While Hitler’s anti-Slavism was his biggest flaw, the cause of this flaw wasn’t Hitler’s Nordicism, rather, the fact that Hitler didn’t adhere to Nordicism closely enough. Hitler, essentially, failed to acknowledge the strong Nordic racial component of different Slavic-speaking nations (remember, Slavic and Germanic are linguistic terms, while Nordic/Alpine/Mediterranean are racial ones).
This can be seen in the fact that Hitler had friendly relations with most Mediterranean nations, i.e., Italy, Spain, Romania (the Mediterraneans are the most mixed, racially), while, at the same time, having often unfriendly and, at times, genocidal relations with much more Nordic (and Alpine) nations, such as the Czechs (many of whom are blonder/more Nordic than the Austrians), the Russians (many of whom are more Nordic than, say, southern Germans/Bavarians) and so on.
Hitler made a fatal flaw here from the perspective of objective, racial science, in not accounting for the strong Nordic racial component among Slavic nations, with the Nordic, or more properly, Nordo-Alpine racial element, in fact, being a major reason why Slavic countries today are doing well and have mostly exceeded Mediterranean, Southern European countries such as Italy, Spain, Greece, etc., in quality of life, GDP, etc.
The author, therefore, in incorrectly tying Hitler’s German chauvinism (which is bad for White Nationalism today) to his Nordicism (which continues to be essential to White Nationalism today), is actually “throwing out the baby with the bathwater”, so to speak, and making a fatal flaw in his reasoning. Thus, the author, despite his good intentions, fails to establish White Nationalism on the foundations which adhere most closely to reality – that is, a strong Nordo-Alpine racial science that transcends national borders.
We should study and discuss National Socialism and Hitler as dispassionately as we study and discuss Bolshevism and Lenin and Stalin. I’d say that, if we’re doomed if we don’t “rehabilitate” (whatever that might mean in detail) National Socialism and Hitler, we’re at least as doomed if we do rehabilitate them.
“Outsider” opinion here. Hitler and NS didn’t bring me to WN; White achievement and mistreatment at the hands of blacks, did. However, Hitler has always looked awesome and NS pretty “cool”.
I don’t dress up as an SS-officer, but I REALLY like NS and I find Hitler inspirational. I won’t eschew him. Sure, he did wrong things and held some crazy views, who hasn’t and who doesn’t, but he was still great.
WN can only dream of having a fraction of his success. Additionally, I think NS was of a higher caliber; as an example, watch any NS documentary or footage and Western music shines forth. I can’t even have a discussion about Classical Music with a modern-day WN let alone a “neo-Nazi”.
Oh, and as for the Nordicist doctrine, I agree with NS. Being Iranian, I know the reality of Nordic superiority. Was it Rosenberg who called Meds “The People of Chaos”? There’s truth to it. Didn’t he or another NS say “Africa begins south of Rome”? Again, there’s truth to it.
There was truth to the barbarity and inferiority of the Eastern Slavs, as well, not to mention their alarmingly higher admixture with Mongols, Siberian-types, etc.
Bottom-line, if I was alive during that time and I was the courageous type, I would’ve enlisted.
Didn’t he or another NS say “Africa begins south of Rome”? Again, there’s truth to it. Would you rather be forced to stay in Napoli, or somalia and algeria? I wonder why the first, including Rome, is so unpleasant for many nowadays.
The article is flawed in several aspects.
First, reducing National Socialism to Slav-hating and the hackneyed ‘Lebensraum’ is the last thing which will convince anybody. The relation between Germans and the Slavs has to be seen in in the post-WWI context where Slavs took German Lebensraum in the West with 2.5 millions Germans left in Poland and 3.5 million in Czechoslovakia.
And anyway, when Anglo-Saxons criticize taking Lebensraum, the whole third world will have a big laugh.
Next, as is well known, the NS racial concept was ‘Aryan’, neither ‘nordicist’ nor excluding Mediterranean Whites.
Last but not least, the central tenets of NS get only short consideration in this article:
– the separation from Jews, who were considered a different race (in accordance to Israel’s point of view today), detrimental culturally and economically to their German hosts
and
– the economy serving the Volksgemeinschaft, not the inverse, as well as
– a money system based on a county’s productivity, not on speculation or gold digging
These NS features are even more relevant today than they were in Hitler’s time. Thus on the long run, it will not be possible to get National Socialism out of the way.
Carlos Videla did not say what NS exactly is, same with Maurice Bardeche on fascism, but rather what it sought to do: increase the heredity value of biological traits towards evolutionary improvement of a people over time incorporating the four pillars of struggle, selection, fertility, and inheritance. The problem is that NS is too often synonymously equated with Nazi militaria fawning and Hitler worship by people whom the Chief probably would not have liked.
Well said. Why is nobody mentioning that two of Germany’s closest allies were the Slavic Croats and Slovaks? Also something like 1 million ethnic Russians and nearly that many Ukrainians fought alongside Germany and her allies AGAINST the Soviets. The problem was Germany didn’t have enough war material to turn these allies into more effective fighting forces plus there was legitimate distrust between the Germans and the armies of Vlasov and Bandera. I do believe Hitler made a terrible mistake by not immediately backing an independent Ukraine under Bandera or one of the other Ukrainian nationalist factions (who were also fighting amongst themselves) and I believe this was due to German aspirations for Ukrainian territory which Germany was promised in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. This notion that Hitler wanted to genocide the Slavs is absolutely false however the Soviets DID commit genocide not only against ethnic Russians and Ukrainians, but also against the Poles, Latvians, Estonians and Lithuanians by rounding up and brutally murdering the organic nobility and intelligentsia of all these aforementioned peoples. Almost every time I see somebody in our sphere regurgitating the old lies about Hitler they always seem to be Irish or Polish. I can understand the Polish animosity however I never could understand why the Irish are so anti-Hitler and generally anti-German. My Opa was 10 years old when WW2 ended and what he can remember of his schooling during the NS period was very pro-Irish. I myself am half-German and half-Highland Scottish and I have always loved Irish folk music and Irish culture in general. I love the Easter 1916 patriots and martyrs and when I first heard Tommy Makem’s “Four Greenfields” and realized that the old woman in the song was the personification of Ireland and the fourth greenfield under foreign bondage was Ulster I literally got chills and my eyes watered up at such a powerful song. Perhaps I’m wrong but it just seems like the Irish are very anti-German with absolutely no rationale for it. Germany even tried to help the Easter Rising patriots however the patriots made a grave error in trusting a jew who’s parents slithered into Ireland from Lithuania who went by the fictitious name of Robert Briscoe who tipped off the British authorities about the German u-boat bringing weapons to the patriots. And that traitor is still honored as a “hero” of Irish independence today in Ireland.
Fully agree with your thoughts about WW2. Yes, according to objective criteria the most atrocious side in the war was Soviet Union. It is indisputable. The whole concept of Soviet military actions was always based on wide use of atrocities, as against the enemy, so against their own population. We can clearly see the repetition of the same template now in Ukraine. The Soviet Union committed all imaginable crimes and blamed everyone else in order to create an informational smokescreen.
I have nothing against critical analysis of Hitler and Third Reich. The problem is that majority of critics do it in bad faith. They come to this question with a bunch of misconceptions and prejudices. They cherry-pick all real and concocted facts that must fit in the preconceived awful image.
It is all well-known and hackneyed style; from Charlie Chaplain grotesque movies to Ian Kershaw’s “historical studies”. The target auditory of the mainstream media and scholars are the bulk of population; those who always accept the dominant views.
Here we deal with another kind of attack. The enemy understands that not all people would accept the state-anointed holy lies. There will be someone who want to know better. For this small auditory the system needs to plant people of “the same views”. They must pretend to share the basic truths but would push their own agenda on some seemingly minor issues. For example: “why do you need Hitler? Wouldn’t be better to drop this dirty baggage and engage in politics with clean hands?” It could seem a good idea for many; especially for those who imagine themselves to be “rational” and “practical” (deal-maker Trump syndrome). But it is only the first step. After you accept it, there will be other steps: accepting “migrants useful for economy”, “support our greatest ally in the Middle East”, an Indian wife (why not?) and so on. There is no end of this process; the end point is the total destruction of your honor and identity. It is why such plants in the movement are so valuable for the system. They are more effective than open slanderers like Ian Kershaw or Allan Bullock. It is why we must be always alert to this kind of danger. No compromises with those who want to undermine our core values and firmaments.
100% correct. The current state of the West is built upon the lies about Hitler and WW2 therefore it is an erstwhile topic of discussion in our movement. No serious National Socialist today is suggesting we don SS uniforms and wave the blood flag like some of these commenters are suggesting we want and those that do are either very juvenile or feds (like the unidentified swastika flag guy at Charlottesville). I agree with what Ernst Zündel said about NS symbolism that it is sacred and shouldn’t be cheaply brandished by people who look like carnies.
Fully support your vision. Yes, Ernst Zubdel’s position in relation to these issues is the best one. We must have respect to our history bun not try to recreate it (with exception of historical societies, which have nothing to do with politics).
I’ll say that it’s not necessary to emulate past movements, since each place and time has its own problems and needs unique solutions. I’ll even concur that historical matters aren’t the primary battleground. Still, they are an important battleground. The opposition knows it too. Here’s how they tell it:
Colonialism is evil (if it’s Europeans doing it)
America’s pioneers are evil
The Confederates are evil
The Manifest Destiny is evil
Hitler and the Nazis are evil – super duper evil at that!
Other Fascists are evil
Southern segregationists are evil
Rhodesians are evil
South African Whites are evil
Whites who oppose Third World immigration are evil
Etc., etc., etc.
I think I’m seeing a pattern here. Sure, we can sidestep some of this, or even all of it. Still, the more we do so, the closer we are to CivNats unable to discuss the facts honestly because of self-imposed limitations. Now here are some leftist takes which might be instructive:
Sure, Pol Pot made some dick moves, but what does that have to do with anything?
Yeah, the Bolsheviks were up to some rough stuff, but they were only trying to build a better world
Chairman Mao did something bad? I never heard of anything like that.
Well, Fidel Castro was a freedom fighter!
Ho Chi Minh was right, and we were the bad guys
Yes, Whitey is so evil racist, fascist, colonizer, hate speech…and yet coloreds can never ever stay away. How odd. All that systemic and structural waycism and they always want to stay in White countries and White neighborhoods within those countries, never their own. It’s severely closeted homo syndrome by Preacher Crank the Jesus Freak. “Goddamn the queerosexuals!! It’s Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!” And bible thumper Mr. family values just can’t stay away from the glory holes and meth.
The answer should be: “Real National Socialism has never been tried!” 🙂
It’s funny how the commies use the trope even after they failed 100 times or more. But a single alleged instance of wrongdoing on our part is enough for them to cry wolf. It looks very honest to me.
Whatever wrong Hitler did, he is in completely different league than even lousy Pol Pot. And if “Politique potencielle” managed to kill about 1/3 of Cambodia’s population in several years, I don’t want to be anywhere near Che Guevara’s “impossible”. 😉
Keeping that in mind, the enemy can use such rhetoric largely because of the media leverage and its concealment of the real facts. I don’t know if these tactics would work reliably for us. If it’s so, good. But, most likely, establishment of the truth will come only after our victory.
I understand Mr. Hammer’s sentiment very well. He wants to be “good” and socially “acceptable”. It is one of the basic urges of all social creatures.
I want to suggest to him a much easier path for social acceptability. Why to bother at all with all those ideas about race and nation? Why not accept the dominant narrative and live as all other “normal people”? If he wants to be active in politics, he can join any conservative party and participate in elections, become a member of parliament or a mayor. Why to bother with all those “fascist” issues at all?
Mr. Hammer wants to be clean and have a good record. But in the same time he wants to exploit a potential of identity politics. There are many such people now. Even the mainstream professional politicians started to play with such things; AFD and all other populists in Europe are of this ilk. It is the measure of decadence of the modern society. The mainstream majority started to feel the awful consequences of the previous anti-national policies. But the mainstream flock fears to adopt “forbidden” ideas. It is why they seek “acceptable” ways of expressing their mixed feelings.
There are plenty of such people in Russia as well. They try to combine nationalism and even racism with glorification of Bolshevism and celebrating of “Great victory against Nazism”.
I have a proposal to Mr. Hammer: This year our great country celebrates the 80th anniversary of the Great Victory of the Soviet People against Nazi Germany. Our glorious leader, comrade Putin will receive all the best people from around the world (African and Asian heads of state, Slovakian prime-minister Fico, the cut-throat heroes and professional torturers straight from the frontline and so on). Mr. Hammer, you have a unique opportunity to come here and find a multitude of people of your views. They all would agree with you about Hitler and Nazism. Please, don’t miss this opportunity, come to Moscow and enjoy the parade.
I couldn’t have put it better myself, Herr Wolf Steiner!
Guest response from Francis Parker Yockey:
“After the conclusion of the Second World War, the opponents of the Hero of that war found themselves still dominated by his personality. Either they adopted his ideas and declared them as their own, or they continued to fight against them. There was no trace of a new idea independent of this Hero…
“In the heroic era, no military test applies, not the test of ‘success’ nor of anything else. It was Cromwell who inspired generations of men after him, not the later Stuarts who had his body torn to pieces by wild horses. It was Napoleon who inspired a century of leadership after him, not Ludwig XVIII or Metternich or Talleyrand. The heroic world stands immeasurably above the division of useful/useless. Cromwell won in 1688, long after his death and following disgrace. And in 1840 Napoleon had won, he whose name could be pronounced in Europe only with risk in 1820. The idea of Napoleon triumphed in the spiritual-political sphere, his personality in the heroic sphere. Who would accuse him now over the facts of the lost battles of Leipzig and Waterloo?
“Such will it be with the Hero of World War II. He represented the new, aesthetic type which will form and inspire all coming leaders in the West. The lamenting after the Second World War about his ‘mistakes’ was simply contemptible. Every journalist and big-mouth knows better than the great — they just would not have made this or that mistake. No, for they would not have been able to do anything at all.
“Heroism is unique and cannot be wasted. As long as men survive, they will always be influenced by the Hero and his legend. He lives on in spirit and continues to take place in the world of facts and deeds.”
From The Enemy of Europe
Excellent words. Fully agree. The Hero of WW2 will become ever more powerful in the realm of ideas. Now, when the whole rotten post-WW2 global system comes down and the political scene is dominated by clowns, the Hero becomes ever more relevant. In essence, there is nothing else of value in the world now. The epic of WW2, the grand stand of the White race against wild hordes from the east and from behind the ocean, is sure to acquire the most powerful mythical status in the future centuries.
“As for the ‘existential conception of life as struggle,’ this is a metaphysical view that is inessential to the success of a [White] nationalist movement”
The metaphysical doctrine of heroism you are describing here is actually a pretty essential aspect of the Aryan biospirit and the civilizations which arise from it. It’s hardly unique to National Socialism either. It can be found in Norse sagas, Germanic legends, Greek epics and even the songs of troubador’s. Not only is it rooted in our ancestral traditions, but it is also inseparable from our understanding of the natural sciences. You do not need to be a mystic or a romantic to see elements of this doctrine recapitulated in every biological system, from the largest ecosystems down to the very cells of our bodies.
Acceptance of this paradigm is a major part of what separates us spiritually from less Faustian and more stability-oriented civilizations of the East. In other words, we could not truly deny such a doctrine without, in a sense, denying a part of ourselves and our distinctness. It is for that reason that it cannot be dismissed as “inessential” for White nationalists.
“and in conflict with the many Christians who may otherwise support white racial survival.”
If we were to accept this premise as true, it would be more of a strike against Christianity than National Socialism.
The best argument on this subject was offered by Adolf Hitler. He literally said: National Socialism is only for Germany and is not an export commodity. The individual states themselves must arrive at a regime that suits them. For this reason, National Socialism never ruled in Slovakia (Klerofascism), the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia (a mix of its own Protectorate government and the occupation government) in Vichy France was ruled by conservatives. In Poland and Ukraine, the occupation government ruled. Adolf Hitler never wanted Irish National Socialism when he didn’t want National Socialism in the surrounding countries either. Adolf Hitler was a very popular figure in his time and would never have joined a movement less popular than Satanism.
Today we need to get real power either through nationalist parties or national populism. After our victory, we will need to revise history, for example through David Irving’s books. We don’t need contemporary National Socialism.
I like Keith, great work, tremendous activist. Agree with a good amount of this. From a strategic outlook, we definitely don’t need to rehabilitate NS to recruit. It would seem more a hindrance right now.
But if I were asked, ‘Was Hitler a genocidal bad monster who just did all the wrong things?’. I can’t really answer yes. That’s the wrong way of looking at the issue.
He was acting on the circumstances of the time. When Keith says ‘propaganda’, the propaganda was for a reason. It wasn’t plucked out of thin air. I kind of want to agree with things Tom Metzger said about Hitler’s military ideas, in the sense he picked too many fronts, that were never going to be winnable. He did so out of principle, and the situation as he saw it.
I don’t claim to be an authority on WW2, but Keith is cherry picking things for his piece that Mark Weber has said. I have my own personal feelings about Mr Weber, but he’s completely left out Weber’s quite extensive explanations for why Hitler did the things he did, which I think are quite credible.
And I want to point out something else that’s really important. It’s all very trendy to say, ‘We’re all about optics now’ and ‘nice policies’ and we’re going to ‘distance ourselves from Hitler’.
In some ways, what is happening now, and has been happening for some time, does overlap with early NS, because it’s impossible not to. There’s no way of totally getting round that. Certainly not from the left or center point of view.
But there will come a point where a proportion of aliens, and dark skinned thugs and subversives don’t just want to go back peacefully. Where the left, including the Jewish left organize violently against us. Where they feel they have the mandate to oppress us severely in the name of progress and social justice. At some point, no matter how nice we are, no matter how many nice incentives we offer, a proportion, and it may be sizable, of these people will need to be ‘oppressed’ by laws so our polices, and we, can exist.
It would be dishonest to paint this as ‘Hitler fantasies’. Someone is going to have to have the stomach to implement this. And I’m pretty sure there will be some people, even in our own ranks, who would rather sabotage this out of feelings and ‘optics’ than win. What will their answer be ? Another post on X ? Another livestream ?
Someone has to be prepared to do the dirty work in legislation and government.
I kind of wish this topic would go away and we never had to deal with it. Although I don’t think it’s necessary to embrace historical NS, sometimes when people on our side, and I don’t mean Keith here, take a regular and conspicuous position against Hitler or NS, claiming to offer some ‘other’ kind of nationalism, or that NS wasn’t ‘real’ nationalism, I feel it’s to do more with their sensibilities and the massive stigma around the topic, than anything else. I’m not convinced by that.
Adolf Hitler literally said:
National Socialism is only for Germany and is not an export commodity. The individual states themselves must arrive at a regime that suits them.
This cannot be stressed enough, when lunatics are driveling about Hitler wanting to rule the world.
It is the contrary of Soviet Marxist and US AIPAC doctrines of expansionism and an example of how history can be put upside down when you have the power of mainstream media.
Hitler’s invasion of Poland was unconscionable. Full stop.
“First strike: how the Poles wanted to launch a ‘preventive war’ against Hitler’s Germany
Magda Dercz, The First News, November 24, 2018
Historians say Marshall Józef Piłsudski tried to organise an alliance with France, Czechoslovakia and Great Britain against Hitler in the spring of 1933. /PAP
Professor Marek Kornat from the history institute at the Polish Academy of Sciences and the Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University explains how Poland wanted to contain Hitler.”
No, the Polish colonels were literally asking for it ─ and getting war declared was why Albion “guaranteed” Poland’s excesses with a blank check in the first place.
One either “gets” it or one does not.
Hitler knew that Albion was not interested in actually fighting over Poland (let alone Danzig) which is why he (incorrectly) scoffed at their Guarantee. He also put more faith in Soviet peace feelers than he should have and realized this mistake when they brutally annexed the Baltic states and Bessarabia/Moldova and then demanded control of Romanian oil resources thus aspiring to hold Germany by the throat.
To anyone remotely familiar with the subject, Hitler’s raison d’etre was to support and give a voice to German minorities unfairly treated by the Versailles dictates, and being oppressed by Prague and Warsaw ─ but he also wanted comity with nations against the Soviet threat. Countries like Slovakia and Romania directly appealled to Hitler for protection. Italy, Hungary, and Finland were also allied with Germany.
The West gave a lot of lip-service to supporting Finland and Poland against aggression, but in fact, they had little or no real interest in opposing Soviet aggression. All they cared about was putting Germany back in her place.
Hitler’s insatiable “appeasement” and alleged Slav hatred is nothing more than enemy propaganda ─ a threadbare “bloody shirt” that is still waved today by the usual suspects.
Newsflash: Jews are not really interested in what I call the “ecumenical” Holocaust in any case. It is their badge and theirs alone. They really don’t care about anybody else other than to demonize Hitler’s Germany and White Nationalism in general. When (((Barbara Lerner Spectre))) says that Jews want to “transform” Europe, she does not mean for the cultural benefit of the Goyim. People like this need to toddle on back to Israel and to stay there.
Poland rebuffed German and other diplomacy guarded against Moscow after the death of Pilsudski, but Hitler would have been satisfied from prewar Poland by a simple road and rail right-of-way from the main Reich to Danzig and East Prussia through formerly-German territories. Apparently that was too much to ask.
Granting such a small road and rail right-of-way would have been easy for Poland had she really wanted peace.
But that would have subverted Poland’s blockade and designs for “the free city of” Danzig ─ new-found aspirations that were being stoked in London and Paris and Hollywood for the sake of bellicosity with Germany. International Jewry had already “declared war” on Germany in 1933.
And it is not for nothing that some of the most ardent NSDAP members were Danzigers. They and other German minorities in places like Silesia and Posen were effectively under siege.
🙂
Exactly. If Pilsudski didn’t die in 1935 I do believe Germany and Poland would have been allied against the Soviet Union. Hitler and Pilsudski had already signed a friendship treaty between the two nations and Hitler admired Pilsudski for how he handled the Bolsheviks in Poland’s war against them in the aftermath of WW1. The gang that took over Poland after Pilsudski’s death ramped up anti-German measures against the German minority in Poland and also believed they were going to extend Poland’s borders to Berlin since the British and FDR were goading them into taking this attitude towards Germany with the French reluctantly being dragged into this approach as well. And Poland was threatening to cut off Danzig and take it. Everything you said is 100% spot on.
Here’s what our history teachers never told us:
https://www.carolynyeager.net/gleiwitz-%E2%80%9Cfalse-flag%E2%80%9D-incident-pure-fiction
The Keith Woods article might be interpreted as a type of ‘declaration of intent’ to act against a silliness which he says leads nowhere at all. In that regard, whatever its faults of composition may be, his article says he doesn’t want to play that game.Why should he? His country has a history he prefers to invoke so as to protect its identity.
Someone here referred to the Australians at issue as “nationalists”. They are not this. They are what Woods calls them – neo-nazis. And that movement is a cult. It is as much a falsification of history as standard liberal-democratic interpretation of fascism and the Second World War. Maybe that position is the operative one?
Further, and as Woods may actually know, there is more to it all. Recently, I edited particular research on the Mr. Davis referred to in the Woods article: https://australiafirstparty.net/neo-nazi-leader-has-jewish-connections/
Oddly, we are discussing a group of activists who turned out on Melbourne’s famed St. Kilda Beach on Australia Day (Jan. 26) 2019 to support a so-called conservative leader who called himself the “biggest supporter of Israel in the Federal parliament”.
I look forward to Mr. Woods’s further commentary.
That’s what I’ve been saying all along: the Hitler legacy attracts irresistibly weird shady characters and repels not only normies but also potentially very oppositional anti-liberal people. We have much better sources of inspiration in white history, starting with the ancient Greeks and Romans, through the Middle Ages to the 18th-19th century colonialists. If we are to rehabilitate anything, it is colonialism and classic White supremacism in the sense of our moral, cultural and intellectual superiority.
American Nazi Party Commander George Lincoln Rockwell never permitted German symbols, German helmets, nor German uniforms, and only political uniforms for special demonstrations. He did this for a good reason. The later iteration of the NSWPP (National Socialist White People’s Party) often used the Betsy Ross flag. The swastika is not even a specific German symbol, although it was used by Hitler. Today it has been taken over by Hollywood and a multi-billion dollar anti-White propaganda industry. And other than swastikas not being advisable to use for White Nationalists today, the original article is highly suspect and crashing through an open door.
🙂
outclassed: March 8, 2025 Hitler’s invasion of Poland was unconscionable.
—
Was it? How about Stalin’s invasions of Poland from the east? Did England and France declare war on Stalin for his invasion a few days later, or just on Hitler from the west? No, in fact, the UK and France had colllaborated with the Soviets prior to the invasions of Poland..
Hadding uncovered these facts, here: Britain Intended War Before Hitler Invaded Poland | National Vanguard
Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain said to U.S. ambassador Joseph Kennedy that the reason why he had made war against Germany was that “America and the World Jews” had pressured him. Kennedy later told this to Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal, who recorded it in his diary; “neither the French nor the British would have made Poland a cause of war if it had not been for the constant needling from Washington,” is how Forrestal summarized Kennedy’s recollection (The Forrestal Diaries, entry of 27 December 1945).
* * * * *
I have no idea who Mr. Woods is other than his being a popular Internet personality among the Internet “WN” community. I leave history to the historians, especially ones that specialize in NS and WWII, like Dr. Dalton, Germar Rudolf, Hadding Scott or Martin Kerr, etc. The best argument directed specifically against naive Mr. Woods is this by Daniel Zakel: Nationalism Without National Socialism Is a Hollow Shell | National Vanguard Zakel concludes with:
In short, Woods represents precisely what must be eradicated from nationalism: timidity, compromise, and a preoccupation with optics. He prioritizes popular acceptance over ideological integrity, fundamentally misunderstanding the reality that true nationalism requires sacrifice, struggle, and unwavering adherence to principles that sustain and elevate life.
The Life-Affirming Principle dictates clear solutions: nationalism must be bold, disciplined, and uncompromising. It cannot thrive through half-hearted populism or sanitized historical revisionism. National Socialism is more than Adolf Hitler or the Third Reich; it is a timeless truth, discovered rather than invented, a guiding philosophy for cultural, biological, and economic health. To reject it is to reject the only fully coherent system capable of achieving lasting strength and survival for our people.
Ultimately, Woods embodies a defeatist mindset. He would rather pursue polite nationalism, begging permission to exist, instead of forging an uncompromising path toward genuine national renewal. His approach offers neither hope nor solutions, only endless retreat. To embrace Woods’ path is to embrace perpetual defeat.
Further convincing critique of Woods’ weak anti-NS commentary by Zakel may be found here. Keith Woods the Bolshevik Revolutionary ☭
(Note that Mr. Zakal’s shop features items celebrating William Pierce and Cosmotheism.)
100% spot on, Mr. Williams. Since you mentioned Ambassador Kennedy I’m sure you are familiar with, “The Case of Tyler Kent” by John Howland Snow. Kent was a high ranking American embassy official under Ambassador Kennedy and he was passing secret communiques between FDR and Churchill to the anti-Bolshevik faction in Britain, chiefly Lord Archibald Ramsay. These communiques proved that FDR’s administration was doing everything possible to get America into the war despite his campaign promises of keeping America out of the war. When MI5 found out about this they arrested Lord Ramsay, Tyler Kent, a White Russian emigre Anna Wolkoff and some others. Tyler Kent had diplomatic immunity however Ambassador Kennedy waived it so that Kent could be tried in secret with the others and held incommunicado throughout the war and he wasn’t released until 1947 if I remember correctly. The BBC actually did an interview with Kent in 1983 and it is pretty good. It’s something that they would never allow on their broadcasts today because Kent lays out the truth and is very convincing about how terrible it was to ally with the Bolsheviks and turn half of Europe over to them after the war. This episode used to be on YouTube but I think the BBC has scrubbed it from the Internet. Also if I’m not mistaken Keith Woods has interviewed Alexander Dugin (a friend of Putin who encourages the miscegenation of ethnic Russians with Asiatics, so called “Eurasianism”) and has expressed his admiration for Dugin’s “National Bolshevism” in the past. For some reason it seems that the Irish are only behind the Poles when it comes to their irrational hatred of National Socialism (I guess the Poles are entitled to that hatred even though their leaders were responsible for the German invasion) and Germans in general.
Let’s All Drink To The Death Of A Clown: March 11, 2025 100% spot on, Mr. Williams. Since you mentioned Ambassador Kennedy I’m sure you are familiar with, “The Case of Tyler Kent” by John Howland Snow. Kent was a high ranking American embassy official under Ambassador Kennedy and he was passing secret communiques between FDR and Churchill to the anti-Bolshevik faction in Britain, chiefly Lord Archibald Ramsay. These communiques proved that FDR’s administration was doing everything possible to get America into the war despite his campaign promises of keeping America out of the war… This episode used to be on YouTube but I think the BBC has scrubbed it from the Internet…
—
I’m not familiar with Tyler Kent, but what you say about him makes sense. Roosevelt was in tight as Dick’s hatband with Jews wanting to get America into the European war against Hitler. Fact! Joseph Kennedy was sacked as UK ambassador for being too friendly with Hitler and for being anti-interventionist.
It also makes sense that Jew-owned YouTube would scrub anything that goes against the narrative being pushed by followers of Mr. Woods.
—
Also if I’m not mistaken Keith Woods has interviewed Alexander Dugin (a friend of Putin who encourages the miscegenation of ethnic Russians with Asiatics, so called “Eurasianism”).…
If true, it doesn’t get much more anti-White than that.
Yes, Dugin is a very ghoulish character and I don’t understand why people like David Duke met with and posed for photos with him. His Eurasianism is explicitly against ethnic Russian nationalism, Pan-Slavic nationalism and of course White nationalism yet Dugin is labeled a “neo-fascist” by the jew media and some uninformed people in our sphere.
Duplicate comment removed
‘White Nationalism’ is a larger concept than ‘German National Socialism of the 1930s and 1940s’.
Trying to make NSDAP apologetics central to White Nationalism hasn’t advanced the cause of Whites caring about Whites because they are White. If anything, it’s been a repellent to normal, decent White folks who are concerned about what’s going on with regard to racial antagonism towards Whites.
‘White Nationalism’ is an ethos, a way of doing things in the world. It’s not a specific economic or political form, but the standard against which all economic or political forms are judged in terms of their benefit to Whites.
Using German National Socialism as the ‘gold standard’ of ‘White Nationalism’ has at least one glaring problem: It failed.
I’m not sure why White Nationalism anywhere would want to take as their role model a political and economic state that was destroyed and left its people in shambles.
I’m not blaming NSDAP for this outcome, merely pointing out that claiming that a failed political project is the ‘gold standard’ creates a built-in inferiority to whatever version of ‘White Nationalism’ that chooses to anchor itself to it.
The truth is that, even if the NSDAP apologists were to ‘win’, nothing for Whites need to have changed. We’d still live in an anti-White regime but now it would be one where people could say ‘NSDAP wasn’t the only guilty party’.
It’s an illusion that there’s some connective causal relation between ‘It’s okay to be Hitler’ and ‘It’s okay to be White’.
You could accept that Hitler wasn’t any worse than Stalin and still believe in race-mixing.
Historical solutions do not resolve current problems.
This comment only makes sense when you know what is “Hamburg today’: a failed city overrun by third worlders (isn’t ex-chancellor Scholz a “Hamburger today’?).
“German National Socialism … has at least one glaring problem: It failed.”
Oh no, German National Socialism was the most successful political/economical system between the wars and that is precisely why is was brutally destroyed. It did not ‘fail’ contrary to Roosevelt’s New Deal and Stalin’s communism.
Success or failure of a political system cannot be judged by the outcome of war waged on it by its opponents, but by its achievements when it is left on its own.
There is a difference between an objective assessment of history and the notion that today’s white nationalists are somehow supposed to be the successors to Hitler. The problem with Hitlerism is its extreme favoritism of Germans at the expense of other Whites of the time, which logically cannot be beneficial to universalist ideology for today’s Whites. World War II was essentially a war among Whites for hegemony in Europe, and in that it was a continuation of World War I. Hitler’s policies were thus rather peripheral to the struggle between Whites and non-whites (if we leave aside the Jews). Hitler saw his priority in the supremacy of Germany and the destruction of Bolshevism. But that’s not what worries today’s white nationalists.
I feel there’s quite a big difference between the perception of Nazis in Europe and in America or Australia. In Europe, the Nazis are still seen as primarily “those Germans”. They were unpleasant neighbours who wanted to stretch themselves at the expense of others and take what wasn’t theirs by brutal methods. Outside Europe, the Nazis are seen mainly through a Jewish liberal lens as a kind of antithesis of the current regime.
Thank God we didn’t have any unpleasant and predatory neighbors. Just take a look at the map of Germany from 1900 and today…
Britain and its offshoots have been characterised by liberal government. Perhaps one of the problems here is the lack of ethno-nationalist heroes in the Anglosphere (Ireland apart).
We Australians have a host of radical nationalist heroes and theorists: William Lane, Henry Lawson, John Curtin, Percy Stephensen, Frank Anstey – and many more. Later this year, we hope to publish two volumes of Australian labour history. We will articulate just under one hundred different leaders of the historical labour movement who argued for a nationalist ‘White Australia’ sentiment. After noting all this, I have at least one reason to agree with Mr. Woods.
There is another. Some here have pointed out faults, as Mr. Woods did, concerning National Socialism’s ‘racial’ ideology. In our case, German state documents exist concerning a proposal to divide Australia with Japan, moving persons considered German to a Tasmanian colony, or if that did not work out, their resettlement in the Russian territories. I think National Socialism should be looked at objectively at all times. We should separate some historical matters (like the incitement of war amongst the European states) from ideological issues.
I confess I’ve not heard of them. Are they household names in Australia? That’s what I meant. Obviously, Britain has people like Mosley, Leese and more recently Bowden, but they’re only heroes to people on the right.
These writers and activists have lain at the core of Australian nationalism. I have discussed them in part four of chapter one of my PhD : https://core.ac.uk/reader/41229840
The nationalists have published at length on these persons in a cheap pamphlet series.
A website, the Nationalist Ideological Historical and Legal Archive, can be found on archived sites but will soon be republished by nationalists online. This site carried material on these authors.
In recent times, these men have been downplayed by neo-nazis and ‘far right’ people because they don’t match up with their agendas.
Our task is to restore them to the first place!
Language matters. Where American / Zionist / Jewish propaganda operates without any linguistic barrier and with maximum force, Whites are at a great disadvantage.
Heroes of Anglo-Saxon identity, such as Queen Boadicea (who used to get proud statues in her honor) were erased by the Jewish consensus that only issues of interest to Jews mattered and by Jewish influence over education, government, and the mass media.
Our predicament today cannot be divorced from what happened to the Third Reich. The current situation faced by whites worldwide is a continuation of that war, only now we are all Germany.
You’re right Dodo, but in Australia it took continuous pressure from pro-Jewish academic, educational, and mass media influences to establish and maintain that frame.
If it puts off decent people with patriotic instincts whom we can potentially win over to the nationalist cause, it should be readily discarded. Full stop.
Displaying any measure of nostalgia for an imperialist regime that had more than its fair share of excesses, many of whom perpetrated against our own people, is not only stupid but also actively harmful.
The “I can’t be White without Hitler” crowd are a constant reminder of how unimaginative atavists provide everything the State needs to undermine the premise of White ethnic discourse, as if there wasn’t enough ‘noise’ clutter around it to begin with. Hitler resurrection hasn’t worked and, even if you’re young and German, shouldn’t. The more years that gather in-between the fall of Berlin and the failure of subsequent ‘Hitler soldiers’ to resurrect a bygone, time-specific chauvinistically German movement, the greater the definition of insanity as doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result become applicable to these political nuisances. Truths or falsehoods about World War 2 are thereby irrelevant and what matters is the here and now. History is a guide, and while it gives the horrible impression of repeating itself, if that truly is the lesson to garner from history, one would imagine that is reason alone not to try to recreate it.
“Truths or falsehoods about World War 2 are thereby irrelevant and what matters is the here and now.”
By force of terrible circumstances our project has to be stopping White genocide in the 21st Century. If we fail in this nothing else matters. Everything must be subordinate to this.
The study of History is a relevant teacher for the future, although it is not a perfect gauge, and I don’t think that history repeats itself. Each era has its own unique problems.
However the subject is important enough that the enemy seeks to control the narrative ─ and they literally spend billions and billions doing this and even criminalizing narratives that they do not like. If this were not crucially important they would not bother.
If the Truth matters, then History must be critically studied and not merely amount to popular propaganda that pleases lily-livered interest groups and Conservatives. A White Nationalism born from nihilism is no way forward. It will inspire no one.
“Rehabilitating” Hitler is a straw-man argument. Nobody who matters is actually doing that.
But what is true and what is false does matter. It mattered then. It matters now. It will matter in the future.
The Third Reich was not even an Imperialist regime. Hitler had no interest in ruling over non-Germans, and he was quite willing to trade claims to the former overseas colonies for something more appropriate if possible.
Hitler wanted to gather Germans into one Reich insofar as is possible and to protect ethnic Germans hijacked by punitive treaties. He was willing to compromise on this issue as well; for example, ceding claims to the South Tyrol was not a deal-breaker, and so doing, gaining Italian friendship proved essential for the diplomacy leading to the Austrian Anschluss.
Some have argued that Italy was an albatross during the actual war, but the best take on this comes from the memoirs of Field Marshal Albert Kesselring, who is critical but fair and was grateful for Italian support. Kesselring’s defense of the Southern Axis frontier is considered a masterpiece.
So Hitler did not want war nor to rule over non-Germans, but other Germans were now minorities ruled by Warsaw and Prague ─ and settling those accounts was going to be messy.
Still, war could have been avoided if the Entente had not actually wanted the destruction of Germany. The Allies would have been willing to plunge the entire continent to Soviet control if necessary, and the last thing they wanted to do was fight the First World War over again to keep Germany an economic colony.
In any case, I don’t see how Hitler could have avoided fighting fire with fire.
In fact, since a Second World War ─ which Hitler tried hard to avoid and never wanted ─ ultimately had to be fought, it would have served Germany better if she did have a coherent Imperial policy from the outset, whether Hitler wanted one or not.
For example, the first thing the Entente did was to blockade the continent. This includes starving neutral countries that might trade with Germany.
When the First Lord of the Admiralty Churchill started mining Norwegian waters to prevent neutral Sweden from shipping iron ore to Germany, Hitler had to act before Albion also installed air and naval bases in Norway. He was able to launch an invasion of Norway via Denmark in early 1940, but this was only narrowly successful and the unfinished Kriegsmarine was practically destroyed in the process.
One unplanned result of this is that occupied Denmark was now a direct trading partner with Germany. Other supranational economic relationships were forged of necessity by the Axis with the BeNeLux countries in regards to industries like coal, iron and steel that persisted to the EEC era.
Hitler had to attack against superior force in the West in 1940 as well, and even tried to preserve some French sovereignty with the Armistice. Albion responded by attacking the Vichy fleet and killing over a thousand French sailors.
As long as England stayed in the war, the German rear was threatened and this was a tremendous opportunity for the Soviets on the German East. Soviet forces were enormous, far beyond even the worst German estimates. Though Germany was not prepared for a long war of attrition, Operation Barbarossa (June 1941) could not happen soon enough.
But without a strong Navy, and with the new British Prime Minister reading many German codes, England knew that there would never be a German invasion no matter how hard Hitler made peace overtures or bluffed about an Operation Sea Lion.
And the Luftwaffe could not level the playing field. The Luftwaffe had never been created as a strategic air force in the first place ─ its primary role was ground support, which it did brilliantly ─ but less than a third of Albion was in range of Göring’s bombers, plus German fighters only had a dwell time of ten minutes at best over London in bomber support.
The fact is that the Allies never wanted peace with Germany; they knew that Blighty was secure, and that the Americans would ultimately provide a blank check. The likes of Churchill never saw much need to contain the Soviets prior to their victory and ultimate theft of the atomic bomb.
We are not “rehabilitating” or fetishizing the Führer ─ or the Hero of the Second World War, as Yockey calls him. But the Truth matters.
The Jews are influential elites who strongly support race-mixing and anti-nationalism ─ except for their own desert paradise in Palestine that is overwhelmingly underwritten by their Diaspora ensconced strategically in Gentile lands, namely the USA, as Hitler explained in Mein Kampf.
I don’t hate the you-know-whos, but letting them be the ones to unilaterally write the History and to keep the propaganda Kosher is a big fat Fail. One can call this White Genocide without too much imagination.
🙂
Neville Chamberlain was not a great-visioned man. He was a small politician. But I think he was seeking peace between White nations and I think he was right to do so. The price he paid for this, including humiliation and ultimate frustration, is a price I think we should be wiling to risk in order to seek peace between White brothers in different nations.
The same propaganda machine that portrays Adolf Hitler as Satan, which he was not, consistently shows Neville Chamberlain as a negative figure, the sucker, the dumb-ass who caused great destruction through his evil “appeasement” policy, whereas he ought to have pushed constantly for harsh war like the hero Winston Churchill did.
Even though I can’t win and change the image of a man whom a propaganda machine constantly ridicules, when I am challenged on whether what I advocate is not what Neville Chamberlain would have done I have to say yes.
Even though I have no use for Hitler I have some sympathy for those who think that for the sake of the survival of our race we have to do things he would have done and who therefore honestly say yes, that is where they stand.
No matter how big the antiwhite propaganda machine is we have to keep using our best weapon which is the truth. If we bow down to antiwhite narratives because we are intimidated by the antiwhite propaganda machine we’ve got nothing and we will accomplish nothing.
If we bow down to antiwhite narratives and accomplish nothing our race is going away and nothing matters.
Chamberlain was a shrewd negotiator and no fool. He was not trying to “appease” Hitler but to prop up the Versailles Treaty at the lowest possible cost.
Therefore the British Prime Minister pretended to support peace with Germany and even waved a piece of paper to the cooing crowds in London after his woozy airplane ride from Munich.
The fact is that the Czecho-Slovakia state had been created in the first place by the Entente to cause problems for Germany. The border with Germany was put so that millions of ethnic Germans in the Bohemian Sudetenland were under the boot of Prague.
This was understood from the beginning but Prague overplayed their hand thinking that Germany was still a rump state after Hitler coming to power.
The League of Nations treated Germans as second-class citizens but it gave lip service about protecting the rights of populations now called “minorities.” Hitler held them to their own words.
The Sudeten Germans were being brutally opppressed and Chamberlain knew it. Hitler did not pull this out of his hat. Germany was ready to move militarily against Prague but historians are divided on how this would have gone if Chamberalain had not signed the agreement.
I doubt the hostilities would have gone any better than they did a year later with Poland. And Poland at this time of Munich would have either remained neutral or weakly supported Germany since the Soviet Union was still a threat, and London had not yet provided sufficient inducements to oppose Germany.
The idea of resuming the War with Germany was very unpopular in England leading up to Munich, and so there needed to be some time period for the propaganda organs to bleat out the “Hitler threat” until people were conditioned for it a year later ─ and after a stiff rearmament program that focused on the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force with the idea that “the bomber will always get through.”
Albion wasn’t planning on a long land war with Germany; that is why she cultivated proxy catpaws in Prague and Warsaw.
So Chamberlain somewhat fell on his own sword as the “appeaser,” and was the brunt of criticism from the warmongers like Churchill who were speaking from within his own cabinet. But the popular idea that Chamberlain sacrificed his own credibility with “Peace For Our Time” is complete poppycock.
Once Albion decided that it was not going to allow Hitler to dismantle the Versailles treaty one jot or tittle further, then war was irrevocably decided upon by London as soon as the timing was right. This trip wire had occured at the latest when Chamberlain waved his piece of paper after getting off the aeroplane (LINK).
Since Britian penned the Munich agreement with more piety than realpolitik or statescraft, Slovakia decide it wanted out from under Prague’s boot and appealed to Hitler for protection.
Even though everybody had already agreed that Danzig was German, London then “guaranteed” Polish borders in March of 1939 with a blank check that meant war.
The actual London viewpoint was that Germany was going to submit to the Versailles powers or be submitted by force. Anything less was “Appeasement.”
It is important to understand that while the Western press and Hollywood always portrayed Hitler as some kind of a power-hungry Madman, Hitler came to power in the first place on the pledge of eradicating the Versailles Diktat and he held true to his word. That is the key to understanding Hitler before the war, and a crucial point rarely noted in the enemy press.
Though Jews and Anglophile traitors strongly disapproved, Hitler and the NSDAP had a mandate from the German people.
Only Hitler’s death could have changed this mandate ─ and even before the war, some traitors in the German General Staff, like the cashiered Chief of the German General Staff himself, Generaloberst Ludwig Beck, were plotting Hitler’s assassination and making attempts from the late Thirties onwards.
The “Appeasement at Munich” paradigm is an early version of the later Domino Theory. Today Vienna, Tomorrow Palm Springs! The difference is that Communist expansionists were not deemed Madmen and anti-Semites.
🙂
EDIT for Sir Knight below:
If the Versailles powers had really intended to follow the Wilsonian doctrine of the “Self-Determination of Peoples” then they should not have discriminated against Germans.
In fact, that is exactly what they were trying to do because they cared little or nothing for other Minorities other than to use them to flog Germany and ethnic Germans.
But if they had really been interested in diplomatic justice, they would have drawn these new national border by plebiscite.
So if German speakers in Bohemia wanted to be Germans, they would have so voted. If Czech speakers in Bohemia wanted to be Czechs, likewise they would have so voted.
Had these messiahs actually done things this way, it would have precluded much ethnic conflict and produced more stable nations in the process of long-overdue imperial dissolution.
The borders between Bohemia and Germany were not created after the First World War. These are the oldest borders in Europe that have always existed. Bohemia has never been part of Germany. The so-called Sudetenland was an insidious construct invented by Pan-Germanic ideologues in the 1890s in order to break up the Czech state. In the so-called Sudetenland there were high percentages of Czech population everywhere from 10-30%. The Czech government could not leave these fellow Czechs to their own devices. The Sudeten Germans behaved abominably in places where they were in the majority in Bohemia already before and during the First World War. During the First Czechoslovak Republic, on the other hand, the Sudeten Germans had all the rights of other national minorities. But they didn’t like that – they wanted to be boss in Bohemia and invite their Nazi buddy from across the border. They became hooligans who attacked lonely Czechs, set fires, committed acts of terrorism (probably like today’s Palestinians) and were encouraged to do so from Berlin.
On this matter, I stand by commentary in Culture as Programming: A Case Study of Leonie Plaar aka Frau Löwenherz, most notably footnote five, which reads as follows:
While the German people of the time and today are undeserving of the unmitigated villainy that has unfairly maligned them, the regime—or more precisely its political leadership at the top—had a number of moral failings, not to mention a number of catastrophic strategic and tactical blunders that doomed Germany, despite the deutsche Wehrmacht being a most lethal instrument and one of the great paragons of military discipline in all history; even the greatest warriors cannot fight three peer powers on three fronts simultaneously and emerge victorious. As stated elsewhere, I am most ambivalent about the Nazi period, as I regard Hitler and those in his inner circle with a strong aversion, although this aversion diverges largely from conventional wisdom. I am deeply sympathetic to the reasons for which everyday Germans followed Hitler—without the advantage of hindsight—as I regard the Allies as bad or worse. I do condemn Hitler however, for in effect losing the war by involving Germany in a war with three peer powers simultaneously, not to mention the barbarism he perpetrated against Slavic Europeans, the Russians in particular although the German armed forces saw much barbarism perpetrated by the Russians as well from the very onset of Operation Barbarossa. Hitler also brutalized his own people, and showed callous disregard for the lives of his own men in “stand or die” orders. While in Allied captivity, Field Marshall Ritter von Leeb once stated “The excesses of National Socialism were in the first and final analysis due to the warped personality of the Führer,” to which Heinz Guderian responded, “the fundamental principles were fine.” This is an entirely reasonable position on the matter.
Allies are bad, even worse. But Hitler had many shortcomings that led directly to disaster and ruin. I am putting final touches on a treatise on this very matter.
I had to look up the definition of “wignat” that the <cough!> brilliant C-C “white nationalist” who answers to Hammer chose to describe serious proponents of National Socialism, along with his other Jewy insult, “Hitlertard.”
wignat — (derogatory, informal) One who claims to support the tenets of white nationalism but uses over-the-top neo-Nazi rhetoric and aesthetics which are rejected by the larger nationalist movement which is concerned with a civil and presentable appearance.
Then, for my taking issue with Hammer for his childishness, Uncle Semantic asks me “Why are you so quick to jump at people for daring to suggest Mr. Hitler was not infallible, particularly with his military decisions?
I had written nothing about Mr. Hitler’s military decisions, but did name some of our most serious experts on National Socialism, men much more eloquent than I, to whom C-C readers can refer. I did not name these men for the anti-NS troll Hammer to consider but for others at C-C who might be interested in discovering truths about National Socialism.
Keith Woods’ essay has brought to a head discussion of the merits of NS, as opposed to his plain vanilla “ethnic nationalism.” Hopefully, the critical comparison continues. Consider this perfect counter argument:
National Socialism did not fail. That is why it is vilified by our enemies. True, it was defeated in a war — I say a battle in a war that is not yet over. But, barring war, its trajectory was perfect. In just twelve years: A nation, freed from Jewish usury and destructive influence. A nation, determined to preserve its Aryan racial heritage and carry it, progressively, into the infinite future. A nation, broken free from ossified and dangerous hereditary aristocracy, and broken free from even more dangerous mass “democracy.” A nation, freed from hostile alien media. A nation, freed from the twin evils of international Communism and international banking. A nation, ultimately forged in war as the vanguard and protector of the entire European race. A nation whose titanic sacrifice and immolation at the hands of Jewish power may one day — if we do right — become an element of a religion which will inspire our people to protect and defend forever our sacred race against all dangers.
It was tried for just twelve years. You could say National Socialism hasn’t really been tried yet, not fully. But in those twelve years, it was the most positive revolutionary force ever seen on this planet. It shows every prospect of success if it can capture the imaginations of enough of our people and become established again. And our enemies certainly know that — that is why they do everything they can, constantly, to prevent its resurgence. And today, buttressed by William Pierce’s discovery of and elaboration of Cosmotheism, it would be even more powerful, being even more imbued with the spiritual essence and Life of our people.
Plain vanilla “ethnic nationalism” equals a thousand years of failure (which fails in the long term even when it “succeeds”; look at Ireland today); that’s the ethnic nationalism of Keith Woods, who wrote a recent article suggesting that nationalists should abandon National Socialism (see the critique of his approach here by Daniel Zakal: Nationalism Without National Socialism Is a Hollow Shell | National Vanguard) — and that failure is embodied in every other White man who refuses the hand of Providence offered by Adolf Hitler and his new creed. An entirely new race-based creed and spiritual outlook to replace the failed and outworn creeds of Christianity and democracy; with great prospects of success — that’s what National Socialism promises.
The triumph of race-based, deeply spiritual, National Socialism means the eternal existence of our race, the total reorientation of society toward racial progress, and the achievement of our cosmic destiny…
That is an excerpt from National Alliance Media Director Kevin Strom in yesterday’s American Dissident Voices weekly broadcast: What Does Not Work | National Vanguard
Let me guess!! You are going to call me a Jew or fed for pointing out the failures of your spergy neo-Nazi cult LOL! You care more about resurrecting a Germanic supremacist ideology and worshipping a flawed leader than being in the present and preserving the well-being of all whites.
Hammer: March 10, 2025 Let me guess!! You are going to call me a Jew or fed for pointing out the failures of your spergy neo-Nazi cult LOL! You care more about resurrecting a Germanic supremacist ideology and worshipping a flawed leader than being in the present and preserving the well-being of all whites.
I won’t be calling you anything. You’re an anonymous Internet shadow. Lead on!
I’m content to be in the same small camp with wise Wolf Stoner, who says:
Keith Woods is a part of this trend; its intellectual expression. I am sure that if his and my worldviews were put on the popular ballot, he would have won 99% against 1%. Therefore, I have no claim of presenting a view that is popular and politically advantageous. On the contrary, I am content to define and defend the position that is bound to be utterly indefensible and “morally wrong” according to the prevailing mainstream vision. More than this; I don’t care either about public opinion, nor about prevailing dogmas…
Kevin Alfred Strom’s audio reply to the Wood’s article is the best refutation of this fallacious “moderate” nationalist position. There is no way to achieve an isolated victory of an individual White nation. Either the world will be freed from its Judeo-Christian-Marxist delusions or the remnants of the western civilization will be swept away by the wild hordes of healthy savages; their minds are not burdened by false Christian morality, sense of guilt or a desire to be pleasant to everyone. In any way, the wild spirit of pure Nature will be the ultimate winner. The only difference is whether the White race regains this spirit and occupies its proper place in this world, or some other racially and culturally monolithic community would do it.
By the way, Jews will never be the ultimate winners. They are the born destroyers of societies; they are not able to function on their own. If Europe and the West fall, the whole Jewish shadow global empire falls as well. There is no way for it to survive in any non-White environment. Some Jews started to understand it; it is why they support Trump. But it is too late for them. The civilizational catastrophe that the West approaches will destroy almost everything. In some sense, this catastrophe was programmed by the result of the WW2. It is when the White race lost. Everything that happened afterward are only the consequences of this defeat. The simpletons who believe that it is possible to jettison Hitler and Third Reich and to start everything from a new page, miss this key fact. Hitler and Third Reich were the epitome of the White racial essence. If we reject them, we automatically reject the White identity in its true sense. But I don’t want to try to persuade those who disagree. Each man must choose his own way. In this respect I adhere to libertarian principles. I don’t impose my ideas on anyone. But on the other hand, I never allow others to impose their delusions and falsehoods on me. They can live as they like, but it has nothing to do with us. The great separation is inevitable. It will cut through the whole society. The best few will go their own way and the great majority will go into abyss. It is the Law of Nature.
Here’s my recollection of GOAT Roman Emperor – philosopher King Marcus Aurelius:
“Spend less time trying to figure out what a good man SHOULD be, instead…
be one”.
IMO it’s the same now with being a good ha White, European, Australian, Western Civilization nationalist.
Be a good one, dress the right way, act the right way, use language, art, music that works and is appropriate for the time.
In 1933 in Germany (lesser extent Austria) the NSDAP (translates ~ the National Socialist German Worker’s Party) was the #1 party in Germany, the most popular. The NSDAP dressed and acted in ways that were designed to earn respect and support from different kinds of Germans in Germany.
The NSDAP understood they were after all in … Germany, not Russia, France, England etc.
So the NSDAP and other nationalists in Germany didn’t try to dress up like French Napoleonic soldiers or French aristocrats or Chinese kung fu Buddhist monks.
Check out the GOAT German nationalist movie “Triumph of the Will’ directed by yes a woman – Leni R.
As I recall it, there wasn’t a single negative reference to Je*s in TOTW not even in Julius Streicher’s short speech ( 30 seconds) where J Streicher just made comments to keep the German blood pure.
IMO the top NSDAP officials did some focus groups and determined that open anti Semitism wouldn’t be well received in this official party propaganda movie that showed a mainstream German nationalist party ready to rule.
So, in summation – IMO nationalists now should concentrate on DOING effective National Socialism in the here and now, not obsessing about trying to refight lost struggles, wars from the past in foreign countries.
What’s possible now? What works now?
I say – look to populist and nationalist parties, movements in Europe that are working – the Swiss People’s Party, Poland’s Law and Justice. French Le Pen, Hungary’s Victor Orban.
Opposition to mass Muslim migration, Islamic terror, sexual grooming gangs and just ugly, alien looking, alien dress, alien ways Islam migrants works.
IMO the JQ should be finessed same as Victor Orban’s ruling party did making George Soros (Hungarian J born and made) the Star Wars Evil Emperor wire puller.
J Ryan
I had never heard of Keith Woods, née Keith O’Brien, until recent mention of him here on C-C. That’s probably because it appears that he has a presence on every platform there is out there in the virtual world of social media and I do not visit any of them.
In doing a search on the young Mr. Woods I found he had a book published late last year, Nationalism: The Politics of Identity. From what I gather he is an accomplished, erudite writer and has done a good job of providing a history of nationalism through the ages. His book is offered on Amazon.com, where the books of William Pierce have been banned for several years. (but are available, here: Our Titles – Cosmotheism)
Interestingly, this review of Woods’ book appears under the description of it at Amazon:
I wish I knew as much about nationalism as Keith Woods when I was in my twenties. I especially wish I had this book when I was young. Spending a few hours reading it would have saved me years of confusion and searching. So read this book and buy copies of it for promising young people.– Greg Johnson, editor of Counter-Currents Publishing
I figure Woods would have been around 10-ywars-old when Greg launched C-C. It might have served Greg better to have read Dr. Pierce when he was in his twenties. I know I wish I had.
Did Woods screw up once he allegedly became “over-obsessed with the JQ”? This 1-star reviewer of Nationalism thinks so:
Atlantean: 1.0 out of 5 stars Skip It Reviewed in the United States on January 30, 2025 Disappointing. Woods was a promising voice until becoming over-obsessed with the JQ and associating with those of dubious intent. This emerges in his book, which should be avoided.
I would say that little account is taken in this discussion of the fact that Hitler’s ideology and war aims and ideas about the post-war order evolved over time. Then there is very little written about how different the social conditions in Germany and Europe after WWI were from the conditions in which modern white nationalists operate today. Europe in the 1940s was still a continent with a large agricultural population. There were masses of industrial workers. These were young, growing populations who were still essentially concerned with securing enough food and basic needs. Since then, the Western world has gone through several major demographic, economic and cultural upheavals (for good and bad).
It just may be that National Socialism and the Third Reich have different meanings in Australia than they do in Europe.
In World War II the primary threat to Australia was from Imperial Japan, not Germany-Italy on the other side of the world. There was some debate in the Australian government about committing the country’s armed force to the European Theater, in part owing to the dismal outcome of the WWI Gallipoli campaign. After the outbreak of the Pacific War in December 1941, Australian forces were pulled back from the Middle East to defend the great Southern Continent. Japanese forces were on New Guinea and in the Solomons, threatening seaborne lines of communications to the United States. A series of Japanese airstrikes hit targets in northern Australia, notably Port Darwin, and there was the potential (if exaggerated) threat of an invasion.
During the Cold War, there was some concern over the threat of Communist China and communist insurgency in the Far East. This led to the commitment of Australian forces to fight in the Malayan Emergency and Vietnam War.
Point is, the perspective from Canberra may be different than the view from Dublin.
The premise that nationalism doesn’t require National Socialism is absolutely correct.
We all have our own heroes – Russian, English, Spanish, French etc. – and Hitler worship outside of Germany may be counter-productive. We should be focused primarily on the present-day problems of our countries. Whatever your mode of action is, wearing SS uniforms and calling yourselves “Hitler soldiers” may just result in some good people not joining you only because of the existing mass propaganda image of Hitler (and because it is a foreign movement for non-Germans, also). You may have any opinion on NSDAP personally, but public politics means some trade-offs. We shouldn’t compromise on the core issues, but attracting people is also necessary.
Overall, our cause should be decoupled from the German National Socialism.
But National Socialist Germany must be rehabilitated as a matter of facts. It’s not an ‘optics’ or utilitarian choice. In a sane world, it would be completely out of question.
First, a lot of alleged ‘German brutality’ during the War was just enemy propaganda (more than even educated people might think). Much of it was invented, a lot was taken out of context or staged. For example, there were commies who were setting villages in the German occupation zone on fire deliberately. Then it could be used by the Soviet propaganda, and also to stir up discord between the German authorities and the locals. Or remember the claims that Hitler wanted to flood Moscow and create a lake here. I think, the origin of the claims is commies’ darling Le Corbusier, actually. 🙂 The Soviets didn’t flood the city, but for its appearance they were even worse.
An instructive example of propaganda work is the current (Ukrainian) war. There were even claims that Ukrainians weld their soldiers inside the tanks (seriously). They likely just look at Soviet manuals from WWII and apply it here. Investigating these claims also sheds light on WWII itself.
I’m myself Russian, and my grandmother was as a child in the German occupation zone around Rostov-on-Don in 1942 for about half a year. The scariest thing she mentioned about it was that immediately after occupation, a German soldier with an assault rifle came inside the basement they were hiding in, looked and went away. That’s all! Yes, it’s an anecdote, but quite telling of the real situation.
Hitler may have disliked Slavs, but that’s his own matter. He’s a German and is not required to love us. He always loved his own people, and it’s the important thing. If he wanted to do something bad to Slavs, he might have started with the Chechs, for example. Or Sorbs, who are even closer, living in Germany, and not so numerous. Since he chose not to persecute them, most of Hitler’s anti-Slavism narrative looks just made up.
This analysis is also fair concerning other facets of the War, including Jewish treatment et cetera.
It doesn’t mean that the Germans or the Japanese never did anything wrong. Yes, the war was harsh, especially on the Eastern front. Yes, Russian POWs were treated poorly (mostly because of the Soviet’s attitude towards them). But it’s so grossly exaggerated that the official narrative should be completely disregarded. It also doesn’t take into account the harshness of the Allies toward Germans during and after the war.
Second, even if we take the official narrative about “böse Onkel Adolf” and National Socialist Germany literally, the Axis powers were infinitely better than the Allies. The Soviets killed more Slavs than any Hitler ever could – tens of millions, not to mention that they bragged about 186 MILLION abortions during the Soviet time.
The world would be infinitely better if the Axis countries won. Not perfect, but not a freakshow, either.
I think that if the topic of WWII was treated fairly, it would be a great advantage for all nationalists. The enemy propaganda exists for a reason, and, in fact, the whole post-war narratives of the Soviets and Western “democracies” are built on lies surrounding this war.
Concerning National Socialism and Hitler from political point of view, it’s an inspiring movement. I am a Russian nationalist, not a “Hitlerite”, but I admire him. He did a lot of good and incredible things for Germany. Of course, Hitler has his flaws, and the biggest of them is that he lost a war which was almost won. 🙂 The Germans also positioned themselves as occupiers in Russia, whereas they could be more friendly towards us, and thus win the war in July – August 1942.
Anyway, we should neither oppose the movement nor try to push some of its (alleged or real) ad hoc positions like anti-Slavism, for example.
<i>”…Or remember the claims that Hitler wanted to flood Moscow and create a lake here. I think, the origin of the claims is commies’ darling Le Corbusier, actually. 🙂…”</i>
<blockquote>”…As the German armies were approaching the Soviet capital in the Operation Typhoon in the autumn of 1941, Hitler determined that Moscow, like Leningrad and Kiev, would be levelled and its 4 million inhabitants killed, to destroy it as a potential center of Bolshevist resistance. For this purpose Moscow was to be covered by a large artificial lake which would permanently submerge it,[1][2] by opening the sluices of the Moscow-Volga Canal.[3] During the advance on Moscow Otto Skorzeny was tasked with capturing these dam structures.[3]…”</blockquote>
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichskommissariat_Moskowien
Good, let’s have a closer look!
There are three references on the Wikipedia page.
If we follow the first one, it leads to a 2005 book by a totally objective historian named Oscar Pinkus. 🙂 On page 228, there is a claim that “At a later point, führer [sic, in German should be Führer] visualised that the city area would be flooded and converted into a lake.” (Of course, without any details, let alone references.) On this page below there is another gem: “What prompted this wild assertion remains a puzzle. It could only have surfaced from those murky depths of the führer [sic] psyche that spawned his other heinous or ludicrous visions.” 🙂 A glance at the book reveals that it’s full of that language while having a shortage of references. That’s not scientific research, but yet another literary fiction item.
The second footnote delivers that: “The requested URL /books?id=-qt8muyq2jkC was not found on this server.” Well, great.
The third one is a reference to the Zeit newspaper, also a paragon of truth. This one lacks any references at all. We are obviously expected just to believe this account because it’s provided by an official “historian”. There we have this:
“Für Moskau sehen die Invasoren ein ähnliches Schicksal vor. Ziel der Operation »Taifun« ist »die beschleunigte Abschließung der Stadt von ihren Verbindungen nach außen«. Hitler hat für Moskau darüber hinaus ein Zerstörungsszenario entworfen, das die vollständige Vernichtung vorsieht. Er will die Schleusen des Stausees am Moskau-Wolga-Kanal öffnen lassen, um die Stadt zu »ersäufen«. Der SS-Sturmbannführer Otto Skorzeny erhält beim Vormarsch der Wehrmacht auf Moskau daher den Sonderauftrag, mit seinen Einheiten die Schleusen des Staudammes zu besetzen.”
The Wikipedia passage you quoted above is just retrieved from that part of the article.
Eventually, we get self-references or no references at all (and no documents). I am not going to spend 10000 hours investigating who invented that crap, frankly. But someone did for sure.
That’s the problem with what I call “Wikipedophilia” – too many people don’t study the sources! You should be better than libtards and actually do some research if you want to get an objective picture. Especially given the fact how many lies are out there concerning the war history.
If you know what Moscow-Volga Canal actually is, that immediately invalidates the whole “flooding” theory. If you like Wikipedia that much, here is a Russian article on the canal.
“Общая длина канала — 128 км. Особенностью канала имени Москвы, отличающей его от многих каналов мира, является то, что он не самотечный, а «энергетический»: вода из Волги в водораздельный участок поднимается насосами по пяти ступеням (четыре высотой по 8 м, а одна — первая — высотой 6 м); на концах ступеней размещены шлюзы[17].”
“The whole lenghth of the canal is 128 km [~80 miles]. Moscow-Volga Canal’s peculiarity … is the fact that it is … ‘energetic’: water from Volga … is raised through five stages (four of them 8 metres high, and the first one 6 metres high) with the help of water pumps…”
That yields an overall Δh of 38 metres. If you bomb it, the water from Volga is not going to ascend by 38 m by itself. 🙂 There are also several water reservoirs along the way of the canal, but their overall volume is less than 0,1 cubic kilometres. Even if we assume that all of them are somehow simultaneously dumped precisely on Moscow of 1941, it would mean less than 1 metre of water depth. If we add there Ivankovo reservoir (about 1 cubic km), it would be at most 2 metres, and it would dissipate in a week. Also note that it’s an imaginary scenario: there are obstacles in the way of water from these reservoirs. And they are also quite far from Moscow. Of course, the Germans knew about that.
So, no, the city would not be flooded because of “opening the sluices of the Moscow-Volga Canal”. That has been contrived by idiot propagandists and “historians”, who cannot even look at the canal profile and apply some basic physics.
Had you just visited it, there would be no such questions. I had, it’s not too far from my house.
Actually, the canal was bombed because it was the main water supply route for the city.
I hope you get the picture now.
A curious side note on it (from the article above):
“Единовременное количество заключённых на строительстве канала достигало 196 тысяч человек[9]. Игорь Кувырков, сотрудник Долгопрудненского историко-художественного музея[10], оценил число заключённых, прошедших через стройку канала, в 600—700 тысяч[11]. Среди них, в больницах, было зафиксировано 22 842 смерти, кроме того, люди умирали на рабочих местах или были расстреляны[12].”
“The number of prisoners building the canal [not the greatest Soviet project, by the way] reached 196000. Igor Kuvyrkov, Dolgoprudnoye History and Art Museum employee, estimates the overall number of those prisoners who participated in the construction at 600 – 700 thousand. Among them, 22842 deaths were recorded at hospitals, besides that, people were dying at their workplaces or being shot [likely these numbers are an order of magnitude higher].”
“…On July 8, 1941, upon the German army’s invasion of Pskov, 180 miles from Leningrad, Russia, the chief of the German army general staff, General Franz Halder, records in his diary Hitler’s plans for Moscow and Leningrad: “To dispose fully of their population, which otherwise we shall have to feed during the winter…”
source: https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/german-generals-diary-reveals-hitlers-plans-for-russia
I don’t expect you to call now German army staff Franz Halder a “Jew” or a “Jew-agent”, I expect you to resort to “source denial” (“History is controlled by Jews”), which is usual for Hitlertards. I only wonder how a Russian could possibly admire a foreign leader who wanted to destroy his people.
I don’t think it counts as “source denial” to reject the Wikipedia take on a highly controversial political subject. Wiki should never be seen as more than a rough first approximation, and first approximations often aren’t good enough.
“history dot com” is no better than wikipedia.
What we need is a historian who has done the work but is not biased in either direction. I’m sure knowledgeable people here will like to provide their list of trusted sources if you ask them.
Dear Mr. Ryckaert, would you mind not engaging in rude and childish name-calling? Was I impolite toward you? Or maybe I called you, I don’t know, Churchilltard? I prefer calm and objective discussion instead. If you don’t, I can write a name-calling script with which you can communicate. Should I? 🙂
That attitude on your part is actually also ungrateful. I have spent some time to answer just a quote from Wikipedia. It seems you haven’t even read it, let alone do some research on the Wikipedia page. If you are content with it, good for you. Or maybe not. In that case, I don’t care. I have a lot of other things to do.
To the substance.
Firstly, let’s remember where we started. My initial statement is that the allegations of flooding Moscow were Allied propaganda. I have conclusively proven that such a scheme was not possible due to basic physics. Bombing a canal that pumps water upwards doesn’t flood its top. If you have concurrent opinion, please, let me know. It should merit a Phys. Rev. Lett. article, no less, and I want to be a co-author! 🙂
Then you jump to a completely different statement. Well, if you have actually read Gen. Halder’s notes, he states (page 212, above) that St. Petersburg and Moscow were to be bombed from air. So, what did we retrieve from it? Everyone knows (or should know) that the largest cities were heavily bombed (Minsk, Kiev etc.). That’s bad, I would like having them intact. At least we wouldn’t have so much ugly Soviet architecture today. They would be heavily bombed and shelled during the battles, anyway. That’s industrial warfare at work. The Soviets would have levelled Berlin with artillery, if it wasn’t almost accomplished via the Allied bombings by 1945. Americans dropped several million tons of bombs and napalm on Vietnam not because they hated the Vietnamese, either.
If we assume the whole quote from page 212 to be correct, then the maximum you can get from it is that the two cities were to be ruined with population displaced. That wouldn’t be a wise decision, of course. Those are the types of mistakes which cost Germany the whole war. Fighting only communism would end the Reds for sure. Even given the actual harsh attitude towards Russians, there were about 2,3 – 2,8 million people actively collaborating with Germans here; that’s an unrealised opportunity.
However, it’s just a single reference in the diaries. Elsewhere in the document there are references to Hitler and Paulus hinting that the Russian campaign would make Britain desire peace settlement. So, this was one of the primary objectives (along with ending the Soviet threat to Germany), and the later plans look ad hoc at best. Also note that whatever alleged plans there were, they weren’t implemented as stated. Americans suggested to drop nuclear bombs on 100 largest Soviet cities after the war, but didn’t. Does it make them supreme evil?
Concerning authenticity – the notes of Gen. Halder look credible. That stated, I am not totally convinced. They surfaced during the post-war trials and may have been amended for some unknown purpose. I would like to see the original notes, check handwriting, perform radiological analysis of the paper etc. Given how much about the war is fake, I’m suspicious of any particular piece of evidence. I want 100% solid items, not something vague. I have seen a lot of “evidence” like that concerning, for example, our Civil War which eventually turned out to be fake.
Second, I have hinted at a “short” argumentation mode. Even if we take the caricature image of Hitler, it’s better than Stalin, Lenin, Trotsky, Putin or Shoigu. I would prefer to be ruled by German chauvinist occupiers who (presumably) hate me than by degenerate occupiers from ethnic minorities (in large part non-White) who definitely hate me and who actually tried to kill us, but didn’t succeed only due to stupidity and incompetence.
Third, it seems that you think you know the Eastern war better than we do, Mr. Ryckaert. An audacious view, at least! If you’re an American (I think it’s likely), then you can only have a cursory glance at the framework of events. You almost certainly never met an actual Russian veteran. I did, and a lot of them. I have actually been to the places we discuss. I have served in the Russian army, being exposed to a huge pile of Soviet propaganda there (and before). I actually know how our special agencies like to push certain historic narratives (for example, concerning Izhevsk – Votkinsk uprising of 1918). If you still think you know better, very good. Then what’s the discussion about?
Concerning positive view of Hitler – it’s natural and more widespread here than you can imagine. Ask Ukrainians. He’s better than the Soviets in any case. Then, I don’t care that much about his opinion on Russians. He’s a German and not required to love us, or the French, or the English. What matters is that he fought for his country against the real evil – communism etc. – and achieved some remarkable results. Even if we consider him an enemy, he’s a lesser enemy than others. There are people (especially commies) who admire Napoleon, for example, although we fought him in 1812. So what?
For those in the tank, I am not an NS. I stated that clearly above. Yet reading in a tank is difficult, it seems. 🙂
I wish you all the best and hope that we can have a dispassionate discussion, Mr. Ryckaert.
Generaloberst Franz Halder is hardly an objective source on Hitler, LOL.
🙂
Lol are you actually copy and pasting from Wikipedia because it’s such an objective source when it comes to NS Germany???…..🤔😆
That’s not entirely true what you’re writing here. The German occupiers treated the Czechs very badly – many were killed or taken to concentration camps (not counting the Jews). The Nazis planned to resettle the Czechs in Siberia after they conquered Russia. As for the Lusatian Serbs and Slovenes, they were forbidden to speak their native languages and many were put in camps. Not to mention the behaviour of the Germans in Poland and Eastern Europe. And now they want to replace themselves and other Whites with brown Muslims and destroy economy with Grean Deal.
Oh please, you sound like Steven Spielberg or Elie Wiesel. There was no plan to move the Czechs to Siberia! And the Czechs were largely left to their own affairs until the British parachuted in some Czech assassins to cowardly murder Heydrich KNOWING full well that it would make the Germans take a more heavy handed role in the Protectorate. If ethnic minorities were treated so well by the government in Prague then why did the Slovaks want independence from them along with the German, Polish and Hungarian minorities? Everything you said in this comment and your previous one is so outrageous and ridiculous and easily refuted that I’m not even going to waste anymore of my time addressing it.
As I wrote here, I think Mr. Woods’s article was a declaration of intent and I would suspect he will go deeper as time goes on. He has been critiqued and he can only reply. As he deeps his view, it should be enlightening.
Further, the matter if neo-nazism is to be addressed soon in three volumes of political biography by a former European participant in that movement. Since I hardly speak for him, I just make the point he said a thesis written by me decades ago (finalised 1985) may be referred to favourably in defining aspects of that movement. Essentially, I said then that the contemporary movement was essentially “a type of religion”, “an ideological religious cult movement”.
In the interim, I would refer to my 1999 PhD at chapter 6: https://core.ac.uk/reader/41229840. Some aspects of neo-nazi ideology are discussed.
Some comments here saying that National Socialism was some sort of spiritual movement and nature philosophy strengthen my view that neo-nazism is a cult. I say that because it draws upon the Ariosophy / Pan Germanism unfortunately at the core of National Socialism and go from there and wherever they like . As I record in the PhD, there were those in the German state who rejected this, but they did not predominate, nor did they manage to supplant the official ideology. The idea that there were ‘lines’ in German fascism is possible to see, but the neo-nazis are not interested in that subject. It is a vast subject and needs its own student to explain it, well beyond the comments made by me.
Obviously, all this debate will not go away. It will be settled on the front line of political struggle. Sadly, I suspect that those who play at cultic politics, will end up on the ‘other side’ by default.
What is stated in the article is true, but what was left unsaid is why national socialism was such a colossal failure. Having a dictator who executes members of his own party cultivates a culture where no one is prepared to challenge your ideas. Surely someone in the party knew that a war against the world wasn’t winnable, but they were terrified to speak up. Dictatorships are dying because they are unsuccessful. In the modern age they are found almost exclusively in the third world. We are not a species like ants or bees where one individual (the queen) is clearly superior to the rest. We are a species where talent is on a spectrum. A leader should be hearing opinions from multiple people who don’t fear punishment. And the public should absolutely have a say in the direction their nation takes.
It’s actually bizarre that German Nazism is seen as the exemplar of pro-white rule, especially as apartheid South Africa was longer lasting and lives on in a reduced scale in Orania, undoubtedly the most successful white separatist movement on earth today. I think apartheid could have continued under sanctions as Iran, Russia, and North Korea do today.
Even though I think fascism and communism are flashes in the pan, relics from a transitional era between monarchy and democracy, I’m actually glad a national socialist “movement” exists, because it siphons off the fashionistas who think cool symbols and Hugo Boss uniforms make a political movement. And that’s not mentioning the atomwaffen-esque edge lord kooks with their synthesis of satanism and national socialism.
We need to be mature adults.
You are just regurgitating the old Allied war propaganda about German National Socialism. I’m assuming you are referring to the “Night of the Long Knives” when you accuse Hitler of killing his own party members. Well those members were involved in a coup attempt against Hitler because they wanted a more left wing style of government, known as Strasserism where all industry was nationalized and owned by the state, they wanted the wealth of German industrialists confiscated and other very bad ideas. Their punishment was what befalls almost any conspirators in any failed coup attempt and actions of high treason.
As for a “dictatorship”, it worked out well for the average German as Germans went from committing suicide and starving under the Weimar government to having the highest standard of living in the world which continued even in the early years of the war. See what former British PM David Lloyd George had to say about Hitler and Germany after his visit there when he met with Hitler. A lot of the European heads of state post WW1 ruled as virtual dictators as well so this was not unique to NS Germany. During the war FDR and Churchill ruled as dictators as well with FDR serving 4 terms which was and is unprecedented in American history.
Positive identity and positive vision formation are essential. We have the moral high ground. Forfeiting it is foolish. The basis of our project long predates 1920s-40s. The right to exist established by claiming, holding and defending our territory and maintaining our ethnic homogeneity within it is what this comes down to.
There is far more road travelled in a positive direction pointing out that while our nations have been opened to and destroyed by international predation, they have simultaneously been used to establish, maintain and fund the expansion of other nations based on their ethnos. We have the right of first refusal. If we build nations built on an ethnos, then we build them for Ours and Ours alone within their traditional and established bounds. To distract from that is folly.
Moreover, it is a much higher calling to invoke our ancestral heroes, traditions and territorial dominion. We fight to honor our past and to secure a peaceful continuous existence for our posterity. That long predates a century old situation. The, “Second Career of Hitler”, as Camus calls it is dying and fading. The best thing we can do is just let it expire quietly and hold up the banners of Our houses, the mantles of Our Gods and the legacy of Our ancestral Kings, Kaisers, Generals, Navigators, Inventors, Warriors, Explorers, Artists, Philosophers – Our endless pantheon of creators whose fumes the world wants to consume and whose posterity it wants to subsume. We claim our lands and we assert our right to them. They are our birthrite back into the primordial mists of time.
I agree with that.
Joel is fundamentally correct.
You can’t just ignore how much of the modern liberal ideology is a direct response to the Third Reich, which for better or worse is de facto viewed as the ultimate expression of ethnonationalism in the minds of most people in the West. Mass migration is being intentionally facilitated for the express purpose of making ethnonationalism impossible! These people would rather minoritize themselves than ever entertain even the future possibility of ethnonational principles. The idea of white extinction is a cause for celebration in their worldview. Virtually all of the modern liberal ideology was constructed as a direct repudiation to Hitler! He haunts the imagination of the modern world, you will not be able to simply sidestep the issue like Keith is advocating here. I’ve tried. I’ve explained to people how Europe used to be ruled in vast, imperial tracts and how the concept of the ethno-state was originally a LIBERAL idea intended to deliver governance and self-direction back to the people. They don’t care, it’s simply too distant a political development. We can stop well short of hero worship of Hitler, but clearly some kind of rehabilitation will be required. You can’t join the liberal dogpile of blaming Hitler while also claiming to oppose the liberal order. At that point you are just a liberal in denial.
Adolf Hitler was without a doubt one of the greatest Europeans, if not of the previous millenia, then at least of the century. He dedicated his life to fighting the same enemies who have ruined a big part of European countries today. To not give credit where it’s due, and to instead meekly hope that history forgets such a Great man, because otherwise perhaps some people will think we’re bad (and other weaker ones won’t support us) 🙁 is just so utterly pathetic. Nationalism only has a point if your countrymen are worth cohabiting with. If it means living together with limp wristed weaklings who fear to respect the men who fought for their welfare, then whats the point?
Adolf Hitler was very audacious. He liked to take risks and was never afraid. But he also had many flaws. He had no sense of humour at all. Kubitschek, a friend from his youth, testified that Hitler couldn’t take a joke at his own expense. He had a huge ego, perfect self-confidence, but also a lack of self-criticism. He was overly suspicious of many, but overly trusting of the unworthy.
E_Perez: March 9, 2025 This comment only makes sense when you know what is “Hamburg today’: a failed city overrun by third worlders (isn’t ex-chancellor Scholz a “Hamburger today’?).
“German National Socialism … has at least one glaring problem: It failed.”
Oh no, German National Socialism was the most successful political/economical system between the wars and that is precisely why is was brutally destroyed. It did not ‘fail’ contrary to Roosevelt’s New Deal and Stalin’s communism.
Success or failure of a political system cannot be judged by the outcome of war waged on it by its opponents, but by its achievements when it is left on its own.
—
Very good, Mr. Perez. except you assume that Hamburger Today has anything to do with the real holocaust that happened to Hamburg Germany since it was practically wiped off the map by Allied bombing in WWII. See: Burning Hell: Bombing Holocaust of Hamburg by British Air Force (1943) | National Vanguard
IN THIS ferocious aerial attack, some 3,000 British and American aircraft dropped 9,000 tons of bombs, killing 42,600 civilians and wounding 37,000. Many were burned to death or killed by poisonous carbon monoxide gas. Only about half the dead bodies could be identified. This “firestorm” bombing — the first ever — incinerated eight square miles of the city with flames of up to 800 degrees Celsius fanned by winds of 150 mph. More than 250,000 homes and houses were destroyed, as well as 24 hospitals, 277 schools and 58 churches.
Hamburger Today speaks against National Socialism and for the “WN” social media herd that follows Keith Woods. The reference of Hamburger Today is to the character in old Popeye the Sailorman cartoons: “I’ll gladly repay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.”
111 comments and still running strong!
Consider how the Australian establishment has put the boot down on the “Nazi” movement as led by Mr Davis and his merry marching men. Deplatformings, bogus arrests, media smear campaigns, looking the other when when antifa violence is directed against the movement’s members. But do they react in the same way to the “commie” movements in the country?
Communists, after all, openly organize on many college campuses with the stated goal of revolutionizing the country. They conduct their own marches in which they tear down Australian history (“Invasion Day”) and open the floodgates to third worlder invasion. Whatever else one can say about Davis and company, they are fighting to preserve the historic Australian nation.
Now at this point someone is going to say, “Yes, but didn’t Australia fight against the ‘Nazis’ in World War II?” Well, yes, but then again, Australia did fight against the “commies” in Malaya, Korea and Vietnam. So whence comes all the establishment tolerance for communism yet antipathy for national socialism in Australia?
The holy-hoax and the vilification of Germans (and by extension all White folk), is the foundation of the Jews modern white genocide agenda (and supports many other anti-white evils too).
It is a cancer on creation and must be cured. You cannot let it pass without moral corruption. You cannot “step over it” without moral cowardice.
This breach with reality, truth, and the cosmic life force is fatal to our folk and perhaps to the continued existence of meaningful life in this world.
Cowards, the compromised, and wishful thinkers may stand aside if they must from this necessity but please do so quietly.
It is clever to say: “We don’t need National Socialism.” but that is an evasion from the fact that we do need to destroy Jew lies and restore Truth which is the foundation of reality and continued existence — for our folk and for creation itself.
Nationalism does in fact require a rehabilited Hitler, which just means telling the whole truth about the man sans hagiography or demonization. There were plenty of actors in history far worse than Hitler, all from the left, which is why my approach is to pivot to communist atrocities when WW2 comes up with normies. Elucidating basic facts for people conditioned to believe Hitler was a unique evil is important.
Honestly, if you don’t bring Hitler up, and other people don’t either, why would you mention him?
If other people bring Hitler up — something like, “You know, having borders is just like Hitler. — 99% of the time, the proper response is simply to mock them and move on with your argument.
Honestly, I have talked to hundreds of normies about our issues over the last 25 years (at least one a month), and I can only recall one time when someone actually said, “But what about the Holocaust?” To which I simply responded: the lesson of the Holocaust is that stateless people are vulnerable to genocide. The Holocaust is an argument for nationalism. And that was the end of it.
Greg Johnson: March 12, 2025 Honestly, if you don’t bring Hitler up, and other people don’t either, why would you mention him?
—
Smart point! But if someone wants to bring up Hitler like that, it’s usually out of ignorance about the man. I might refer to that person to Dr. Pierce’s The Measure of Greatness | National Vanguard A Cosmotheist view of history’s most vilified man That will give the normie something to consider.
—
Honestly, I have talked to hundreds of normies about our issues over the last 25 years (at least one a month), and I can only recall one time when someone actually said, “But what about the Holocaust?”
—
Honestly, I’m curious. What was your reply to that one person?
I recall one girl who brought up the issue — not I — asking, “But what about the Holocaust?” My response was, “You don’t still believe in that bullshit, do you?” She picked up her cigarettes and beer and walked away. She was not worth wasting my breath on, or pointing her to truth.
If someone, who appears to have sense, asks me about the Jews’ “holocaust” story and doesn’t want to invest $110 in the definitive book on the subject, I will point him to National Vanguard where several chapters of Germar Rufolf’s book are republished, to set him on the path of discovery of truths: Holocaust Insights 1: Absurd Tales | National Vanguard
YOU HAVE never before seen a resource like the new Holocaust Encyclopedia by Germar Rudolf, a massive volume (634 pages) that demolishes once and for all the myths, misunderstandings, exaggerations, and outright fabrications that surround the “Holocaust” story… Alleged victims, bystanders, and perpetrators have made a seemingly endless list of silly, bizarre, nonsensical, and outrageous assertions about their purported abuse, as part of the orthodox Holocaust narrative: Holocaust Encyclopedia – Full Color Hardback produce by Germar Rudolf – Cosmotheism
The left has undermined to a limited extent the policies of the government of Israel, not Jewish power more broadly across government, mass media and finance. It means that what the left has done cannot be a model for nationalists, because the left focuses on the wrong things: injustices by Jews against people who hate us as much as Jews do instead of injustices by Jews against us.
<i>we’ve seen the legitimacy of Jewish Zionist power be fiercely undermined by the left, who focused on present day injustices and stepped right over the kind of special pleading for Jews that is centered on the Second World War.</i>
If it comes from WikiJews, it must be true, eh?
—
Let’s All Drink To The Death Of A Clown: March 11, 2025 Lol are you actually copy and pasting from Wikipedia because it’s such an objective source when it comes to NS Germany???
—
You had mentioned this in an earlier comment today:
—
I’m sure you are familiar with, “The Case of Tyler Kent” by John Howland Snow. Kent was a high ranking American embassy official under Ambassador Kennedy and he was passing secret communiques between FDR and Churchill to the anti-Bolshevik faction in Britain, chiefly Lord Archibald Ramsay. These communiques proved that FDR’s administration was doing everything possible to get America into the war despite his campaign promises of keeping America out of the war.
—
I wasnt aware of Mr. Kent, but a friend has since sent me this from archive.com: The Case of Tyler Kent : John Howland Snow : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
Snow’s 1946 book is “The story of a pass code clerk who intercepted messages from Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill while he was out of government plotting to engineer the US into war. It explains the role Ambassador Joe Kennedy took in this event.”
The best book I’ve read lately about how Jews, working with Roosevelt and Churchill, to get America in the war against Hitler and Germany is: The Myth of German Villainy by Benton L Bradbury – Cosmotheism
The foreword to this edition was written by Thomas Goodrich, the author of Scalp Dance, Hellstorm and Summer 45
As the title The Myth of German Villainy indicates, this book is about the mischaracterization of Germany as history’s ultimate “villain.” The “official” story of Western Civilization in the twentieth century casts Germany as the disturber of the peace in Europe, and the cause of both World War I and World War II, though the facts don’t bear that out.
During both wars, fantastic atrocity stories were invented by Allied propaganda to create hatred of the German people for the purpose of bringing public opinion around to support the wars. The “Holocaust” propaganda which emerged after World War II further solidified this image of Germany as history’s ultimate villain. But how true is this “official” story? Was Germany really history’s ultimate villain?
In this book, the author paints a different picture. He explains that Germany was not the perpetrator of World War I nor World War II, but instead, was the victim of Allied aggression in both wars. The instability wrought by World War I made the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution in Russia possible, which brought world Communism into existence. Hitler and Germany recognized world Communism, with its base in the Soviet Union, as an existential threat to Western, Christian Civilization, and he dedicated himself and Germany to a death struggle against it.
Far from being the disturber of European peace, Germany served as a bulwark which prevented Communist revolution from sweeping over Europe. The pity was that the United States and Britain did not see Communist Russia in the same light, ultimately with disastrous consequences for Western Civilization. The author believes that Britain and the United States joined the wrong side in the war.
Reply to:
Sir knight John Ziska of Trocznoff
March 11, 2025 at 12:27 pm
“The borders between Bohemia and Germany were not created after the First World War. These are the oldest borders in Europe that have always existed. Bohemia has never been part of Germany. The so-called Sudetenland was an insidious construct invented by Pan-Germanic ideologues in the 1890s in order to break up the Czech state. In the so-called Sudetenland there were high percentages of Czech population everywhere from 10-30%. The Czech government could not leave these fellow Czechs to their own devices. The Sudeten Germans behaved abominably in places where they were in the majority in Bohemia already before and during the First World War. […]“
The border between Germany and the Sudetenland was created after World War I upon the dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian empire. Although Woodrow Wilson gave lip service to the “self determination of peoples,” this did not include ethnic Germans.
Furthermore, the Versailles Treaty and its various corollaries expressly forbade the ethnic Germans of Austria from joining the contiguous Old Reich, and that included the Sudetenland. Making them part of Czecho-Slovakia made these ethnic Germans “minorities” in their ancestral lands.
Sometimes territorial problems like this were settled by League of Nations plebiscites such as done in the Saarland (1935), but these tended not to go the way the Versailles powers wanted them to go, i.e, in favor of Germany. So the Allies tended to look the other way when ethnic Germans were brutalized in places like Silesia and the Sudetenland in the hopes that they would flee to Germany. We call this ethnic-cleansing today.
After the war an exaggerated legend was created that Czechs were brutalized by Germans in the Sudetenland after the Munich agreement. In wartime, there are lots of brutalities, so that is not wrong. But we have to sift the truth from the falsehoods and that is very hard to do.
For example, I recall a poor quality film showing “German” troops in military trucks driving over the necks of Czechs being forced the lie prone, supposedly in the Sudetenland after the Munich Agreement.
However, the film clip ─ if genuine ─ likely dates from after the war when Czech brigands were having their way with the Sudeten Germans as part of the general postwar German ethnic-cleansing.
During the war, Hitler was impressed by the quantity and quality of Czech armaments supplied, and the idea that he hated the Czech people is simply a myth.
And as far as I’m concerned, the CZ 75 9mm pistol from Communist Czechoslovakia (1975) is the best semi-automatic pistol ever made.
Czechs are indisputably a fine and clever people.
🙂
You completely ignore the fact that the Austro-Hungarian Empire consisted of several states according to its constitution. The Kingdom of Bohemia was part of the Habsburg Empire, but it did not cease to exist as a state, it still had its borders and its state bodies, authorities and parliament (Diet). As a result, all Germans who lived in Bohemia or Moravia were still citizens of the Czech state in 1918, just as their ancestors had been since the Middle Ages. On the other hand, the “Sudetenland” had no borders, it was just an idea of German nationalists who wanted to join the Second German Reich. It is as if, after the dissolution of the United Kingdom, the brown Pakistani Muslims in Bradford would declare that they are establishing their own Muslim emirate, which would break away from England and become part of the Islamic Caliphate.
Karlsbad, Marienbad, Bad Königswart, Frühbüß,… Bohemian ?
Are you joking? That’s oldest German culture!
“A otro perro con ese hueso” like we say here.
The fact that a town in Bohemia has a German name in addition to its Czech name does not mean that it should be annexed to Germany. The towns you list are called Karlovy Vary in Czech. Mariánské lázně, Kynžvart, Přebuz. There have always been Germans and Czechs living there.
“There have always been Germans and Czechs living there.”
True. A bit like in Danzig: 95% Germans and 5% Slavs.
By the way: Prag was a German speaking city not so long ago, ask Kafka. In fact it was the site of the first German university.
I think Danzig was actually founded as a city by German merchants and the Poles had to conquer it form the Order of the Teutonic knights in 15th century. That’s a big difference from cities in Bohemia, which have always been on Czech sovereign territory, and were founded by the Czech king, Czech lords or church hierarchy. There only German colonists came as merchants or as craftsmen. Today we would say that they were economic migrants. Prague was heavily Germanized in the 18th and early 19th century. There was a lot of German spoken in the wealthy classes, but at the same time there was a Czech national revival going on, so more and more educated people were realizing to be Czech. After 1848, Prague was already clearly Czech. Around 1900 there were only about 40,000 Germans (many Jews) living in Prague, a city of half a million.
Plebiscites work wonders when drawing borders. The Versailles powers gave some lip service to it but mainly for the benefit of non-Germans against Germany. This was intentional.
🙂
“Czech brigands” is a favorite figure of liberals who want to cultivate a sense of guilt in the Czech population and suppress nationalism. Those who know history in detail know that the excesses against the civilian German population in the Sudetenland in May and June 1945 were largely committed by disbanded Czechoslovak army units in exile from the Eastern Front, which ironically consisted of only a few Czechs. The commander of the Czechoslovak army in the Soviet Union, General Svoboda, had to gradually replenish his army from recruits made available to him by the Soviets. Thus, he included various nationalities from the Volga region, the Urals, Siberia and the Caucasus in his army, and later, during the fighting in the Carpathians, he supplemented it with “partisans” from local ethnic groups. As a result, the disbanded units of the “Czechoslovak army” in the summer of 1945 consisted largely of a motley of Ukrainian Jews, Carpatho-Ruthenians, Gagauzs Turks, Tartrars, Bourgarians, Hutsuls, Pomaks, Roumeninans, Moldovinians, but also Kalmuks, Tourkomanns, many Gypsies, Mordovins, Mestcheraks, Ostyaks and Ossetians, Chechens, Yukagirs and other exotic tribes. When the Czech authorities investigated the incidents afterwards, most of the perpetrators were no longer on Czech territory because the Russians had recaptured them and sent them back to the gulag.
About twenty years ago I was writing Book Reviews for Germar Rudolf’s The Revisionist journal, edited by Theodore J. O’Keefe, the former editor of the Journal of Historical Review which ceased in 2002.
The last Book Review I did when The Revisionist journal was discontinued in 2005 because Mr. Rudolf was extradited to Germany to serve seven (I think it was) years in prison for Holocaust Denial.
Anyway, I was working out the last touches of my last Book Review with the editor Mr. O’Keefe when the arrest happened and the publication folded, so it did not get published.
The book that I was reviewing was Redrawing Nations: Ethnic Cleansing in East-Central Europe, 1944-1948, a collection of essays published by the Harvard Project on Cold War Studies (2001), and the first in their line of the Cold War Studies Book Series.
In the book that I reviewed, it was pointed out that the postwar ethnic cleansing (mostly at the expense of Germans) was so effective that it had the unintended happy consequence (for lack of a better phrase) of making the new nations so ethno-nationally pure within their newly-defined borders that national conflicts are almost unheard of ─ even without the ruling Communist watchdogs.
I suppose that ethno-national stability might have been the case then, but it won’t last for long if Eastern Europe starts importing waves of migrants for some reason like for cheap labor or Globalism.
🙂
Beautifully stated, Wolf. Never compromise with the establishment on fundamental truths and values.
Wolf Stoner: March 11, 2025 … The enemy understands that not all people would accept the state-anointed holy lies. There will be someone who wants to know better. For this small auditory the system needs to plant people of “the same views”. They must pretend to share the basic truths [ie. nationalism of Mr. Woods and friends] but would push their own agenda on some seemingly minor issues. For example: “why do you need Hitler? Wouldn’t it be better to drop this dirty baggage and engage in politics with clean hands?” It could seem a good idea for many; especially for those who imagine themselves to be “rational” and “practical” (deal-maker Trump syndrome). But it is only the first step. After you accept it, there will be other steps: accepting “migrants useful for economy”, “support our greatest ally in the Middle East”, an Indian wife (why not?) and so on. There is no end of this process; the end point is the total destruction of your honor and identity. It is why such plants in the movement are so valuable for the system. They are more effective than open slanderers like Ian Kershaw or Allan Bullock. It is why we must be always alert to this kind of danger. No compromises with those who want to undermine our core values and firmaments.
Nationalism proper from the 19th-20th centuries is itself a quasi-socialist and corporatist ideology that partnered with syndicalism to form the framework of fascism. In a way, we could do well to distance ourselves from this also, at least concerning the American frame.
Technically, what we really advocate for as race-concious Whites is ethnopatriotism. The advantage of that term could break leftist control of the discourse concerning who avows what.
In short, (ethno)nationalism = ideology, ethnopatriotism = principle.
With 137 comments currently, valid counter-arguments to Mr. Woods tend to get buried.
—
Wolf Stoner: March 15, 2025 Kevin Alfred Strom’s audio reply to the Wood’s article is the best refutation of this fallacious “moderate” nationalist position.
—
Agreed. For thise who missed it, here’s that: https://nationalvanguard.org/2025/03/what-does-not-work/
Let’s not overlook Daniel Zakal’s refutation of Keith Woods’ piece: Nationalism Without National Socialism Is a Hollow Shell | National Vanguard
—
…There is no way to achieve an isolated victory of an individual White nation. Either the world will be freed from its Judeo-Christian-Marxist delusions or the remnants of the western civilization will be swept away by the wild hordes of healthy savages; their minds are not burdened by false Christian morality, sense of guilt or a desire to be pleasant to everyone. In any way, the wild spirit of pure Nature will be the ultimate winner. The only difference is whether the White race regains this spirit and occupies its proper place in this world, or some other racially and culturally monolithic community would do it.
The simpletons who believe that it is possible to jettison Hitler and Third Reich and to start everything from a new page, miss this key fact. Hitler and Third Reich were the epitome of the White racial essence. If we reject them, we automatically reject the White identity in its true sense. But I don’t want to try to persuade those who disagree. Each man must choose his own way. In this respect I adhere to libertarian principles. I don’t impose my ideas on anyone. But on the other hand, I never allow others to impose their delusions and falsehoods on me. They can live as they like, but it has nothing to do with us. The great separation is inevitable. It will cut through the whole society. The best few will go their own way and the great majority will go into abyss. It is the Law of Nature.
—
I just found Joel Davis’s refutation of Mr. Woods on Counter-Currents. Like Strom’s and Zakal’s he makes excellent arguments for NS: Why Nationalism Needs National Socialism – Joel Davis
Justin Barrett is mentioned in the article, and while I differ with Justin on various issues, he is an absolutely superb public speaker. He is not afraid to name names.
The media love to make fun of him, but he could be very productive as a public speaker and in organising historical commemorations. If he says anything outrageous, all the better. He is well able to defend his point of view. If the media try to tar us with his brand, we can just smile and say: If you’ve got an issue with Justin, talk to him, not me.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Lost your password?Edit your comment