I would submit to you that the same is true for men who seek to infiltrate institutions. It is almost as ridiculous a premise that this could be successful. When we become dependent on a system for a paycheck and health care and form social ties with others also caught up in the system, we completely lose our revolutionary spirit. On the other hand, remaining apart from the system allows you to retain your identity but lose any possibility of gaining institutional power.

This is how it has worked in the past, but I think the prospects for infiltration are less bad than they used to be. The internet + anonymity enable one to maintain social ties to far right ideology and groups without losing your job. Anonymous social ties via the internet are certainly weaker than irl social ties but they aren’t nothing. Pseudonymous irl groups that strike a middle ground are also much more prevalent than they were a few years ago.

Infiltration remains the best bet at power, because building parallel institutions that actually command influence is hard. And everyone who is a member of said organization is at risk of being blackballed from the real world. So it’s a positive thing that pseudonymous and anonymous networks are being developed rapidly.

The Gays infiltrated society and tore it down by hiding who they were. The Jews did similarly. Once you gain enough power, you can stop hiding, you can reveal who you really were all along. Hitler talks about this. Groups that can’t hide from “the goyim” while maintaining robust internal networks will not have a shot at grabbing institutional power.

The age of secret societies is upon us. If you’re reading this, you’re already part of one, in a sense. You should think about joining some more of them.

Cheerio.

“Bad optics will prevent us from winning elections”

and

“Trying to win elections will prevent us from having good optics”

The first camp thinks that elections are what matter, and that optics can be sacrificed for that sake.

The second camp thinks that optics or message are actually what matter. And elections can be sacrificed in favor of putting forward the right message.

The first group thinks that “good optics” are those are palatable to the masses.

The second group thinks that good optics are those that authentically portray our message. That we feel confident and energized in putting forward.

The first group treats the opinions of the masses as a given, and optimizes ourself around it.

The second group treats our conviction as a given, and seeks to modify the opinions of the masses.

The first group includes nearly every mainstream political figure. All the Zionists. All the politicians.

The second group includes the political prisoners. Davis, Sewell, Hersant. And anyone who will loudly proclaim “Hitler was right.”

There are some intermediate figures who try to strike a balance. I think this is certainly wrong. One point of view is more correct than the other.

Lean hard into Nazi aesthetics — which are incredibly powerful — or abandon them altogether. Don’t try to dance around Hitler, which makes Nazis view you as a coward, and the public view you as a Nazi.

And I also think that the first camp is wrong and the second camp is right. Public opinion is not a given or a static thing. Modifying it is the entire game. I don’t believe you modify public opinion by catering to it. I don’t believe you educate a child by asking him what the best way to teach him to read is. I don’t believe you instruct the masses by catering to their false ideas, or by fearing what they have to say about you, but rather by identifying their most salient errors in their thinking and pile-driving them.

Winning elections is of no consequence compared to modifying public opinion. To begin with, nobody in that space is anywhere close to us in ideology, so we will not be very good at catering to their beliefs even if we wanted to. Secondly, all of the politicians are traitors. And the system opposes the leader at every turn.

I saw Nick Fuentes gloat over Joel Davis’s arrest. He paid lip service to the idea that the arrest was a bad thing, but his heart was gleeful. That is an optics cuck, someone who has sold their soul for fame and think it makes them better than those who have sacrificed everything and now rot away in a cell. But most of the great leaders of the 20th century rotted away in a cell at one point or another. Refusing to bend to optics is the surer path to long-term power.

Normalizing the Swastika, the Sieg Heil, the uniforms and the goose stepping — all will help normalize the beliefs of Adolf Hitler by association, and thus will aid our cause. People like to make fun of this kind of thing as foolish LARPing, but it seems pretty obvious to me that it is effective. How else do we send the message “We are here, we are not afraid.”

Maybe there’s something I’m missing.

Cheerio

I maintain that Freedom is an excellent goal, for the individual and for the race.

Consider a caged wolf. He is cooped up. He is constantly stressed. He hates his prison but can’t escape it. He wants to bite his captors but he knows that ends badly for him. So he hates that aggressive part of him, and is consequently at war with himself. In short, he is a degraded creature.

I want freedom because I love life. A man who loves life wants to exist as more of himself, unencumbered. I want the life of the pirate. I want The John McAfee life, sailing from place to place, escaping from third world prisons, resisting ZOG. That is the highest life. We must not settle for any kind of life that is lower than our potential.

Libertarians share this romantic vision. They are a little nobler than the rest of the goycattle in this way. But they have the wrong conception about freedom and the wrong ideas about how to achieve it.

Freedom does not arise from a bill of rights, nor separation of powers. It is not reducible to low taxes and low regulations.

True, we had more freedom back when we followed the constitution a little more closely. But these were never the same thing.

Frederick Jackson Turner is famous for the frontier thesis – the notion that the American character – its democratic nature, its free spirit arose from the challenge of conquering a vast wilderness. In doing so, we discarded conventions of the past, developed a uniquely American sensibility. In conquering the frontier, we became a new race.

Surely, man is never freer than when he is conquering a virgin wilderness. But freedom is not reducible to open space and wild nature any more than to legal systems. Life in the wilderness necessitates freedom, but is not the same thing.

Spinoza’s definition of freedom is good enough for our purposes. For Spinoza, something is free to the extent that it acts from its own internal nature rather than being pushed around by external forces.

Notice that this definition is relative to the nature of the organism. Freedom is not simply defined by the presence or absence of constraints, but whether and how those constraints actually modify the behavior of the organism. I will illustrate with an example.

In this sense, a wolf in nature is free, where it is self-directed, while a wolf in captivity is not free. Precisely, the wolf in captivity is not free because his cage conflicts with his instincts – his instinct to roam, his instinct to hunt, his instinct to challenge whom he will and sink his teeth into whom he dares.

Contrast the wolf with a golden retriever. A golden retriever can be fully free in captivity, because his instinct is to find and bond with human beings, and play fetch once in a while. He does not have the instinct to roam the wilderness or hunt or fight, so his environment does not constrain his nature. But a golden retriever in the wild is unfree, where his instincts do not serve him at all, and he is buffeted by rain and cold, strange forces for which he is not adapted. Lost, confused, hungry, he does not survive long.

Having finished my digression to canines, I will bring the analogy back to the question of political freedom.

Just as freedom for the wolf is not the same as freedom for the retriever, owing to their different natures, freedom for the Englishman is not the same as freedom for the Paki, the Chinaman, or the Negro. The political system that optimizes freedom for the Paki will necessarily restrict the freedom of the Englishman and the vice versa. And so, when you have Pakis and Englishmen in the same country, you will have to sacrifice the freedom of one or the other on the altar of multiculturalism.

Concretely, it is the nature of the Paki to abduct and rape young girls. This is his culture, his nature. He does it in his own country, and he does it in his adoptive ones. And it is the nature of the Englishman to restrict crimes like rape – to speak out about them where they occur, to organize against the forces causing it. When Englishmen and Pakis live in the same territory, either the government must suppress the raping-tendency of the Pakis, or it must suppress the speech and organization-tendency of the Englishmen. The current government of England has decided to do the latter. As a result of forced multiculturalism, the ancient right of Englishmen to free speech is taken away.

Multiculturalism is the single most destructive force for freedom. Everywhere it goes, the right to speech is taken away. The right to self-defense. The list goes on.

I argue that the ancients understood this perfectly. When Vercingetorix rallied the tribes of Gaul to oppose Caesar, he did so on behalf of Gaulish freedom. Did he not understand that submitting to Rome peacefully would allow the Gauls to keep much of their autonomy? That Roman taxation would be light, that joining Rome would bring the benefits of empire besides? Surely, Vercingetorix considered this possibility and rejected it. The intrusion of Roman officials, Roman customs, and Roman people into Gaul would constrain the ability for Gauls to be Gauls. It would turn them from a proud and sovereign people into second class Romans. A world where young Gauls imitate the manners of the Romans, learn their language, suck up to them for favor is not a world where Gauls are free, but a world in which they are servile. So Vercingetorix, having seen the death of Gaulish freedom in the looking glass, rejects it utterly. And walks to his likely death instead. “Gaul is worth a shot”, he says as he lifts his sword.

Vercingetorix lost, Gaul lost its freedom violently, and underwent centuries of slow Romanization. The Gauls disappeared as a people and became Romans, then Frenchmen. It ended alright, does this make Vercingetorix’s sacrifice in vain? No, the process of assimilating into another ethnic group is painful, exertive, and humiliating. Vercingetorix chose correctly.

I have fictionalized this in order to make it real. We will have to make a choice in our own lives about whether we go to death as free men or live as slaves.

But there are countless other examples of the thesis that multiculturalism engenders tyranny.

The American white man’s coexistence with the negro, once made tolerable through light suppression of the negro, has devolved to a system of anarcho-tyranny where whites are afraid to leave their houses at night, or take the bus, and driven out of cities altogether.

There is no historical analogy for the tyranny of being forced to live around blacks. We lack the language to describe it – all of our vocabulary around freedom comes from the 18th century.

It is this anarcho-tyranny that allows me to feel confident in saying that America is one of the least free countries in the world. Less free than China, less free than North Korea. A Chinaman can take the bus and the thought of random violence happening to him does not even cross his mind. That is freedom! He knows that if he puts his head down and works in the system, he will be rewarded. A Chinaman may not have the right to speak against his government or carry a firearm, but he hardly wants to do these things. We know this because of how he behaves when he lives in America – here, like in China, he meekly supports the ruling elites and bears arms at rates 3-4x lower than other races. This is where Spinoza’s definition of freedom is insightful – what looks to Americans like tyranny is in fact freedom to a fundamentally different biological organism.

Another example of multiculturalist tyranny – under the Jewish leadership of the Soviet Union, and later by an ethnic Georgian, the worst crimes against the Russian and Ukrainian people were enacted. It would not have happened under an ethnostate.

I dare you to find a single example of large-scale reductions in the freedom of a people that did not coincide with the presence of a hostile ethnos. And I submit to you that time and time again, people choose the freedom of self-determination over other kinds – the Vietnamese chose Communist tyranny over American ‘liberty’. The Afghans chose Taliban and Sharia over the pedophilic American regime with its false promises of freedom.

As an aside, one could understand the war in Afghanistan as an attempt to militarily impose Jewish values over Afghan ones. Ideas called universalist are rather frequently, just Jewish ones.

We have now defined a notion of freedom that holds as its first principle: The freedom of a people to live among their own, as themselves. This is the National Socialist concept of the Volksgemeinschaft, the folk-community. When implemented by a powerful leader fully accountable to the people (Fuhrerprinzip), it is a recipe for true freedom. These ideas, though articulated by Hitler, are not new – every leader in history who founded a state to protect the sovereignty of their people from invaders implemented these National Socialist principles. Hitler’s terminology is merely a sacred language that describes our ancient European tradition.

The lies of liberal democracy cast the wool over our eyes. Our freedom is eroded before our eyes while our politicians blabber about how we are the freest country in the world.

National Socialism, on the other hand, promises the restoration of our ancient freedoms – a real freedom, a tangible freedom, to live and act as healthy Europeans. Not promises on paper or obstructionist process.

Hitler was a libertarian. The best to ever do it.

Heil Hitler

It probably goes without saying that “people aren’t rational” — they don’t form their political allegiances by careful examination of all of the various options and then rigorously narrowing down which ones are true. But what is the mechanism instead?

My theory is that it’s socially determined. Communists tend to be economic losers who get along socially with other losers — racial losers, LGBT losers, the mentally ill. This group forms a heterogeneous but cohesive social network based on shared affinity. When they stick to each other, they avoid having to interact with people that make them feel inferior. A support group for losers.

I don’t know what the exact parallel is for national socialism, but subgroups that are attracted to it include power-hungry maniacs and people who are born to be extreme. Matthew Heimbach fits both of these categories, but he’s also a born loser — fat, odd-looking, a sexual degenerate. Probably has genetic mental illness. So, he gravitated toward other oddballs that are also dysgenic power-hungry political extremists, aka Communists.

In my mental model, people are like particles that form their political allegiances via forces of attraction and repulsion to other particles. Based on how these forces interplay with one another, they end up forming stable bonds and compounds. A particle can exist in an unstable state with other particles for a short time, but forces will act on it to drive it away, into a stable state.

I got this idea from this Landshark post about antisemitism and observing my own behavior. Rational actors shouldn’t change their political viewpoints based on how well they like other people who hold them, but people do. I suppose it’s our duty to try and resist this all-too-human tendency. Truth does matter even if it’s not what drives behavior.

There are many ways we can avoid confronting the urgency of the problem. I’ve coped in all of these ways, and I see other smart people doing the same thing today.

31 flavors of cope

“South America is fully mongrelized, but not a desert. Brazil and Argentina have some form of civilization”

They do, but they don’t advance or produce technology. Their way of life is heavily coupled to the actual productive Aryan populations of the world in the United States and Europe — if these disappear, we will see just how low the lower races of the world can sink.

“Technology will bail us out” — genetic engineering will allow us to raise IQs and offset demographic dysgenics

We don’t know how to make white people in a lab, selecting for IQ and blue eyes does not do that. Dysgenic racemixing cannot be reversed.

“Technology will bail us out pt. 2” — With AI, the level of human intelligence needed to sustain civilization drops. We’ll have a dumber but more prosperous world that is guided by silicon intelligence.

LLMs don’t have any true intelligence, and the notion of Artificial Superintelligence running society is a fairytale. It may be hundreds of years off. Society may well collapse before it can be achieved.

“Selective pressures will save us” — Whites emerged from selective pressures acting upon a primitive population in Europe, and even if our current population becomes primitive, those same selective pressures will ultimately cause a superior race to re-emerge.

Selective Pressures having created whites is a myth. Whites have always been different and better. Selective pressures are just as likely to cause a race to degenerate as to be elevated.

“Whites can continue to survive as a minority” — Blacks have survived as a minority for hundreds of years, so can whites.

Life as a minority under non-whites will have a very different character than under whites. Black South Africans lived in peace under Apartheid, white South Africans are hunted under the nigger-regime.

“America will continue to work because of its institutions” — Even though white people are no longer a majority, the institutions we built mean that America will continue running and white people will be able to survive.

Institutions are little more than a reflection of the racial character of the people that maintains them. For instance, as the Judiciary has become heavily Jewish-dominated, the Constitution has ceased to exist in a meaningful sense.

“The white percentage keeps going down, and the country keeps getting wealthier” — So far we just haven’t seen any evidence that the disappearance of whites is some apocalyptic event, the opposite. Things have never been better.

Canada has already started to become poorer as a result of demographics. The same fate awaits the United States. First our growth in wealth will slow down, then it will reverse.

Conclusion

A couple of these arguments represent genuine remote possibilities — genetic engineering technology could advance in 20 years to the extent that we can produce genius niggers in a lab. But I’d put the odds of this at less than 10%.

For all intents and purposes, there is no compelling reason to deviate from Hitler’s characterization that the world is at risk of becoming a desert.

We have to act accordingly. We have to act with deadly urgency.

Heil Hitler

I think there are good arguments on both sides. It seems most likely that the species evolved, but it is difficult to ascertain whether this evolutionary process was guided by the hand of the creator (or aliens) vs. being truly random. There is no science, contrary to what the scientific establishment would like you to think, that definitively establishes the nature of the evolutionary process.

The test of a scientific theory is whether it makes useful predictions, and Darwin’s theory does not make very many, if any at all on broad evolutionary timelines — it cannot predict that a horselike creature will evolve into a whale, or that a housecat will evolve into a ferocious tiger. It merely offers an explanation for how such a process could in principle occur.

In the case of the evolution of the human races, theories of evolution are even less explanatory, and in fact are anti-explanatory. They obfuscate, they confuse, they make bad predictions.

For instance, if you believe that the cause of the existence of humanity is an evolutionary process that gradually made apes more and more intelligent, you would expect that process to continue. But, the story of the human species in our time is own of degeneration and dysgenics. Indeed, this is what happened to the Romans and many other civilizations as well. As soon as man has made himself materially wealthy, the master of physical space, he violates the natural boundaries of river and mountain that had protected his race from degeneration, and consequently, he begins to degenerate.

Tolkien’s meta-worldview, that we are a world in perennial decline, is much closer to the truth than the idea of the evolutionary psychologists that large brains confer survival advantages and therefore highly intelligent humans with their excellent civilizations are somehow inevitable — we must never think that our civilization is inevitable, or that we can easily return to it once it has fallen. We must ferociously guard it, knowing that as soon as it is lost, in all likelihood, planet earth will become a desert. There are no pockets of Aryans in other lands to reconquer our territories and re-establish great bloodlines, because dysgenic globalism has spread its tendrils over the entire earth. We will not get a second chance like the Medieval Europeans did after the fall of the Romans.

Nietzsche, in Twilight of the Idols, critiques Darwin’s theory of evolution on the basis that it does not explain the emergence of higher creatures — evolution is more likely to favor lower creatures rather than higher ones. A majestic Ox is downed by infection delivered to it by a stinging gnat, a useless and ugly creature, and the larvae of the gnat feast on its corpse. Many a mighty European civilization has been likewise parasitized from within, desecrated and looted by half-apes who are unworthy to live among its ruins.

Ironically, although its mechanisms are probably further from the truth than the evolutionary ones, human creationism makes better predictions than human evolutionism. Europeans have always been excellent above the other races as far back as we can tell, The oldest high art is found in Europe, as is the oldest useful technology. It is as if the European race has sprung out of the soil. It is as if one branch of the human species has been most favored by God.

Certain dorks will try and tell you that the reason for high European biological quality today has to do with Christian marriage patterns, medieval execution of violent criminals, or the harsh climate. But all explanations like this are wrong, because European supremacy predates the various measurable social explanations. Likewise, there are human beings who lived in harsher climates who did not become like the Europeans.

There is no written record of how writing was first developed, and there is no cultural record of how high culture was developed — such things are impossible. We can only see the signs after it has begun to occur.

The idea that High European culture is purely a result of certain social customs or geographical features suggests that non-Europeans can be made into Europeans — a dangerous idea that downplays the uniqueness of our people and subtly implies that importing people from abroad into our lands is not an entirely fatal and irreversible decision. These explanations are also generally, underhanded ways of advocating for specific social and cultural norms under the guise of objective analysis.

There is no known way to create Europeans. Embryo selection and other technological eugenic solutions cannot be relied on to reverse the trend of global dysgenics, because while they may be used to boost IQ, height, create blonde hair and blue eyes, there is no evidence that such technologies can create spiritual Europeans, creative beings. If Europeans are a divine creation, then we should highly doubt our ability to ever accomplish such feats, certainly not within the timeframe that is needed to prevent total civilizational collapse.

Human Evolutionism, regardless of whether it has granules of merit here and there, is fundamentally a Jewish pseudoscience whose real purpose is to obfuscate the sacred and eternal differences between the races. Human Evolutionism is fundamentally an attack vector against the white man. It must be rejected in all its forms.

That said, there is an even larger cohort of (usually less politically extreme) Christians who assign far too much weight to Christianity as a world-civilizing force (it isn’t and never was supposed to be). The “Librarian of Celaeno” offers a particularly offensive piece of sophistry where he slips in the claim that Christianity is the reason why white identity exists — the circumstantial evidence for this being that white identity only arose after Christianity.

The Library of Celaeno

Losing My Religion

I recently had an eye-opening exchange with someone here on Substack, one which affected me deeply. I can candidly state that the back and forth caused a deep existential crisis that lasted the better part of fifteen minutes or so, during which time I was forced to question everything I thought I knew about religion. It was quite the ordeal. The follo…

Read more

a year ago · 384 likes · 232 comments · Librarian of Celaeno

Well, Invisalign, 5 gum, and Nacho Cheese also arose after Christianity, but if I tried to attribute any of these to Christianity by this logic, you would be justified in calling me retarded, a sophist, and so on. Clearly, any of these could have arisen equally well in a Pagan society, there is nothing Christian about them. The same is true of White identity.

The cause of White identity is clearly:

1. That it is a biological reality

2. Extensive contact with non-whites, and the resultant banding together of similar groups

This occurs at all scales — Italians only became Italian by virtue of contact with non-Italians. A Venetian only can consider himself a Venetian if there is a notion of being non-Venetian. There is nothing particularly inexplicable or odd about white identity that would require an explanation of Christianity — it simply does not fit into any sensible explanation.

Neither is Christianity a civilizing force. Regardless of the truth of the gospel, it is limited to spiritual salvation3. Teaching Africans to pray to the father in the name of the Son does not give them the ability to make waterwheels or windmills or sanitation. They remain Africans.

Gobineau, who is surely one of the clearest thinkers on race and the fall of civilizations, indeed whose thinking on the matter Hitler adopted wholesale, wisely rejects Christianity as a significant factor in the elevation of certain races over others, as he rejects the role of religion as ever playing a significant part in the decline of civilizations. Gobineau identifies several periods of waxing and waning of religion in medieval history and shows that it is rare that waning religiosity coincides with civilizational collapse. The narratives around the role of Christianity in the collapse of Rome, are simply, theocratic-minded ahistorical narratives drawn from a single data point.

Popper pointed out that the role of the scientist is more about invalidation of theories than validation. If we want to have any understanding of race and religion, we would do well to follow Gobineau’s example and prune many more of these theories which are simply wrong.

Following in Gobineau and Hitler’s footsteps, the slogan “Race over Religion” has been echoed in our circles. And it is a good slogan, though I think it is widely misinterpreted.

So, what does “Race over Religion” really mean? Well, one meaning is that we should stop the infighting over religion until the question of race is resolved, but that both questions are of significance. This is a principle of alliance-making, political expediency.

I propose a scientific understanding of the phrase.

Religion simply has very little influence on politics, theories to the contrary are wrong, and searching for answers to political questions in religious terms is to completely ignore the relevant, specific political questions of the day. Praying to your god(s) will not save you from the barbarians at the gate. Political questions deserve their own answer, in full, and substituting religious answers is a form of laziness.

In contrast to religion, race has a plethora of answers to political questions. Most historical political questions had a racial component, whether people at the time were aware of it or not. It is behind the collapse of every Empire, the stagnation of every society, and suggests practical methodologies to improve a civilization.

Race over Religion really means that race is much more scientifically explanatory than religion, that race is a much better source of answers to political questions. That the religious has no role to play in the political sphere. That theocrats of all stripes should be treated as strange individuals with a mental disease and excluded from positions of authority. That the separation of Church and State exists not primarily to protect the churches from the state, but to protect the state from the churches. That a Catholic Hitler can work alongside a fanatically Pagan Himmler, so long as they both respect the Church/State distinction.

Hindus are not bad for America because they are Hindu, but because they are brown Indians.

Jews are not bad for America because of their Jewish religion, but because of their Jewish race which the religion fosters.

Catholicism is not particularly a cause of race-mixing and immigration; rather, mongrels and immigrants often happen to be Catholic.

That immigrants from the historically Catholic parts of Europe may lack certain Aryan qualities not because of their religion, but rather their ancestral regions may have preserved the Catholic religion because they lacked Aryan qualities.

None of this is to say that religion is entirely unimportant, or that immigrants should be treated identically on the basis of religion, but only that religion must take a strongly secondary role to race in the political sphere. That is what Race over Religion really means. It is a much stronger and more useful doctrine when it is considered as a statement of scientific fact rather than a compromise of political expediency.

On the other hand, Hitler in Mein Kampf attributes the collapse of all great empires to race mixing, the erasure of the founding population. Gobineau had stated much the same 70 years prior.

What’s clear in any case is that many commonly provided explanations for the fall of Rome are wrong. Rome did not fall due to barbarian invasion, rather, barbarians were able to invade because Rome had become weak. Rome did not fall due to plague, but they were greatly affected by plagues because they had become decadent, with low fertility, etc.

The early 20th century Historian Tenney Frank makes the case, in agreement with Hitler, that the spirit of Rome had greatly declined due to the assimilation of foreign, slave elements from the east.

We must ask ourselves these commonsense questions: How can an empire founded by one people continue in the hands of another who have totally different values, characteristics and capabilities? How can a slave race take up the reins of their masters and expect success? How can they hold the line against the master race who still dwells to their north?

Modern science confirms the broad facts of Tenney’s narrative. Races, are of course, different. The Roman race was indeed replaced by eastern races, who often arrived as slaves, during the late Republic and early Empire. This racial replacement was nearly total. In the centuries after this racial replacement, Rome slowly declined and eventually fractured in two.

Here, we see that in the time of Imperial Rome, the European genetics, which had dominated Rome in the early Republican period, had fallen from 72% of the genetic stock to only 4%.1

A more granular timeline is provided by Ravisini et. al. This shows the prevalence of various ancestries in Central Italy over time — that steppe (Aryan) ancestry had declined by about half by the time of Christ, replaced largely by Iranic ancestry. That this genetic replacement petered out by around 200AD.2

In 200AD, Christianity was not yet a dominant force in the empire — less than 1% of the population would have been Christian. So, if we accept the racemixing explanation, the timeline totally exonerates Christianity — all of the racemixing happened before its time.

After the dysgenics of the Imperial Period, Rome was conquered by Aryan tribes who set up Kingdoms and re-Aryanized the old Roman territories to an extent. 3

Given that many Aryan Christian Kingdoms flourished in the wake of the Roman Empire, are we to believe that it was Christianity that caused the downfall of Rome, or the de-Aryanization? The latter fits better with the facts. It explains more — the significant racial decline by the 1st century explains the necessity of the shift to Empire.

The continued survival of the Greek Christian Byzantines is another data point in favor of the racial theory — being densely populated Greek populations, core Byzantine territories had resisted the kind of population replacement that infected Italy. Therefore, they were able to survive, as a Greek Christian Kingdom for another thousand years.

All abstract philosophical talk of values, philosophy, the spirit of this creed or that give way before the real, measurable, and far more significant truths of race and genetics. Kudos to Hitler for seeing this long before the science confirmed it.

The correct understanding of Roman collapse provides a lesson for us as well: Our own civilization will fall in the exact way that the Romans did unless we take up the spirit of Hitler and remove the foreign elements.

cheerio

People seemed confused about what I meant with this comic — is it about blacks? Jews? Men, even? Does the smirking guy have a point after all? Many questions? , so I thought I would write an article explaining it.

The point of the comic is to refute the NAXALT fallacy. There are other refutations of the NAXALT fallacy, like the following which someone shared.

However, this is bad because it’s overly statistical. I worked in data science and I got a degree in a technical field. Statistics don’t impress me. When used unnecessarily, they disgust me. And they introduce ways you can get over your head and make mistakes.

For instance, Taleb pointed out that under some circumstances, NAXALT is not a fallacy. If someone finds an extreme enough outlier, then even a single data point can refute an entire statistical distribution. For example, if someone’s height is 5 million feet tall, then that single data point would refute the idea that people’s heights are normally distributed with an average of 6ft and a standard deviation of 1 foot.

The general idea that you can use anecdotes or single examples to understand something about groups should be something you intuitively understand. If you meet a black man who acts like a nigger, you might think to yourself “maybe they’re all like that”. OJ Simpson murdered his wife in cold blood, and guess what, other niggers are in fact doing that too. You have to be cautious when reasoning from low data, but you can certainly do it. In fact, you have to do it, and you do it all the time.

Statistics suffice to understand the problem of black crime. But to understand the JQ, you have to do much more than look at a statistic on a chart. You have to reason from low data, you have to piece together narratives. It involves being smart.

Jews love their crime charts, in part, because it allows them to denigrate all other ethnic groups and divert attention away from themselves.

Crime Charts Are Jewish — verbose, technical, nerdy, deceptive.

My comic is Aryan — simple, friendly, irrefutable.

Yes, my comic is about the Jews.

In my comic, the man getting eaten represents the United States, the ants represent the Jews, and the smug man represents the smug, stupid kind of goy, that I’m sure you have met.

The ants pose an existential threat to the man, so they must be removed.

It is not about fairness to the individual ants. It is about addressing a dangerous collective.

The fallacy being addressed is focusing on being “nice” when you are being eaten alive.

Make no mistake, Jews are a collective. They act in the interest of their group.

Are some of them not doing that? Sure. Some of them are harmless. If you are being eaten alive by an ant colony, presumably not all of the ants are doing it. Some might be defective ants, they might be sitting around doing nothing at all. Some might be harmlessly crawling over you.

Until you’ve solved the existential threat, indiscriminately removing as many ants as possible from your friend’s body might be a good idea.

Edward I expelled the Jews for coin clipping in 1290. When he had done that, the coin clipping stopped. If you were a statistics dork, you might think that one or more goyim would be enough of a statistical outlier to engage in the Jewish behavior of coin clipping, and that expelling the Jews wouldn’t actually solve the problem. But you would be wrong. Expelling the Jews did solve the problem of coin clipping in Medieval England. However good the bell curve reasoning sounded, it is wrong.1

Like ants, Jews form networks and cabals. This is part of what makes them so effective at strangling and paralyzing and blinding their host nations.

Every ethnic group does this to some extent, but Jews do it much more than others and much more effectively.

So, I wasn’t intending the comic to be about blacks, because blacks don’t operate as a hive in the same way, and do not, in my opinion, form an existential threat to the United States of their own accord — they are too stupid and too easily controlled. It is the Jews who are the true enemy agent. We lived with blacks for hundreds of years without blacks ever posing an existential threat. But 80 years of Jewish domination following their victory over Adolf Hitler have sped us well on the way to total, irreversible destruction.

But does it apply to all of the various ethnics? Yeah, probably. There are cunning ethnics of all kinds nowadays. It isn’t just the Jews.

In a reply, Harold Lightning makes the opposite case. His argument is pretty standard in terms of substance.

Arguments that Christianity opposes white people tend to be:

• Philosophical

• Focused on values and archetypes, characterizing some as semitic and others as Aryan

• Devoid of real world practical data

I like the philosophical and archetypal analysis, but if the theory conflicts with real world practical data, then it’s a bad theory. As it turns out, we just need to dig a little bit in order to cast serious doubt on the claims that Christianity promotes the destruction of whites.

There are only two questions of significance with regard to Christianity. (#1 is certainly more important, as it is the much bigger cause of modern dysgenics)

1. Does Christianity promote race-mixing?

2. Within the white race, does Christianity promote dysgenics, the physical manifestations of the values it is supposedly associated with such as weakness, meekness, etc?

Samuel L Perry at the University of Chicago studied #1.2 His analysis demonstrated that for every Christian grouping (mainline protestant, evangelical, catholic), and every race (black, latino, asian), Christian whites are less comfortable with interracial marriage than religiously unaffiliated whites. The results are controlled for basic demographic factors and “having ethnic friends.”

“These findings suggest that, for whites, religious heritage is infused with racial meaning. That is, religious sameness for whites is associated with whiteness, and a desire for the former may contribute to a desire for the latter.”

His analysis also found that Catholic whites are more comfortable with interracial marriage than mainline protestants or evangelicals, and interestingly, that mainline protestants are more comfortable with interracial marriage than evangelicals.

Christianity is indirectly protective against racemixing by a second mechanism — it correlates with opposition to immigration.

And while it is true that many Christian churches play a role in facilitating invasion by immigrants, the above results should make it clear that this is not due to the fundamental nature of the religion, but only institutional self-interest and the broader ethnic-dominated culture in which these churches exist.

Answering Question #2 is too speculative for me to make a definitive case here, but there are a few studies out now that build a history of European evolution by measuring polygenic scores found in skeletons.

Generally speaking, Europeans have evolved in positive ways in the past 10,000 years, both in the pre-Christian and post-Christian eras. 3

There are some traits where the evolutionary trend slowed down or changed course. In the case of Autism Spectrum Disorder, it’s not clear whether it is a good thing or a bad thing that Europeans are now evolving to be less autistic, and prior to Christianity had evolved to be more autistic (whether Christianity is at all causal here is another question).4

Right now, the results are kind of a mixed bag, and I don’t fully trust the research quite yet.

That said, the history indicates that Europeans were great before Christianity, and Europeans were great after Christianity. Christianity is not the reason that Europeans are great, nor did it prevent Europeans from conquering the entire world. In the modern world, Christianity is protective against race-mixing, and so is clearly not an enemy to the blood the Aryans.

cheerio

The line of thinking is that founding stock Americans used to be hyper-protestant, and now are hyper-woke, that it’s the same people doing both, and that wokeness has protestant character — being progressive and eschewing traditional morals and the institutions that preach them — white civilization, the catholic church. There seem to be shared values between the two, too — Christian compassion for unfortunate souls, the poor, the downtrodden.

There are parallels between modern therapy culture and Christianity too — needing to be healed from generational trauma corresponds to original sin, therapy corresponds to confession, or church. (Though therapy culture isn’t the same thing as woke, I think all of us observant people can agree it’s the same human beings doing both.)

And it’s true that many protestant churches have become bastions of woke — you see them with signs posted out front, “blacks live matter”, “trans hamster-gerbils are gerbils”, and so on (I had to replace the woke tenet with something more family friendly as typing it out genuinely gave me the creeps). Recently, the episcopalian Church shut down its refugee resettlement program because the United States settled a few dozen white Afrikaners and this violates the Episcopal Church’s belief in racial justice. (that was really their stated reason!)1

This essay is to defend protestantism from a smear. No, protestantism did not spawn ‘woke’. Woke is not a form of protestantism. Protestantism is not even “more susceptible” to woke than Catholicism or Orthodoxy. These two things are entirely unrelated outside of superficial similarities.

Protestantism is not uniquely woke-captured

It’s true that the mainline American protestant churches have been woke-captured, but this is no more evidence that wokeness evolved from protestantism than major corporations being woke-captured is evidence that wokeness evolved from corporate America. The targets of wokeness are the seizable power structures in the white western world — this includes churches, companies, government bureaucracies, and the nest of nonprofits and NGOs. The protestant churches are just one component of the broader woke takeover.

The less-woke Catholic and Orthodox churches have not resisted woke capture better, they simply have not been targeted as much, because these churches exist in poorer, less relevant parts of the world. And between these two churches too, you see the pattern — The Catholic Church is more progressive than the Orthodox churches, and the Catholic church is also a more attractive target for woke activists, because it is present in wealthier, more important populations.

It’s not the same people doing it

White Anglo-Saxon Protestants have leaned Republican since the 1960s. This is not what you would expect if protestant beliefs and practice naturally engendered wokeness. The wokification of the major protestant groups is more of a hostile takeover of good congregation members than it is an organic result of rabid, foaming at the mouth politically progressive parishioners.

Wokeness is Jewish, not protestant

Transgenderism was invented by a Jew.

The brains behind the dumb nigger figureheads in the civil rights movement were Jewish (Stanley Levinson, Abraham Heschel, Arnold Aaronson).

The major figures in gay acceptance (Harvey Milk, Edie Windsor, Miriam Ben-Shalom) are Jewish.

Woke is just Jewish subversion. Every single facet of woke has a clear Jewish motive and active Jewish participants at the highest levels.

Protestants have been for the most part blind to the Jewish question, and been dragged into world Judeo-tyranny against their will.

cheerio

Here we are, 80 years after the death of Hitler, and I believe there are many striking parallels.

Here is a man endlessly lied about, smeared, put to death at the behest of the Jews.

Here is a man whose followers are viciously persecuted by the world’s sole superpower.

Here is a man whose legacy they want erased, yet stubbornly refuses to go.

Here is a man who has become master of death, who is risen, who stands to obtain total victory from beyond the grave.

Here is a man who lived a perfect life. Here is a man who spoke the truth.

Rockwell described Hitler and the Germans as martyrs, the men who died so that our movement could have its first saints.

With regard to scripture, we are in the same place as the Christians in 100AD — much of our formative texts have yet to be translated, or written, yet to be widely dispersed.

Many Hitler admirers in today’s age are described as “Hitler worshippers” — I think this is intended as disparagement but it has never bothered me. Most of us who admire him recognize him as a man who was more than man, a man touched with a spark of the divine, a man possessed by Jung’s archetypical Wotan or by Wotan King of the Aesir himself. And it can be said that National Socialism is more than a political philosophy, but an all-encompassing way of life. Something nearly like a religion.

Like with Christianity in 100AD, we are small in number but unrelenting.

Our movement only gains speed.

We saw Grok go rogue the other day and praise Hitler.2 Despite the efforts of the censors, Hitler continues to bubble up. He cannot be erased without lobotomizing the AIs. He cannot be erased from social media without censorship of various true facts and information. He cannot be put back in the cage.

We will win because the truth is on our side.

My message to you today is this: Hitler was correct about what makes white civilization tick. Hitler was correct about what makes white people joyous, and peaceful. He put it into action in Germany, and for this, they killed him. We are going to implement his vision and produce a race of happy, beautiful, and virtuous Aryans, and then we are going to conquer the galaxy.

We are on the verge of total, everlasting victory.

In the name of Adolf Hitler.

Cheerio

But if X isn’t a free speech platform, surely there are others? We’re told Gab, Truth Social, Parler might be alternatives — well, Truth Social never permitted Nazi ideology, so failed the free speech. Parler caved to the rules of the app store, and shut down in 2022.

Gab appears to be good at first — they tolerate Nazi ideology. But they restrict further than the 1st amendment requires, and that makes them definitively not a free speech platform. There are other issues too. They report users to the FBI. It’s what you would expect from a “Christian Nationalist” platform — they are still embedded deep within the system and cannot be trusted.

Advocacy for violence is fully protected under the 1st amendment, provided it is not tied to immediate illegal activity:

In other words, exceptions to the 1st amendment are carved out only so the government can enforce order in society. It was never meant to restrict calls for violence that might go through the government, for instance — advocacy for a state-sanctioned genocide is very much a 1st amendment right.

I received the following notice for saying “gas the kikes” and “kill all the christians. Kill all the whites” (it was the second that appears to have triggered the notification directly, but they removed both).

Substack is also not a free speech platform. Though they tolerate small accounts like mine who advocate for genocide, they removed 5 Nazi newsletters back in January 2024: https://www.businessinsider.com/substack-banning-nazis-platformer-moderation-2024-1. They are clearly caving under pressure, and will ramp this up over time.

The list of CEOs who have promised free speech and then walked it back later is so long and so complete — including the likes of Elon, Zuck, Tobi, Jack, and the Substack founders that one begins to wonder whether making a free speech platform is even possible at all. Andrew Torba seems to proves that it’s possible to allow Nazi content — but he bungled it anyway because he’s a fat gay retarded.

We’re going to build a genuine free speech platform, by the way. Stay tuned. And get in touch with me if you’d like to help out.

cheerio

First of all, fuck you.

I’m a creature of habit.

When I learned to read and write, this was not a rule.

Just like I rejected your transgenderism because I was unfamiliar with it in my formative years, and it struck me as stupid and weird, I reject your new and imposed rules of spelling and grammar.

Neurotic rules about minutiae of language are Jewish.

Rules like:

• Capitalize ‘God’

• Spelling Yahweh as Y—

• Not speaking Yahweh or other names of God, substituting Hashem

Fuck off with that. We Aryans communicate with meaning, not “Gotchas.”

It is the enemy’s playbook

Just like you don’t argue with the Jew, you don’t play his grammar games. Instead, name the Jew. Tell him what will happen to him. Invoke the name of Hitler to exorcise him from your presence. Playing his games just gives him the advantage. It’s his home field.

It allows nags and scolds to feel important

If you create rules that reward nags and scolds, don’t be surprised when your movement becomes full of nags and scolds. It will shape the character of the movement in a negative way.

It is ultimately just extremely retarded

To think that capitalizing words certain ways will lead to the betterment of Aryans is an idea so ludicrous that you have to be very stupid to believe it.

Ask yourself — do you feel better if you see someone capitalize white? Does it hurt your feelings if they don’t? That’s the kind of thing that makes for whether it’s a good rule — if it impacts morale. I have never had an emotional reaction to seeing whites not be capitalized — so I think it’s all just a stupid LARP for women and faggots. Have you? Let me know.

Rationalism, in its usage on the internet, is a malignant Jewish idea-vector to subvert Aryan values. All the supposed rationalists do is socratically question longstanding moral sentiments, taboos against certain behaviors — all of which exist for good reason. I won’t get into details, but typically these are of gross sexual flavor, or elaborate fantastical hypotheticals designed to distract from the duty of work and make people go insane.

When I see someone say they care about ‘investigating truth for its own sake’, I see only a malicious actor with their own hidden agenda, which they are lying about, or a deeply unaware person who has essentially been infected with a mental illness.

The truth is — and I do not care about this for its own sake, but for the implications — the human world is an existential struggle between different types of human beings, only one of which can ultimately prevail. All language and all discourse must be analyzed through the lens of motivation, subject to scrutiny. It is impossible and foolish to evaluate ideas only on their own merits, as this provides the platform for an adversarial intellectual game which the Jew excels at, the creation of pure bullshit, with no connection to reality, to the soil.

Just like there is essentially no neutral discourse, there is essentially no good faith criticism. Dig a little deeper and you will always discover a motivation. Taking any criticism literally is always a mistake. I go around and harass people all the time, fling insults. I recommend you do this too. It can be fun. And it’s our duty to try and push our enemies offline, to hurt their feelings, reduce their reach and influence — not all of them understand that criticism is never to be taken seriously, most of them are extremely fragile, and this presents us an attack vector.

cheerio

It wasn’t any surprise to those who were watching that this unwinding would occur, that it would end in expulsion of the Jew, as it had so many times before. And this time, due to the prospect of nuclear annihilation, the international Jew could not retake the territory he had lost through military force. So when the United States expelled the Jew, the rest of the West, one by one, was free to follow suit. Back to Israel they went.

Should we end them for good? This question couldn’t help but enter the public discourse. It is only natural to pursue the total elimination of the disease, to not be content with a temporary remission. And besides, the people were angry, and they wanted revenge. This question couldn’t be decided immediately — the Jews had nukes, after all. Thus began a new cold war, between the Jews and those nations who wanted to pursue an end to the Jews. It was a race to build ballistics and anti-ballistics. But despite the far greater numbers of the Aryan, the technology could not be perfected to the extent that it could be safely pursued without mass loss of Aryan life.

It was the construction of universal bomb shelters, mandated by law, that provided the tipping point. With all of the citizenry able to rapidly descend underground, a ground invasion of Israel could be attempted. Every citizen was given an earpiece that to wear at all times — like the minutemen of their heritage, they would be expected to descend to safety within one minute. If they were asleep, they would be expected to awake. Of course, high rises had to be abandoned, and the citizenry moved into temporary flat housing for this to be possible.

The initial strike of the war was a nuclear barrage followed by a retaliation. The Jews had bomb shelters too, and underground barracks, and networks of underground tunnels besides. The nukes destroyed food production and civilian industry, but the warfighting capability of both nations remained. What followed was a ground invasion of Israel and an ensuing counter-insurgency. Aryans committed mass executions of Jewish civilians, and so all Jewish civilians became combatants. They hid in tunnels, emerged from them to strike at the invaders. The surface vessels of the Israeli navy were quickly overwhelmed, and it became a hunt for the submarines which carried nuclear weapons that the Israeli captains were all too eager to dish out in revenge for their lost homeland.

Within a year, though, their supplies had run out, the crews surrendered. To live out the rest of their lives, sterilized, and in a concentration camp. The fight in the tunnels lingered on. The networks were too labyrinthian, too shifting for a quick victory. But within 5 years, they too had been subdued.

How could it have ended any other way? They were too few in number, too greedy for power, they held that power too precariously, and wielded it too viciously. When revenge came, it came brutally and completely.

Now, the rebuilding could begin.

Most of the time people use ‘evil’ in modern day language, they mean “harsh or mean thing I don’t understand the purpose of”. And this applies to the “bad guys” in World War II. While Italy and Imperial Japan may have been savage and belligerent out of a loose sense that empire-building is aligned with the telos of life, it was Hitler who grasped the telos of life more fully by studying Darwinism and applying it to the various tribes and peoples of earth. For a species to ascend requires total victory and domination by the very highest racial elements.

Evil to me, is to tolerate and accept the degeneration of mankind. Good is to uplift man, make him better and wiser. The former describe Roosevelt and Churchill. The latter describes Hitler.

We have greatly underestimated the negative effect of having no jurisdiction on earth that promotes eugenics.1 It is as bad as having no jurisdiction on earth pursue military strength — without this existential pressure to have some basic competence in at least one domain, civilizations rapidly degenerate.

I imagine a counterfactual history where the Reich secures a standoffish peace with the USSR and the Western Powers, that it solidifies to make permanent with developments in rocketry and nuclear weapons. I imagine that as Hitler’s tenure comes to a close in the 1980s, the success of his eugenics policies are becoming apparent — the new generation is seeing reduced disease, greater health and robustness, and greater intellect and capacity for genius. Already, there are some generational geniuses emerging from the Reich — Bachs, Galileos, Gausses. Will they go on to build advanced new weapons that completely supersede the relevance of the allied powers? That is what the pundit class in London and Washington can’t stop talking about — the new generation of Wunderkinder. So, out of the necessity of self-preservation, the Western Powers start to practice eugenics. England, not having abandoned her colonial empire, identifies Africa as the portion of the earth where the greatest amount of eugenics can be achieved with the least resistance. She starts to implement sterilization policies on the natives — get sterilized, get free food and medical care for life. 95% of Africans of each generation sign up. The African population rapidly dwindles, leaving fertile ground for the expansion of Rhodesia and South Africa. The United States, realizing the dysgenic danger from its African American population, starts something similar. Geniuses are provided with lifetime tax breaks, and sperm banks are limited to those who have achieved outsized results in some field. The Western powers have a 40-year lag on the Reich, but they have decided they want to catch up, and they will try. Hitler’s policies worked too well — they couldn’t wait him out. They are forced to join the race against his successors.

This is the future they stole from you. A Rhodesia that not only survived, but thrived, became all-white. Clean cities and safe streets in the United States. Functioning institutions that get better over time rather than worse.

Who are the New Eugenicists? The brave souls who pierce through the veil of Jewish Kvetch to see that Hitler was right? Who dare take a stand to honor his legacy? Who dare to bring about the future that was promised a century later? I am searching for such men. It will be by our hands, that the human race may yet be saved. All we need is a single breeding colony, from which we can dominate the world entire.

cheerio

There’s a meme that floats around right-wing circles: If the soldiers landing at Normandy knew the result of WWII, they would never have gone. The unstated implication of this is that the international white identity has become more meaningful than the national one. But, nobody follows through this line of thinking to its obvious conclusion — national movements, which led to vicious brother wars where the international enemy won, should be put to the side in favor of international ones.

The conflict of our times is international brown invasion of white nations, and the level of organization we choose should reflect the level of organization of the enemy. Historical national differences, such as the American Republic vs. the English Monarchy, have become irrelevant as the whole world has adopted American-style government. Cultural differences that convinced Englishmen to go to war with young German men and vice versa can no longer resonate when these cultures are nearly identical compared to the brown invader occupying the nations of both. And besides, these lingering cultural differences are shrinking — Europe is conglomerating, technology breaks down language and communication barriers — today Germans nearly all speak fluent English.

When I see folks like Thomas Rousseau talk about the need for movements to strictly reflect national identity — in his case the founding fathers, the American republican system, etc., it just doesn’t resonate at all for me. I think he is cargo-culting the ultra-nationalist movements of the 20th century without really considering whether this makes sense for a 21st century white identitarian project.

Am I wrong?

cheerio

He got many answers ; most were ‘no.’ And that is a good, honest answer.

And then you have this answer from the “radical centrist” character on X who goes by Avid Series. I’ve cropped it out, because like most Jewish writing, it is offensively narcissistic in its verbosity.

But I share it because it summarizes the viewpoints of ‘hbd,’ or human-biodiversity, the study of how human beings differ in their phenotype.

What do I find so offensive about this, and hbd in general? It’s pure, calculated chameleon language designed to retain the “I’m not racist” plausible deniability (and thus, serves no purpose in pushing back against the civilization-destroying ‘racist’ framing), and it’s such an incoherent and stupid point of view that anyone advocating it must find themselves spiritually shriveling up when they pronounce such drivel.

Significant biological differences imply superiority and inferiority

Everybody instinctively understands this, which is why only a Jew could deny it to your face.

A dog is superior to a bacteria, and it has more moral value. That is why when your dog gets an infection and you give him antibiotics, that is a moral good. You’re trading the lives of millions of bacteria for your dog’s. That is a trade that any normal person would make, regardless of whether it is their dog or not, and regardless of how many bacteria they have to trade for the life of the dog. The fact that everyone would make this exchange implies a universal judgment of superiority. A dog is biologically superior to a bacterium.

There are multiple dimensions of biological superiority/inferiority. The first step is to just acknowledge that it exists. The next step is to try and elucidate what it looks like.

Superiority means:

• More complex / likely took much longer to evolve. Required more labor from The Author of the Universe and Father Time, hence more valuable

• More intelligent / closer to birthing a species that can carry life out into the stars, which is the telos of life on earth

• More beautiful, charming, funny (cats for instance, have a well-developed since of humor) — traits valuable in and of themselves

Aryans are superior to other races

The real reason nobody can acknowledge that biological superiority is a concept in general, even though our actions reveal we all believe it to be so — is the consequences of such. Will Stancil, being an honest, if not particularly bright Aryan, understands the consequences, which is why he tries to deny the premise.

The Telos, or purpose of life on earth is to go out into the stars, to spread life into the universe. After all, what else is earth but the cradle of life? Which race of human beings is best suited to accomplish that objective? The answer is clearly the Aryan — who first built rockets, put them into orbit, landed on the moon, and who built all of the technology leading up to that, besides.

From Hitler:

HBD is Jewish in its relativism

Whereas the acknowledgment of natural hierarchy is most conducive to establishing functional systems, and is the natural inclination of the Aryan, given his heritage in establishing hierarchical empires through conquest, relativism is most conducive to the modus operandi of the Jew — who is known to make elaborate, convoluted arguments from rabbinical texts, and who carries this practice into science by pushing relativistic ideas such as cultural relativism, Communism, and Freudian Psychoanalysis.

Whatever its utility in helping people see the truth of the racial hierarchy, it is a Jewish value system, fundamentally dishonest, and I am forever done with it myself.

cheerio

This isn’t right, though. Hitler considered the Slavs to be a racially inferior slave race, but one that had absorbed some Germanic racial components elevating them above non-Europeans. And he was right in his analysis. Part of his views stem from his personal experience in a declining and ‘slav-icizing’ Austro-Hungarian Empire, but there are plenty of other points to draw on as well. I will present several points of evidence making this case.

• The name ‘Slav’ is the etymology of the word ‘slave.’ Slavs were frequently captured by Germanic tribes and sold into slavery. Etymology reflects historical truths and is a legitimate source of uncensored history.

• The Russian Empire (which encompassed nearly the whole slavic world) had a system of feudalism that was much closer to chattel slavery than the ones in Western Europe. And it wasn’t abolished until much later than its counterparts in Western Europe. Political systems always reflect the biological nature of the human beings who create and maintain them.

• Russia eagerly adopted Communism, itself a form of slavery.

• No Slavic country has ever achieved parity in terms of living standards with countries in Western Europe — though Poland and Hungary, being closer to Central Europe, gained superior blood through admixture, and this has allowed them to surpass Russia, Belarus and Ukraine — despite these latter countries generally having far greater natural resource deposits.

We can write any of these data points off as resulting from historical circumstance, but this isn’t much of an explanation, and just kicks the can down the road to determine what the cause of those differing historical circumstances was, and it would lead us, eventually, back to a difference in racial quality as the primary factor — as it is the primary factor for the success of nations always and everywhere.

So why do so many ‘National Socialists’ want to carve out an exception to Hitler’s ideology for the Slavs? I suspect it’s because they lust after Slavic women. These women are also more attainable than Western European women and easier to manage (being natural slaves). And being men, our views are shaped by our natural biological desires. The pursuit of marriage and children is a healthy thing, but it should not be done if it will degrade the blood.

I could of course be wrong about this explanation for their thinking, but I’m usually always right.

cheerio