The following is a translation of an article which first appeared in Nationalsozialistische Monatshefte (National Socialist Monthly) in December, 1932. The author takes aim at the feminism that preceded German National Socialism which not only failed young women by exposing them to the vicissitudes of economic downturn but also denuded the feminine soul. Contrary to popular tropes associated with Germany under Hitler, the author stresses the importance of work for women in shaping them into the mothers of a new nation.

“Women Remains Woman!”

By Marie Diers

Throughout all ages, people who lack an eye for the wonderful structure of nature have made the attempt, in favour of a theory, to transgress the great laws of life. There have also been times that fell out of balance—times of decline, of over-refinement, of soulless materialism—that created a contempt for these laws. But this could only be temporary, as long as it was not a sign of degeneration sinking into complete decay. Where the core remained sound, the most general law of nature reasserted itself, often slowly but inexorably.

One of the later aberrations of this kind is the blurring of the natural differences that have existed between man and woman since time immemorial. But whole classes carry within themselves, for their own protection, the consequences of this sin against nature. The Amazonian ideal may live only in legend, but its counterpart stands in broad daylight: realised masculinity in that caste whose successes, through the stock exchange and the press, rest upon distinctly feminine qualities. An oriental caste, adapted to foreign zones, instinctively provoking resistance in vigorous peoples—and when this resistance is forcibly subdued, it has a disintegrating effect.

The distortions of eternal laws of life may persist for centuries; they may gradually even seem to become laws of life themselves. They may penetrate all economic and intellectual relations, assume legal forms, the gaps they tear in the sense of justice, the living conditions they create may be praised as cultural phenomena—but in the hour when, in a people that is not willing to die, the old strong instincts awaken again, often roused by a single man whom God called; when the unadulterate divinity within it pushes aside all question-games with a smile and reveals itself in its clear imperishability—then all artificial new orders will scatter like mist.

In this respect, too, we stand at a turning point. When the spring storms come, not only a part of the fields awakens—all seeds shoot up, the trees come to life, flowers and birds thrive, human faces change their expression, becoming brighter, more reliable. And when a sick people is healed, it is not healed only in one part; the young, strong life rises in all veins; everywhere the rotten leaves fall, the yellow, unhealthy shoots. Then too, the defiant, auspicious word rings out again: “Straight is the path.”

Farewell, you advocates of women’s rights, of every age, of every degree. Whether you, like the first female fighters from the eighties and nineties, display an external masculinisation, or whether today you present yourselves as feminine in external form, in elegant clothing, even in marital aspirations. You have forced your theories upon our people, theories borne of three sins against nature:

First: You have attempted to turn a purely economic question—a matter of vocational opportunity that initially concerned only the “higher” daughter—into a women’s movement; that is, to pit the planned “women” against men, to drive a wedge into the middle of the people, to sow antagonism between family members, indeed to uproot the family. Not with ill intent, but out of an inability to see an economic question in its proper limits, out of layman’s overzealousness.

Second: You have utterly failed when faced with the great life-questions of the nation. You wanted to be political, and your only political insight was the dwarf-like thought-form of pacifism, of vague illusions. Because the democratic parties also supported your efforts, because the SPD [Social Democratic Party of Germany] threw you women’s suffrage unexpectedly quickly, you childishly and dependently adopted the political direction of that sort of men as well. A shallow “conviction,” without understanding and without strength of heart, became your guiding star. Hence also your pitiful fear that the girls from your educational institutions might become National Socialists.

And third: You have inevitably failed, always and everywhere, on every point concerning the natural qualities of women—from the beginnings of women’s studies, where in barbaric levelling you equated female education with male education, right up to today’s public activity, in which we can see not a trace of a feminine, motherly influence—neither in your parliamentary work nor in your vocational work. Where is it? Where have we felt the living heartbeat of a mother amid the raging heartlessness of recent years? Let us look at just two points that cried out for maternal intervention and remain untouched to this day: the wholly inadequate protection in cases of child abuse, and the endangerment of unprotected young office girls, mostly under Jewish bosses. Both are serious chapters in themselves, despite the host of female parliamentary representatives!

And the so‑called “opened” professions. Yes—they have been opened, but behind that stands the great hardship. What good does it do the poor girls to have their heads filled with training, when today all opportunities to actually practice it and earn a living from it are disappearing?

Then the reply comes: “That’s just the economic crisis, we can’t help that.” Really not? And you couldn’t foresee it two or three years ago, when even the youngest SA man among us already knew what was coming? Weren’t you so proud of your “trained intellect,” of your broad horizon? And yet you left the poor girls unwarned into these conditions?

In October of this year, the Federation of German Women’s Associations held its 17th General Assembly in Leipzig. This federation is part of the international women’s associations and represents everything that today still believes in the power of such women’s organisations under Fräulein Dr. Bäumer, the last female pillar of the State Party—now also broken. Such associations are included: the female employees’ association, the home and rural women’s associations, colonial and diaconate associations, etc. At this general assembly there were 700 women present. The report finds it “more than well attended.” A large number of young girls, cheated of their training, had come, in the last hope that they might perhaps still receive advice and help from their leaders. Fräulein Dr. Bäumer then said in her speech:

“The atmospheric pressure of economic and psychological insecurity must be overcome by educating a positive strength in today’s youth, by educating them to adaptability, which…can still stand on the narrowest ridge.”

Bravo, Fräulein Bäumer. What particularly appeals is the complicated and self-satisfied expression for simple matters. With our Leader we are accustomed to the opposite: the simplest form for complicated matters. But did the poor things, in their desperate need, leave much comforted and strengthened from this conference by the lofty flights of a well-paid ministerial councillor, so that they can now enthusiastically stand on the narrowest ridge? Or are they too beginning to sense dimly that from these cool hands they are offered stones instead of bread?

Woman remains woman: even the academic women could not escape their feminine nature. Of course, there are also stupid men here and there who are not a whit smarter than these overeducated ladies. But surely the purpose of the whole so‑called women’s movement was not to pick out precisely the least of them in order to compete with them in incompetence.

Woman remains woman: in the coming Germany we shall find our rightful place again. We will not be “thrown out” of the national economy, as hysterical headlessness cries out, as long as housekeeping does not yet have enough room for everyone. It is not even advisable to let young daughters sit at home with their mothers until marriage—which for hundreds of thousands never blooms—living off their fathers. That would again produce those narrow-minded spirits who afterward cling tearfully and anxiously to their husbands’ and sons’ sleeves when the call to duty rings out. That would produce the new bearers of an old, pernicious class arrogance. Young girls in a profession learn the seriousness of life, the necessity of standing on their own feet; they stand among all levels of the people. Only from this will true mothers emerge, who will raise the right sons and daughters for the new Germany in its surging vitality.

But our life’s purpose lies in the family, in warming, elevating, and inwardly enlivening the small circle—the root-soil from which our strong trees grow.

If you would like to support my work you can donate at Ko-Fi, Buy Me a Coffee or with Bitcoin:

BTC address: bc1qqrthd6es2uckxhgsa2qmx2mmww22vtmw92w4ch

New demographic projections by the Israeli Democracy Institute show the dramatic and potentially devastating impact that rapid Haredi population growth will have on Israel’s military, society and economy. The Ultra-Orthodox Haredim—Israel’s fastest-growing demographic group—are characterised by their religious education that prioritises yeshiva study over secular subjects, low male workforce participation and broad exemption from mandatory military service.

Projections show the Haredi share of Israel’s population will increase from around 14% today to between 22% and 24.4% by 2050, meaning that the Haredim will go from being a significant minority to almost a quarter of the country’s population in a single generation. The Haredi birth rate of 6.5 is roughly triple that of the general Jewish population, meaning the Haredi growth rate of 4.2% per year is exponential. Between 2009 and 2025, their population nearly doubled from 750,000 to 1.45 million. If trends continue, their numbers will hit 2 million by 2033 and 3.7 million by 2050.

The Haredi demographic surge is set to be catastrophic for the Israeli military. Despite a Supreme Court ruling in 2024 which found no legal basis for the blanket Haredi military exemption, the Netanyahu administration has pushed through new laws which effectively halt the enlistment of Ultra-Orthodox men and enshrine the Haredim’s religious studies as a foundational value of the state.

The Haredim’s population share among those eligible for military service is projected to rise from 23.5% today to 40% by 2050, essentially ending Israel’s people’s army. Only 45% of Jewish men and 30% of Jewish women aged 18 are expected to serve in the Israeli military by 2050. With non-Haredi Israelis already subsidising the Haredi military exemption by more than 13 billion shekels (≈$3.4 billion) a year, costs will only grow as reserve duty expands. Israel may be forced to rely on mercenaries or US troops if it is to remain a viable military force.

Education is another area of concern. Currently only 16% of Haredi students gain matriculation eligibility, the equivalent of a high-school diploma and the primary credential for university entrance. If current Haredi practices remain unchanged by 2050, the total percentage of Israeli students who gain matriculation eligibility will drop from 71% to 61%. In this scenario, the number of Israeli Jews aged 35 to 44 holding bachelor’s degrees would fall from 47% today to 44%.

Israeli employment rates are predicted to remain around 80% through 2050, with increases in the Haredi population offset by increased Arab Israeli workforce participation. Improved education and employment opportunities for Arab Israelis is seen as vital to maintain economic growth and tax revenues. Although Israeli Arabs only make up 20% of undergraduate students, the employment rate for Arab women increased from 33% to 46% over the last decade.

However, while Arab Israeli workforce participation helps to maintain overall employment rates, the report notes that it comes at a cost of increasing subsidisation of Haredi society. Mobilising the Arab population to plug Israel’s economic holes solves short-term problems but does not solve Haredi-specific issues. With Arab population growth slowing and projected to stabilise, Arab integration is not a viable solution to Israel’s demographic problems, especially given that Israel is an explicitly Jewish ethnostate.

Growth in the non-economically productive Haredi population is also set to increase the tax burden on other Israelis. Currently the monthly net tax payment per Israeli household stands at 4,419 shekels (≈$1,475). If the Haredi demographic projections are realised, the monthly net tax payment will drop by 24% to 3,354 shekels (≈$1,110). To maintain tax revenues at 2023 levels, the Israeli government faces a choice of significantly increasing the tax burden on non-Haredi Israeli households or cutting the quality of services. Most Israelis are already disillusioned with the state’s functioning, with only a small percentage rating the state of democracy as “good” or “excellent”. Public trust in core government institutions remains near record lows, with less than half of Jewish Israelis trusting the government.

The Haredi demographic boom is also set to inflict huge damage on Israel’s economic output. If the 2050 projections are correct and the Haredim are not fully integrated into the Israeli economy, the loss of potential in GDP per capita resulting from non-integration could exceed 10%, translating to a GDP loss of approximately 160 billion shekels (≈$53.7 billion). This economic impact intensifies over time because of the exponential nature of Haredi demographic growth.

Israel’s perpetual war against opponents of Greater Israel—including Iran—has already caused a severe budget crisis. The total cost of the conflicts launched by Israel post-October 7th has been estimated at 405 billion shekels (≈$138 billion), representing more than 17% of the country’s GDP. The attack on Iran alone is estimated to have cost 35 billion shekels (≈$12 billion). The growth in the Haredi population will further exacerbate Israel’s financial woes due to the bloc’s leverage over government “coalition funds” which are essentially rewards for political agreements reached during government formation. In the 2026 budget—a record of 699 billion shekels (≈$221 billion)—the Ultra-Orthodox community was able to procure over half of the coalition funding, amounting to roughly 2.2 billion shekels (≈$714 million). This money goes to fund Ultra-Orthodox Yeshivas and Kollels, Haredi Schools, Haredi cultural activities and drop-out prevention programs aimed at discouraging Haredi youth from leaving the community.

Another concern is that the downstream cultural and economic impact of Haredi growth will lead to elite flight from Israel as more liberal Jews seek escape. A report by Tel Aviv University estimated that 270,000 Jews had left the country over the last three years. Some 53% of Israeli multinational/high-tech companies have reported an increase in the number of employees requesting job relocation outside of the country.

While stopping short of predicting Israel’s collapse if current demographic trends continue, the report warns of a “substantial deterioration in Israel’s economy and national resilience.” Without a new “social contract” between the Israeli state and the Ultra-Orthodox—including fundamental changes in education, military enlistment and subsidies—the Zionist project faces a systemic unravelling.

If you would like to support my work you can donate at Ko-Fi, Buy Me a Coffee or with Bitcoin:

BTC address: bc1qqrthd6es2uckxhgsa2qmx2mmww22vtmw92w4ch

The following is a translation of an article which first appeared in Nationalsozialistische Monatshefte (National Socialist Monthly) in December, 1932. Here former Italian Education Minister Balbino Giuliano argues that Fascism represents not merely a political reaction, but a profound spiritual and cultural renewal of the Italian nation, reconciling tradition with modernity, the people with the state and national identity with universal human values.

“The Idealistic Idea in Fascism”

By Balbino Giuliano

We are all agreed that every intellectual development, no matter how profound, always has a preparatory period. The originality of an idea or of any intellectual movement can never be detached from the constitution of history; it rejects what was false and untenable in the past and instead gives broad and rapid development to all that appeared true and fruitful. The Fascist movement therefore does not claim—although it is absolutely original—to break history into a dark period and a luminous one, and each of us is ready to acknowledge that in the Italy we grew up in there undoubtedly lay a far greater value than the people of that time themselves believed.

Having made this declaration, however, in order not to run the risk of being too greatly misunderstood, we may well say that a fifty-year-old Italian who, up to the present moment, has grown up with the life of his time, looking back on the days of his youth, has precisely the impression of having crossed a mountain range along his life’s path and of having arrived on the other slope, now to stride toward new goals in a new land. Certainly, in the Italian consciousness, as in that of every people, there always remains a fundamental core of a certain dissonance between two epochs, but no attitude, no way of thinking and feeling, no capacity for reacting to one’s surroundings has suddenly undergone such a profound transformation—one that has also radically changed the outward orientation toward life.

I do not mean to say that in the Italy of our early youth there was a lack of cultural activity; indeed, in those years we even had the impression that books and periodicals occupied a greater space than today. Today, however, we recognise that the culture of that time had a fundamental flaw: it felt somewhat detached from reality, as an object of a certain ornamentation for elegant curiosity, as a sometimes very noble occupation, but without true unity, without immediacy, and without real effect on practical life and its destiny. On the other hand, the reality of actual life appeared to us impenetrable, without the light of ideals and without the enchantment of passions. There was only one ideal that promised a future that should be better than the present, but this was an ideal that shone in the false light of utopia: Marxist socialism. It had by then lost all serious theoretical value and was fading even in the hearts of its most faithful adherents. What won over the masses was no longer the social ideal, which no one had seriously thought of transferring into real life; it was the intoxication of a sad egoism that created factions among the various categories of workers, setting them against the ethical unity of the state.

Practical life appeared as a sordid game of merely materialist interests, which for the masses and their preachers was supposed to be resolved in a future but utopian “socialist order,” while for cultivated minds it was nothing more than a grim reality that had to be accepted, by trying to adapt to it or to avoid it as much as possible, taking refuge in the realm of a perhaps useless but distinguished inwardness. In any case, one could feel nothing but contempt for the present. The essential character of intelligent and modern-minded persons consisted in an attitude of resistance, which could remain a mere state of mind and need not translate into deeds; yet it left its indelible stamp on every way of thinking.

The intelligent man always had to be negative and rebellious toward everything and everyone. If he was a rebel, it was his duty to rise up against the state, but even if he was a quiet man of order, he had at least to speak ill of it, to smile with great condescension at any patriotic enthusiasm, to speak with a certain mockery of every national institution and tradition; every day he had to deny one truth, break down a door, desecrate an idol. If one considers the matter carefully, one sees that the European spirit for more than half a century had been busy gradually dissolving all syntheses and convictions, and in doing so sought a new originality every day.

This critical-dissolving process brought dangerous consequences for everyone. It is certain, however, that the consequences for the Italian nation could have been even more dangerous than for others, since it had only conquered its unity half a century earlier and, from the great cultural periods of its past, inherited not a living continuity of the values of those times, but rather the dead remnants of a universalism and an essentially anti-national municipalism. And perhaps out of the awareness of these very grave dangers, the reaction which called itself Fascism began first in Italy.

At first glance, it seemed as though Fascism were simply a national uprising against the Bolshevik excesses of socialism, against the far-reaching denial of the fatherland, and against the criminal destruction of all sacred values of life. It seemed so in that first moment, as though Fascism represented merely the negation of a negation. But even for one who has never philosophised professionally and has never heard speak of dialectical processes, it is clear that a negation can never victoriously oppose another negation unless it carries within itself the affirmation of a positive idea. And today we recognise the power of this idea not only in the immense value of the works carried out in this decade, but much more in the complete transformation of our consciousness. And this transformation of our consciousness began right at the start of the Fascist movement, even when it still essentially possessed the aggressive spirit of its volunteer bands, so that one might have believed one was witnessing merely an insurrectionary movement.

When Fascism had taken up arms to oppose its enemies, it immediately felt that its true enemy was not the mass of workers, but the wretched clique that exploited the people for their own soulless ends; and it then further understood that it was necessary not to deny the spirit of sacred solidarity among all productively active people, but rather the materialist conception in which this idea of solidarity was enclosed and falsified by Marxist socialism. It understood that the highest values of life, such as peace, justice and the happiness of individuals, classes, and peoples, cannot simply be derived from the dialectical process of history, but can only be acquired little by little through the progress of that process, through its counter-questioning, and through our efforts.

It thus understood that if one wants to bring perfection into reality, one must earn it by advancing slowly toward it, suffering along the way the necessary human imperfections. It thus understood that the socialism of the nineteenth century, with its claim to artificially create a paradise on earth, went so far as to offer us an idea for the organised entrenchment of all servitudes and all selfish interests; and it also understood that, unfortunately, the various democratic parties, with their harmless sermons in honour of those empty idols consisting only of words, served as instruments of that wretched organisation which, under the socialist banner, worked in every country toward the ruin of the fatherland and of humanity. Fascism thus perceived life as a drama, even as a social drama, which in the succession of its various acts through history produces the harmonies of its ever higher, broader, and ever closer to truth and beauty.

Beyond the great pathos of history, the Italian soul saw the idea of the nation shine forth, enhanced in a new light. The nation was no longer merely a piece of earth or a sum of individuals, but rather a spiritual unity which found its concrete expression in that native soil and in the totality of individuals, and which constituted their deepest truth. We have seen that in the nation the same sacred ideal of unity is realised historically, and we have also seen that when each individual serves the nation to which he belongs, he also serves human progress. It is reality and idea; it is the symbol of the highest living human perfection within the limits necessary for our humanly limited consciousness—limited both in its capacity to think and in its capacity for devotion. And on this new idea of the nation as a living historical expression of universal human value, Fascism has worked and continues to work under the guidance of its Duce.

Let us imagine for a moment that the evil devilish miracle were to succeed and all men agreed to tear down all borders and barriers and to erase all differences among men in order to create world peace. What would happen then? They would necessarily arrive at a wild chaos and a war of all against all. And very often, when those in power have believed they could realize on earth this anarchic dream of a universal melting-pot of harmony, they have in fact sown only the seeds of bitter and deep discord. Mussolini expressed this idea clearly in one of his last speeches: the most dangerous people for peace are usually those who make a profession of preaching it (Turin, 23 October 1923).

He grasped this in order to deduce that precisely he who experiences life as a drama and knows that he does not fear it, also knows how to work—with greater severity but with more sincere effectiveness—to unite things among themselves and to form harmonious compositions from them. In Italy, Fascism has succeeded in reconciling all the opposites in life and in the national consciousness: it has given us the inheritance of tradition and the sense of a new duty—that is, at the same time, a sense of responsibility toward the past and toward the future. But what is perhaps even more important, it has definitively resolved the opposition that to a certain extent still existed between nation and state, between the people and its legal organisation, between the freedom of life and sovereign authority, between the old revolutionary tradition and the sacredness of the monarchy of the House of Savoy. And finally, it has taught us that it is not always necessary to be a renegade in order to be an intelligent person, and that it is likewise not necessary to live as a rebel in order to be a strong man of action; on the contrary, one can be very proud precisely in obedience and feel very gladly the energy of one’s own individuality while marching in the ranks of the fighters for an idea as a simple soldier.

Finally, from the reality of practical life the ideal of the nation has emerged, to illuminate also the sphere of culture. We know very well that culture cannot remain enclosed within the borders of the nation, even if we conceive it only materialistically as a piece of land or as a sum of individuals—as parts wholly detached from a whole that transcends them and encompasses them; not only culture, but all of life surpasses the borders of nations understood in this way. But for us, nations are not, as we have already said, merely pieces of land and sums of individuals, and they are neither separated from one another nor from all of humanity. They are different expressions of universal human activity; they are different currents of history and are destined to reflect in different forms the one and perhaps manifold truth that is enclosed in the depths of their consciousness. Therefore culture, like life, is simultaneously national and universally human, and only when it is vigorous and most deeply national is it also strong and deeply human.

In the face of the new light and the new value of the nation, those who work in these activities begin to feel the full responsibility of their endeavours. It is no longer the activity that we in our youth felt as detached from reality, as an object of decorative and elegant curiosity, as a very noble occupation but without unity of purpose, without real effect on practical life and its destinies—as was already stated above. We feel today that this work of culture is a creation of the Italian spirit and of a faith that could have value for all humanity. Thus it is for culture as for life: every nation offers its work to the progress of history, and history undertakes the work of testing and selection. So in the realm of culture, as in that of life, there exists among nations at once opposition and cooperation; it is the drama of life that unfolds, as was said earlier. And I believe that the peoples who experience the drama of life and do not fear it can more easily emphasize the character of cooperation than that of opposition.

Two forms of solidarity are possible among civilised nations: the solidarity of those who love peace out of cowardice and who abandon their post and their duty, and the solidarity of chivalrous souls who may have fought even on the opposing side, each at his post and for his duty, but who, as soon as it is possible, in the name of the common final goal, first exchange the soldier’s salute among themselves, in order then jointly to determine the character they wish to give to this common final goal as the highest contribution to cooperation in place of the previous opposition. And in this way may what is right be fulfilled for the nations of the great old Europe, the hope of the world.

If you would like to support my work you can donate at Ko-Fi, Buy Me a Coffee or with Bitcoin:

BTC address: bc1qqrthd6es2uckxhgsa2qmx2mmww22vtmw92w4ch

“There aren’t even chairs here,” said Alexandra Feodrovna, the last Empress of Russia, to the gunmen. No such niceties were considered when she and her family were ordered to stand against a wall in a cramped basement room of the Ipatiev House, a private mansion requisitioned by the Bolsheviks following the 1917 revolution.

A chair was ordered and she sat down with her daughters. Her husband, now former Tsar Nicholas II, stood holding his 13-year-old son Alexei in his arms. The leader of the assassination squad spoke up. “Your friends are advancing on Yekaterinburg and so you’re sentenced to death.”

“What?”

This was the last word that Nikolai Alexandrovich Romanov would utter before him and his entire family—his wife, four daughters and son Alexei, along with four household attendants—were murdered.

There was to be no dignified ending for the Romanovs in Russia’s new beginning. The shooting was frantic. Promised their chance, eager assassins shot through the doorway. The firing intensified in concert with the screams of the victims.

“I managed to stop the firing but with great difficulty,” said the leader Yakov Yurovsky. When the firing finally abated, Alexandra and some of her children were still breathing. “I think they had fallen from fear or maybe intentionally,” said Yurovsky “and so they were alive. Then we proceeded to finish the shooting.” He goes on:

“Previously I had suggested shooting at the heart to avoid a lot of blood. Alexei remained sitting petrified. I killed him. They shot the daughters but did not kill them. Then Yermakov resorted to a bayonet, but that did not work either. Finally they killed them by shooting them in the head. Only in the forest did I finally discover the reason why it had been so hard to kill the daughters and Alexandra Feodrovna.”

The diamonds that the women had stuffed in their corsets had temporarily stayed their execution.

The shockwaves of Tsar Nicholas II’s murder during the Bolshevik Revolution would continue to reverberate throughout the Soviet era, resurfacing with renewed force in the post-Soviet period as Russian Orthodox Christianity began its resurgence.1 With this new wave of orthodoxy came new interpretations of eschatology flavoured by the Jewish involvement in the Bolshevik takeover.

Prior to the revolution, eschatological thought within Russian Orthodoxy had been driven by both the official state-aligned ideology and that of the more radical, popular tradition. The official position of the Russian Orthodox Church promoted Moscow as the Third Rome, formulated by the monk Filofei of Pskov in the early 16th century. It argued that Moscow was now the bastion of Christianity following the fall of the first Rome due to heresy, and the second—Constantinople—due to the “godless” Turks. The more radical eschatology of the Old Believers was triggered by the reforms of Patriarch Nikons, and the subsequent schism, in the late 1660s. They believed that the official Church had accepted heresy and was now in the grip of the antichrist, with the year 1666 considered the beginning of his rule.

Russian Orthodox eschatology is chiefly inspired by The Revelation of St. John the Divine in which it is said that the end times would herald the arrival of the antichrist who would be proclaimed the ruler of the world and whose religion would become the new global creed.2 From the second century AD, the antichrist was associated with the Jewish messiah figure—a descendant of Dan— primarily as part of the early Church’s struggle to define itself against Judaism. Early Christian theologians drew on the Old Testament prophecy in Genesis 49:17, which describes Dan as “a snake by the roadside, a viper along the path”, interpreting this as a veiled reference to the antichrist. A crucial feature of Orthodox eschatology was that bishops would also be tempted by the antichrist and the church almost totally destroyed—a narrative that would permit the criticism of clerics for apostasy.3

Given the persistent failure of the end times to materialise, the concept of the restrainer (katechon; κατέχον) became popularised within Orthodoxy.4 The term—borrowed from 2 Thessalonians 2:6-7—means “one who restrains” the coming of the antichrist. The term has been applied to various entities throughout Russian history that are interpreted as holding back the tide of disaster such as the Roman Empire, the Holy Spirit, the Orthodox Church itself and the Russian government.

Following the Bolshevik revolution, Russian Orthodox thinkers began to identify the Russian Emperor with the restrainer.5 According to the Russian clergy, that Christianity in the country had survived the Soviet system meant it should be seen as the true faith which God would protect from the antichrist, allowing Russia itself to save the rest of humanity.6 This worldview would be central to the strain of Monarchist Orthodoxy, for which the most important omens were tied to Jewish activity.7 The Jews (and Freemasons) were viewed as agents not only anxiously awaiting the arrival of the antichrist but actively facilitating it.

Read more

The following is a translation of an article which first appeared in Nationalsozialistische Monatshefte (National Socialist Monthly) in February, 1940. It is an address by then Reichsleiter Alfred Rosenberg at the morning ceremony in the Schiller Theatre, Berlin, on December 17, 1939. Rosenberg invokes the Germany poet Friedrich Hölderlin to argue that great political deeds require a spiritually awakened people, with visionary poetic art giving direction to the collective will. He contrasts the fragmented, materialistic Germany of the post-1871 Empire with the heroic ideals embodied in classical antiquity and medieval Germanic epics, calling on Germans to draw strength from their cultural heritage as the nation fights for its survival.

“The Poet and the Fighter”

By Alfred Rosenberg

It is said that the great deeds of world history speak for themselves, as it were. The founding of a mighty empire, the victories of one power over another, the glory of a statesman or autocrat—all these stand clearly and for all sides as things of great value, and from deed to deed they create new historical contexts.

That is correct, and National Socialism in particular understands, through its struggle and through the lessons of the World War, how decisive victory or defeat can determine the course of peoples for decades, sometimes forever. But we also know something more: namely, that a deed, if it is truly great, is never an isolated exertion of force, but rather the expression of a profound life-force or of an ideal bound to that life. And we know further that such an idea, such a worldview, must be shaped, lived, formed and explained if the deed is to have lasting historical significance.

We thus know that a creation placed into life may become a deep consciousness in the people it affects; that word and writing which report of it may not merely be chronicles that merely recount great deeds after the events, but that singers and poets, through the power of artistic formation, shape the impulses behind them—the will to live, the ideal—in ever newly inspiring forms. Thus the Iliad became the parable of ancient heroic life and ensured that the deeds of the ancestors advancing toward Ilion would not perish, but would be understood as a binding heritage. And for us, too, the Nibelungenlied stands as a similar symbol for the eternal Germanic attitude toward fate, and therefore gains enduring significance beyond its temporal conditions. And in this sense, it is quite understandable if we conceive of poetic art not merely as a grand depiction of what exists, but as a directing of the will toward future problems and struggles. Indeed, in the genius, the poet becomes a figure who pre-senses still-unborn feelings and ideas, anticipates the solution in advance, and proclaims ideals that only later, in struggle, ignite political movements or find their powerful political fulfilment in the mind of a great man of action.

From this way of thinking within our movement, we therefore today see this asserted unity of idea and power quite differently than in past times. Power in itself appears to us of little value, however great such power may be, and an idea in itself, if it is accompanied by no deed, appears to us not as a life-strengthening and inspiring force, and thus also not as a genuine ideal.

But for us, in this regard, one thing is always binding: never to measure the developments of life with petty temporal standards, and not to want to examine the great achievements of history with the yardstick of everyday life. We have just heard the words of a poet [Hölderlin] who belongs to the greatest singers and shapers of the German spirit. He wrote them at a time when Germany lay politically prostrate, torn into many pieces, and when a young German genius, with a high ideal of Germanness in his heart, sought the fulfilment of this ideal in his own country. He found a beautiful, strong nature to which his love was devoted; he found diligence and industry; he found symbols of a great past—but he did not find the will to secure for the great idea of German essence a unified, strong embodiment. In despair, he cried out in the midst of this life: “Great deeds, if no noble people perceives them, are nothing more than a mighty blow against a dull brow.” And when he finds no helper, he laments: “Oh, you companions of my time! Ask not your doctors, nor your priests, when you perish inwardly.” And then he looked across the centuries and found in ancient Greece figures that appeared to him as the embodiment of those values he wished to serve. In the poets and deeds of the Greeks, a finely sensitive imagination ignited here. Across all medieval and other transmissions, a genius instinct struck upon that kindred humanity, which we see developing more freely in many respects than was granted to the German people in certain epochs of its history.

Often the words that Hölderlin1 speaks about his time remind us of that feeling which we too once had, when we saw Germany collapsed in 1918, delivered over to those speculators who thought only of their own interest and no longer of German values. Hölderlin found, as he said, the Germans at that time “deeply incapable of any divine impulse, in every degree of exaggeration and pettiness offensive to every well-disposed soul, dull and inharmonious, like the shards of a discarded vessel…”.

“It is a harsh word,” he continues, “and yet I say it because it is truth: I cannot imagine any people more torn apart than the Germans. Craftsmen you see, but no human beings; thinkers, but no human beings; priests, but no human beings; masters and servants, young and old, but no human beings—is that not like a battlefield, where hands and arms and all limbs lie severed among one another, while the spilled lifeblood seeps away into the sand?”

And out of this mood of the loving seeker arose those songs of longing that belong to the finest and greatest that Germany has ever composed in poetry. But Hölderlin, too, in this mood of despair and abandonment, cannot and will not stand still, despite everything, and adds to his complaint: “Better it would certainly be if I could live, live in the temples, on the newly assembled agora of our people, with great joy to quiet the great sorrow.” And in this desire, his song of the German rings out: “Where is your Delos, where your Olympia, so that we may all find ourselves at the highest feast?”

Hölderlin was enveloped by deep night, but the songs he set down in the few years of his waking life have increasingly become spiritual forces for ever wider circles of the German people. And they, like many other works of German art, are for us today both an impulse for new creations and a strengthening for the struggle to defend these creations, to secure by the power of the sword the wellspring from which, throughout all centuries, the great values of German culture have arisen.

Once, after 1870/71, Germany celebrated the re-founding of the Empire. A dream of all Germans seemed at last to find its political fulfilment. And yet it became clear that this Empire increasingly allowed the soul of its people to wither; a world of technology and commerce had come over the nations like a flood, the discoveries of many hundreds of years now found their material fulfilment in dizzying haste. Perhaps it is no wonder that the people of that time could no longer master their own inventions.

The age of the machine enabled a small class to rise to enormous economic wealth and great power, but at the same time disinherited entire generations and cheated them of their rightful life’s destiny. It took further decades—and they still continue today—until man learned to make himself the master of the machine again rather than its slave, and until technology, which for decades had disfigured the sites of German culture, was elevated to a means of beautifying his life. In view of this passing, economically determined age, we understand that, in the midst of the Empire of 1870/71, thinkers, poets, and prophets once again arose who, undeterred by all external splendor, stood up for the inalienable demands of the German soul and therefore came into fierce and bitter enmity with the ruling figures of commerce and the stock exchange. For what are Nietzsche and Lagarde and Wagner but living protests, akin to Hölderlin and Goethe, against the petrifying forces of the stock-exchange age! And what were the social movements but manifestations of despair against the capitalisation of all values of existence.

In view of this historical fact, the mission of the National Socialist movement, in the midst of today’s war that decides the being or non-being of the German nation, also arises: to remember all those voices that once rose up in German history to speak for this soul of the Germans, to honour its values, and to deploy them as a force in the entire struggle for existence of our nation. They proclaimed the deep meaning of German life and, through all that is transitory and conditioned by time, secured that nobility of the soul which bears the struggles of existence, indeed first makes men truly capable of these struggles. And we then understand that the state is more than the sum of its laws, that the people are more than the sum of their members; that it is the unity of all great creations from grey prehistory to the present that we are called to carry forward.

The soul of the people is an inexplicable, exemplary presence that emerges only in the power of great deeds and in the art of genius, which moves the mind of even the everyday man and, in hard times, gives him the strength to face a great destiny with courage. The struggling German man shall draw this strength from the manifold works of German folkhood. He may draw it from the immediate homeland of his tribe, from the traditions of his kin, from the experiences of a warrior’s life, from the political tradition of the whole people; he may be uplifted by the gift of spirituality and the lightness of a joyful life-feeling; he may draw strength from German poetry, he may draw it from music or from the songs of his great poets. He may picture before himself the venerable cities and great cathedrals and castles as signs of this life-force, and he may, when he is truly great, think of all that has come down to us over thousands of years of struggle as an inheritance of power and greatness—an inheritance that defending and enlarging constitutes that duty which we have received on our path through life.

It is the stirrings of the spirit that help carry much that would otherwise cause a man to break down. But whoever grows weary should ask himself whether he has truly felt any desire for these deeper stirrings of the spirit, and he may then perhaps not infrequently have to blame himself and his own weakness if he was incapable of seeking there that strength which enables other men to master more easily the adversities, yes, even sometimes the injustices, of human life. He may also ask himself whether he has sought comrades in life to stand by him in his difficult hours, or whether, as a grumbling, embittered loner, left to himself alone, he has tried to master existence—perhaps cursed it.

Everyone will be able to answer this question for himself: whether he truly endeavoured to grasp that unity of inner strength which today joins the German soldier and the German singer as different manifestations of the same German folk-soul. He will then understand that instinct and deed, and instinct and vision, are fundamentally the same, and that form in worth and form in spirit together determine the form of life. We all serve this life, which ever anew proves itself in struggle, and to carry out this service victoriously in the defence of higher values is the highest duty of our existence.

If you would like to support my work you can donate at Ko-Fi, Buy Me a Coffee or with Bitcoin:

BTC address: bc1qqrthd6es2uckxhgsa2qmx2mmww22vtmw92w4ch

Hutchinson admitted that he did not expect the volume of replies and general traction the question would garner. This is because the democide of poor White Americans is a silent one; no hospitals are bombed or food stations fired upon like in Gaza as a horrified world watches on. The demolishing of the once-proud edifice of working-class White America is being achieved not in a spectacular explosion but a brick-by-brick deconstruction. The flotsam and jetsam of White mentally ill homeless men and women washing up on America’s streets is the result of decades of deliberate economic policies of de-industrialisation.1

The economic war against White America began over half a century ago. Around 1970, the economy that had sustained the White working class for a generation, and was the source of pride for many working men, was weaponised against them. The deliberate uprooting of American heavy industry through globalisation and automation—and the financialisation of the US economy—set real wages and job opportunities for workers without a university degree on their long, grinding decline.

The good jobs—those offering a sense of belonging, meaning, purpose and prospects for advancement—evaporated. What remained were precarious positions in the service economy, stripped of the dignity and security that had once defined working-class identity. The share and influence of labour, especially less-skilled labour, fell relative to the share and influence of capital. Workers who had once been able to support families on a single income now found themselves trapped in a cycle of declining attachment to employment, falling wages and diminishing prospects.

The social fabric of White America was unravelled alongside the economic one. Marriage rates declined sharply alongside rising rates of non-marital childbearing. Religious participation, which had long provided community and meaning, fell away. The tangle of pathology that the 1965 Moynihan Report had described among Black families half a century earlier began to echo among White families in the post-industrial heartlands.2

Unionisation—which had reached its peak in the 1950s—collapsed alongside the factories. Today, only 6.3 percent of private sector workers in the US are members of a union.3 Unions had done more than raise wages; they gave workers control over working conditions, a sense of collective (racial) purpose and political power both locally and nationally. They were the bridge between working-class communities and the Democratic Party. As the factories closed and the unions withered, that bridge crumbled.

The US healthcare system accelerated the devastation. America’s medical provision—more than twice as expensive as any other rich country—is financed in part through what is described as a head tax on wages.4 In 2020, employer-sponsored health plans cost an average of $21,342 per family, money that comes directly out of take-home pay.5 For low-skilled workers, these costs often make them unemployable, pricing them out of the very jobs that might offer a path back to stability.

The sense of collective identity that unions and factories had provided was replaced by isolation and fragmentation. Men who had once taken pride in their work found themselves unable to provide for their families and, consequently, unable to command respect in the communities that had once looked up to them.

Into this void stepped the pharmaceutical industry. The pain that accompanied this social and economic collapse created a baseline demand for opioids. Drug companies, seeing an opportunity, targeted communities that were already hurting: places where jobs had been lost, where pain was prevalent and where despair had become entrenched. The escalation of addiction that followed was not simply a demand-driven phenomenon; it was a supply-driven catastrophe in which the pharmaceutical industry and its political enablers flooded the country with largely unnecessary painkillers. As legal prescriptions were pulled back in the early 2010s, the epidemic mutated into an illegal street drug crisis—first heroin, then fentanyl, then deadly combinations. The term deaths of despair was coined to describe a White working-class extinction event via suicide, drug overdose and alcoholic liver disease.6

Concurrent with the targeting of White working-class America by the US state has been its abandonment by the Democratic Party. As the mainstream Democrats reoriented away from their traditional working-class and union base towards a coalition of minorities and educated professionals, less-educated workers moved to the right. This realignment continued through the 1990s and 2000s. By the time Donald Trump appeared on the political scene, millions of working-class voters had already abandoned the party of their parents.

The China shock, the loss of jobs following China’s admission into the World Trade Organisation, provided a clearly-demarcated exogenous change marked by rising political polarisation from 2000 to 2016. Moderate Democrats in Congress were replaced by right-wing Republicans, while the move to the left by progressives was not large enough to offset the shift.

Conservative media like Fox News amplified a narrative of government betrayal at the expense of ordinary White Americans. The distrust that working-class voters felt toward Washington was weaponised and deepened. The China shock led to political polarisation among both voters and donors, creating a feedback loop that favoured the right. Less-educated whites increasingly saw safety-net policies, the very policies that might have helped them, as favouring minorities at their expense. They voted for conservative candidates who opposed such programs, candidates whose wealthy backers also opposed the taxes necessary to pay for them. The desire for social solidarity gave way to resentment, and the political system that might have provided relief became a source of further injury.

The relationship between health and politics in the United States underwent a dramatic inversion. In the 1960s, healthier states—those with higher adult life expectancy—voted Republican. By the 2016 election, the correlation had reversed: the least-healthy states, those with the highest rates of deaths of despair and the lowest life expectancy, were the ones voting for Trump.7 As less-educated workers left the Democratic Party, the political economy of health became a politics of despair. The neoliberal policies that had inflicted economic hardship and worsened health did not generate a political demand for better safety nets and health provision, as one might expect in a well-functioning democratic state. Instead, the anger and disillusionment were channelled toward a political project that offered vibes-based cultural resentment and scapegoating rather than tangible material redress.

The evidence that the US state’s economic policies have disproportionately impacted middle-aged White Americans (non-Hispanic) is clear. Prior to 2000, mortality rates among White Americans aged 45-55 had been falling. Between 1978 and 1998, the mortality rate for US Whites declined by 2% a year on average, matching the rates of decline in other rich industrialised nations such as Canada, the UK, France and Germany.8 From about the year 2000, mortality rates for middle-aged Americans began to increase by half a percentage point per year while other rich nations maintained the 2% year-on-year declines.9

Between 1999 and 2013, all-cause mortality for Black Americans fell by more than 200 per 100,000 and for Hispanics by more than 60 per 100,000.10 In contrast, mortality for White Americans in midlife rose by 34 per 100,000. The much-touted narrowing of the Black-White mortality gap in the US has been largely driven by an increase in White mid-life deaths.

If the mortality declines had held constant at about 2% from the turn of the century, roughly 488,500 deaths of middle-aged White Americans could have been avoided, 54,000 in 2013 alone.11 This mortality phenomenon is restricted to White Americans in midlife. All-cause mortality for White Americans aged 55-59 and 65-74 declined by 0.5% and 2% respectively in the period 2000 to 2014.12

Read more

The following is a translation of an article which first appeared in Nationalsozialistische Monatshefte (National Socialist Monthly) in January, 1936. An excerpt from a speech given at the German Academy in Berlin, it describes National Socialism’s policy of seeking an inclusive and mutually beneficial trading relationship with other nations—including Eastern Europe—founded on an organic and pro-social economic philosophy at home. The reader is invited to note the striking similarity between National Socialism’s anti-imperialist and reciprocal economic ideology and that of modern China.

“Soldierly Socialism: Worldview and Economy”

By W. Dass

Just as the German Wehrmacht threatens no one, but rather has its effect through its mere existence—namely, protecting the people and living space from external threats—so too does the Party, through its mere existence, have its effect on the inner creative orientation of the entire national life.

In both cases, it is an effect without action. For the Wehrmacht need not wage war in order to make its protective effect felt outwardly. The Party need not unleash a civil or interest-group war, nor should it interfere in the processes of state administration, in order to make its spiritual leadership effective. In both cases, the goal—securing the vital and growth-forces of the people both internally and externally—is achieved through education toward complete discipline. For 'national comradeship' means: military community externally and social harmony internally. One without the other is impossible. Both can be achieved solely through the complete discipline of the German people in every area of their activity—through soldierly socialism.

That is why we also demand of the economy a complete discipline internally and externally. For if the manager of an economic enterprise steers it without regard for the economic independence of the nation, solely according to the highest possible return—then he will inevitably also destroy the social peace within his enterprise. His followers will inevitably adopt the same attitude—as the master, so the servant—and will then strive, without regard for social peace or the survival of the enterprise, by all means for the highest possible wages. For capitalism is always followed by its shadow, Marxism. Both grow from the same root—the Jewish money-spirit, which only ever finds its way into Nordic economic thinking once the middle class has been destroyed. Both together thus destroy, for the sake of an alleged higher monetary profit, blood and soil—the biological foundations of their peoplehood—and thereby their own existence.

For the eternal protection of gold and money only ever becomes effective when money is elevated to a counter-natural magnitude dominating the entire economic process, instead of being merely a bridge for the exchange of goods. The entire organically grown and meaningfully interwoven economic process becomes mechanised and thereby uprooted. Everything is made “liquid” and becomes the object of the Jewish-dominated money-spirit.

Even residential buildings and farmsteads become objects of financial transactions, become objects of mortgages and legal dealings. The personal relationship to the school, to the house and to the commercial enterprise is increasingly supplanted and degenerates into impersonal, businesslike bookkeeping conducted through files, limited-liability shares and mortgages. The economic activity of the rooted, native-born person, and his labor bound to his peoplehood, are increasingly displaced by a nomadic pursuit of profit—no longer tied to the homeland but bound to foreign blood.

Soldierly discipline, in which duty takes precedence over profit, and which thereby secures the people’s own living space, stands in eternal opposition to the Jewish profit-motive, in which profit takes precedence over duty, because it has no living space of its own to secure. For Jewry can take possession of the living space of its host people only to the extent that this people, through the intellectual disintegration of its national community and the adoption of its profit-motive, loses its defensive discipline.

That is why Nordic man will always place defence policy before monetary policy, whereas the Jewish money-spirit must place monetary policy before defence policy. That is why it is disastrous for a people that, in its economic practice, abandons soldierly discipline and adopts state-less economic operations—which detach the economy from the closed defensive front of the nation.

For the political independence of the German people depends not only on its military strength, but just as much on its economic independence. Economic independence for the German people does not mean autarky, but rather the recovery of its freedom in nutrition and raw materials—lost through the intellectualist world-trade mentality—and through the lack of which we lost the World War. National Socialist economic policy therefore demands, above all, that the iron ration of foodstuffs for man and beast and the iron ration of industrial raw materials be produced within the country itself. Only then are we protected from capitulation in the event of trade boycotts or blockades. Everything beyond that—after exploiting all domestic economic possibilities for raising the standard of living of our people—is to be obtained through meaningful and extensive barter trade, in comradely cooperation and complementarity, through exchange with the other peoples.

Thus National Socialist economic policy is not directed against the volume of pre-war foreign trade, but against its then-wrong structure and orientation. The wrong structure consisted, as mentioned, in the fact that, without regard for the preservation of the German people’s political independence, industrial raw materials and foodstuffs were purchased wherever in the world they happened to be cheapest and could be obtained with the greatest monetary profit. The wrong orientation consisted in the fact that Germany placed its foreign trade space, without regard for consequences, within the sphere of interest and power of other peoples, so that it could be cut off from it at the decisive moment—which is indeed what happened.

These errors are avoided by the new soldierly discipline of the German economy. Through labor deployment and market regulation in agriculture, and increasingly also in industrial production, the production of the iron ration of foodstuffs and animal feed and of industrial raw materials (the latter, if necessary, through synthetic processes) is first of all secured. For even if this self-sufficiency should initially cause somewhat higher costs than obtaining them from the respectively cheapest foreign raw material sources, this additional cost must be borne. It is the insurance premium against capitulation, which can no more be grasped than the insurance premium against fire hazard. Because the pre-war economy, out of its false money-thinking, cursed trying to understand this premium, it lost its entire capital through Germany’s capitulation at the end of the war. Thus, even from a commercial point of view, these supposedly cheapest prices were in reality the most expensive prices that any people has ever paid for obtaining its indispensable foodstuffs and raw materials from abroad.

Moreover, within a short time German technology, organisation, and willingness to work will have compensated for the initially perhaps still higher production costs here and there, so that there can be no question of a diminished competitiveness of German production in the world for this reason. But be that as it may, for freedom no sacrifice is too great! For what is saved in money must otherwise one day be paid for with blood.

Through this soldierly discipline of the German economy outwardly, through this securing of the most necessary economic independence, the foundation is at the same time laid for a more extensive, more durable, and above all more peaceful foreign trade than existed in the pre-war period. Political entanglements no longer necessarily lead to the deployment of army and navy, as happened under the aegis of the planless “world economic interlocking.” Rather, the deployment of the military need only occur when it truly concerns the highest and ultimate goods of the nation—its honour and freedom.

This new economic structure also enables Germany, to a greater extent than before, to fulfil its obligation toward Continental Europe. For through the inevitable formation of large economic blocs as an intermediate stage of a new world-spanning trade and exchange—as we see them emerging today in the British Empire, in the Japanese-Chinese Bloc, in the Monroe Doctrine of North America, in the French Ottawa system, in the closed-off nature of the Russian space—Continental Europe finds itself in an extremely precarious position. Because for 400 years it squandered its most vital and economic forces across the world into the newly discovered lands, which today are turning against Continental Europe, the economic and vital strength of its peoples is extremely endangered. It is widely overlooked that not only Germany, but all of Continental Europe is passive in its trade and payment balance vis-à-vis the rest of the world.

If today 70 million German people in the heart of Europe turn from the West toward the East, and thereby bring to an end the 400-year liberalist-capitalist economic orientation, then all of Continental Europe must turn from the West toward the East along with them, whether it wants to or not! Thus Germany is charged with the duty and the opportunity to shift its foreign trade relations—which it must reduce in the overdeveloped West and the overseas East (Australia being an exception here)—preferentially toward Northern and Southeastern Europe. Several billion marks that Germany has previously spent annually on the procurement of goods from the overseas West and overseas East can and must in future be gradually made available for the expansion of German trade with the countries of Southeastern and Northeastern Europe. In this way, the peoples of Eastern Europe are opened up—through Germany and in mutual exchange—a new market, one that far exceeds the scale of the markets they have lost through the collapse of the former world economy outside Europe. Indeed, there is even the possibility that through this expansion of intra-European trade, which compensates again for the passivity of Europe’s trade and payment balance, an increased trade between Continental Europe and other large economic blocs may also set in, as well as an increased procurement of tropical products thanks to the increased purchasing power of Germany and the other Northern and Southeastern European countries—so that world trade and traffic from Europe as a whole may again receive a new powerful upswing.

Only Germany, situated in the heart of Europe, with its large and diverse demand, is capable of bringing about a new economic and cultural strengthening of the continent—one that secures Europe again for the Europeans, and makes usable all cultivation and mining possibilities for European needs. Only in this way can a new European community of labor and culture arise, founded on the complete sovereignty of all peoples involved in it, in political, economic, and cultural respects. For precisely the soldierly discipline of Germany—the discipline of the peoplehood-idea as the foundation of the National Socialist worldview through Adolf Hitler—is the sure guarantee that the sovereignty of foreign peoples is in every respect inviolable for Germany. Germany rejects, on ideological grounds just as much as on practical political considerations, every kind of imperialism, universalism and despotism—such as have arisen again and again over the past two centuries on the shores of the Mediterranean through the degeneration of the once also there predominant Nordic peoples’ substance under the southern sun and through the penetration of Jewish-intellectualist spirit. The pseudo-imperialism born of intellectualist boasting—practiced by certain Western countries, which leaves the peoples of Eastern Europe their mere existence without increasing the volume of trade with them in equal measure, and thereby threatens their sovereignty—is one of the varieties of this spiritual disposition.

Germany therefore keeps its trade policy free of all such dealings that impair the sovereignty of foreign peoples, and allows only mutual commodity obligations to arise. Germany regards the oppression of foreign peoples as the stupidest and most reactionary policy there is. And it wishes only that other peoples were of the same opinion.

The living space that Germany shifts, in the form of its foreign trade sphere, from the West to the East therefore does not constitute a trade-political or even political imperialism aimed at forcible border shifts vis-à-vis Southeastern and Northern Europe. Rather, its structure—described above as protecting German independence—is at the same time an equally strong protection for the independence of the peoples with whom it enters into trade relations. It is merely a peaceful contribution to the mutual raising of the standard of living and culture of the Continental European peoples far beyond the level that each could achieve for itself through its own efforts alone. Thus the peoplehood-idea of Adolf Hitler establishes a new Continental European community of labor and culture of sovereign peoples.

In conclusion, the defensive structure of the German economy is no artificial construction but arises from the natural growth of the farmstead into the national economy, when the destructive interference of intellectualist boasting is prevented.

For the farmstead already contains in embryo the entire national economy with all its thousandfold ramifications. The true national economy is, as it were, only an optical magnification of the farmstead. For in reality, every naturally grown national economy must remain structurally identical to the defensive structure of the farmstead if it is to preserve the economic independence of the people—the farmstead that never separates plough and sword, and never surrenders its sovereignty even when cooperating with other farmsteads.

Therefore the national economy is also organised into the three natural occupational groups that already exist on the farmstead, each of which has its particular task in service to the national whole. For even on the farmstead, only a part of the family members can till the fields—that is, engage in agriculture. The other part—the younger sons—must, when new settlement land is not available, turn to the maintenance and improvement of the agricultural implements, so as to increase the intensity of cultivation and the yield of the soil, enabling them to live from the same plot of land. Thus arises the domestic industrial economy, through crafts, industry, trade, transport and the development of the domestic market. If the family on the farmstead and in the national economy continues to grow, and if new settlement land is not available, then upon the ground floor of agriculture and the first floor of the domestic industrial economy, a second floor—the foreign economy—must be built. Just as several farmsteads, without surrendering their independence, enter into meaningful exchange with one another and thereby create new opportunities for work and life for their growing families—so too do the national economies, originally without surrendering their sovereignty, enter into meaningful, complementary exchange with one another. Thus arises the foreign economy, which is divided into foreign trade, maritime shipping and the monetary and credit system of foreign trade.

We therefore have before us, organically grown from the farmstead, three natural occupational groups, each of which has its particular task to fulfil in service to the national whole—in service to the defensive duty of the economy—and which thereby increase their structural identity with the defensive farmstead and close the complete defensive front.

The three groups are:

• Agriculture. It has the task of securing the renewal of the blood and food security through market regulation.

• The industrial economy (crafts, industry, trade, transport and domestic banking). It has the task of securing the civilisational and technical needs of the people and raw material security through market regulation.

• The foreign economy (foreign trade, maritime shipping and the monetary and credit system of foreign trade). It has the task of promoting and securing the external metabolism and living space of the national economy.

This clear grouping also enables a clear and uniform formation of the necessary self-administration bodies and self-responsibility bodies of the economy. The structure of each group corresponds to the National Socialist fundamental principle of popular organisation: security and self-responsibility within natural political ties.

They are thus vertical organisations that, like the plant, grow out of the soil and again place themselves at the service of the vital and growth forces of the German people thereby granting them passage. They thus stand in contrast to the intellectualist-horizontal organisations of the liberalist-capitalist era, which diverted the always vertically directed vital and growth-forces of the German people.

The conflict of interests is thus, through this soldierly reorientation, led back from the plane of the pursuit of profit into the plane of the organic. Nowhere shall the personal freedom and initiative of the individual be restricted—with one single exception, namely, where he endangers the higher freedom of the community and its national cohesion.

This utterly simple, natural conception of the economy shatters the purely intellectualist-constructed economic theories of the last 150 years, which broke the economy out of the defensive front of the nation and gave it an un-state-like, incomplete constitution, through which discord was sown in the world.

The freedom and independence of the economy, too, can only be promoted through self-defence. Selfish profit-seeking versus the spirit of the community. That is why we declare that peoplehood must take precedence over the economy, and that freedom must take precedence over the money-spirit.

The intuitive wisdom of the people, however, senses in the unification of this fundamental question the renewal of its innermost, eternal life and growth—the rebirth of all essential forces. Thus the Leader of eternal Germany, Adolf Hitler, shows those who once called him the greatest fantasist and most unrealistic man, anew with each passing day, that he is the greatest realist in every field—because he tackles and renews all things from the worldview side and thereby restores to them their eternal meaning.

Life from the whole—that is our motto. National Socialism is soldierly socialism.

One for all, and all for one!

If you would like to support my work you can donate at Ko-Fi, Buy Me a Coffee or with Bitcoin:

BTC address: bc1qqrthd6es2uckxhgsa2qmx2mmww22vtmw92w4ch

Suspicions over the Jewish nature of the revolution were strengthened in its aftermath not only by the physical emancipation of Russian Jews but the rhetorical support they received from the new communist system which supposedly collapsed all ethnic distinctions. Under Soviet rule, all Russians were free but some, it seemed, were more free than others.

Possibly as a counter-measure against an increasing leeriness towards Jews from working-class Russians in the wake of the revolution, Russia’s new leader Vladimir Lenin gave a speech in 1919 denouncing anti-semitism. Hatred toward Jews was, Lenin argued, a consequence of the conditions of capitalism, which foster abysmal ignorance: “Only the most ignorant and downtrodden people can believe the lies and slander that are spread about the Jews.” He said:

“Anti-Semitism means spreading enmity towards the Jews. When the accursed tsarist monarchy was living its last days it tried to incite ignorant workers and peasants against the Jews. The tsarist police, in alliance with the landowners and the capitalists, organised pogroms against the Jews. The landowners and capitalists tried to divert the hatred of the workers and peasants who were tortured by want against the Jews. In other countries, too, we often see the capitalists fomenting hatred against the Jews in order to blind the workers, to divert their attention from the real enemy of the working people, capital.”

In the wake of centuries of anti-Jewish sentiment in tsarist Russia, Lenin was keen to foster a sense of comradeship among ethnic Russians and Jews under the new regime of communist egalitarianism. He continued:

“It is not the Jews who are the enemies of the working people. The enemies of the workers are the capitalists of all countries. Among the Jews there are working people, and they form the majority. They are our brothers, who, like us, are oppressed by capital; they are our comrades in the struggle for socialism.”

In the new Russia, anti-semitism was to be conflated with regression and dishonour:

“Shame on accursed tsarism which tortured and persecuted the Jews. Shame on those who foment hatred towards the Jews, who foment hatred towards other nations.”

Lenin’s pronouncements were widely distributed in Soviet publications. However, none of them mentioned that the actual author of the text was not Lenin but Semion Dimanshtein who would become a prominent Jewish political and literary figure in Russia.1 Born in Lithuania, Dimanshtein received two rabbinical ordinations in Lithuanian Jewish Orthodoxy before embracing socialism and joining the Russian Social Democratic Party in Vilna in 1904.2 Throughout the 1920s and 30s, Dimanshtein would play a key role in the Soviet government as both Jewish commissar of the Commissariat of Nationality Affairs and deputy head of the Department of Propaganda and Agitation of the Central Committee Secretariat of the Communist Party.3

A year prior to Lenin’s pronouncements, British journalist Robert Wilton—Russia correspondent for The Times—published his first-hand account of the Bolshevik takeover titled Russia’s Agony.4 The seeds were sown, he argued, by the Eastward advance of former Polish Jews from the Pale of Settlement into Russian institutions such as the law, medicine, art and literature, bringing Marxism with them. The Pale—a western region of the Russian Empire established in 1791 to which Jews were largely confined—acted as a petri dish for Jewish attitudes which would slowly rot and then eventually devour Russia. Wilton wrote:

“Amongst this suffering multitude the devil of class-hatred raised a fearsome harvest. The teachings of Karl Marx, a German Jew, were here depicted in their quintessence and spread by migrants from the Pale into more favoured lands—into the heart of Russia, into England and far America. Like many a noisome malady that has come to afflict mankind from the Near and Farther East, the worst political poisons exuded from the Pale.”5

The Jewish entry into Russia’s educational system was motivated not by a thirst for learning but by a desire for freedom and revenge. Their inevitable infusion into banking and industry was facilitated by the payment of a Guild Tax which granted them full residency rights. The Russian bureaucracy’s attempts at holding back the Jewish tide—such as a ban on the election of Jewish board members—were ultimately futile.6

Restrictions on Jewish residence were circumvented by Jews taking up positions as dentists’ assistants and artificers which allowed for partial exceptions. Russian cities such as Petrograd became swamped with Jews who paid the police a “private tax” for their protection.7

Ultimately, The Pale of Settlement—Wilton argues—had backfired as a means of insulating Russian society from Jewish influence:

Read more

The following is a translation of an article which first appeared in Nationalsozialistische Monatshefte (National Socialist Monthly) in February, 1940. Here Julius Évola contrasts Judaic proclivities toward ontological abstractness with an Aryan worldview of natural harmony. The secularised Jewish outlook, he argues, has—through a mathematics of pure abstraction—led to physics being divorced from the world it purports to represent.

“The Jews and Mathematics”

By Julius Évola

The considerable proportion of Jews among modern representatives of the mathematical sciences is a rather remarkable and frequently highlighted phenomenon. Usually, one does not know what to make of it. Anti-Semitic polemics seem to find a difficulty here that is not easily overcome.

Mathematics has the reputation of being a wholly objective and abstract science. What sense, then, can a racial evaluation have in this field? How can one seriously speak here of the “disintegrative” nature of the Jewish spirit? If one wishes to remain fair and impartial, the investigation seems hopeless.

In the problem under discussion here, of course, the professions of Jews, or their incidental cultural or political activities as mathematicians, are not at issue. Albert Einstein’s anti-German and sharply Zionist stance, for example, is well known to everyone. However, it should be acknowledged that such an attitude on Einstein’s part is not a consequence of his mathematical doctrine—or of the assumptions for which his name became known.

On this occasion, it may perhaps be useful to dispel the misunderstanding often associated with the term “relativity”. Anyone who lacks competence in this regard may be misled into seeing in this term an incitement to anti-Jewish polemics. Through the designation “theory of relativity”, Einstein’s theory has certainly exerted an inadvertently pernicious influence. In this way, the layman assumed that even science confirms relativism, the untenability of any fixed point of reference, the chaos of values and views—that is, that modern mood to which the “creations” and “discoveries” of the Jews in other fields have contributed so much. Nevertheless, the matter stands differently: Einstein’s doctrine considered generalised relativity in the world of physical phenomena only to transcend it; the so-called “transformation formulas” enable this doctrine to arrive at “invariants”—that is, at a determination of physical phenomena that is entirely independent of the relativity of any point of reference.

In this, Einstein succeeded insofar as he dispensed with any physical reference and established a wholly abstract, mathematical-algebraic physics. In this physics there are only numbers, equations, integrals and differentials—that is, the formulas of rarefied intellectual abstraction—while every intuitive representation, every image or element from concrete experience and from the world in which we live, is strictly excluded: over-mathematicisation of physics. This is what is specific to Einstein; but this is also what is specific to the aforementioned modern trend in Jewish mathematics. With this, we have already approached the subject under consideration and can now fathom the significance of this Jewish tendency toward abstract mathematics.

As in so many other cases, we must here start from the origins. If we do not accept as a premise the recognition that today’s world is so burdened by a corruption of values, and especially by a rootlessness of the spirit, that in it every inquiry into values and meaningful content in their purer state is almost hopelessly difficult, then we cannot see clearly in the principal questions of our culture.

The Jewish tendency toward mathematics arises from the secularisation of some main features of the worldview that was already characteristic of the Jew in antiquity. This worldview, in turn, cannot be properly understood if we do not at the same time know its natural opposite—that is, the Aryan worldview. As far as it is relevant here, the Aryan worldview rested on two main pillars: the concept of the Cosmos and the ideal of the “solar”. In the ancient Aryan-Hellenic idea of the Cosmos (which corresponds to the Indo-Aryan concept of ṛta [Sanskrit: ऋत])1, there is expressed an organic conception of the world and of life, or life as order, as a natural and also supernatural law. It is not a matter of “pantheism,” but rather of the recognition of deeper interconnections, by virtue of which every phenomenon and form of life acquired a higher symbolic, sometimes even ritual, significance. The ancient Aryan world knew no fragmenting dualisms. Its highest ideal was the Olympian—that is, an almost natural supernaturalness as the supreme expression of synthesis and harmony between two worlds.

From this arises the second main trait, that of the “solar.” The Aryan man felt himself in connection with the primal force of Being; he lived two lives simultaneously—or better expressed: life and the over-life—a state that did not lead to paralysing antinomy or tragic division; the spirit was in him power, and the divine was not a beyond to be reached through world-alienation, but rather the centre of his deeper life. From this springs that “central” and “radiant” quality which—according to the analogy offered by the natural world—determines the meaningful content of the “solar”.

Let us now turn to the worldview peculiar to the ancient Near Eastern peoples and especially to the Jews; it emerges that its characteristic is the destruction of the ancient Aryan synthesis between world and overworld, between life and what stands higher than life. In the foreground here is a dualism that sometimes assumes almost crass features and destroys every inner calm, every equilibrium, every clarity of vision. The body is here regarded as the “flesh”, conceived as the root of “sin”, which is incompatible with the “holy”. The world is no longer a divine order, no longer a Cosmos; it is something desecrated. Reality is pure materiality, and the divine is accordingly reduced to something unreal and transcendent in a negative sense. Man becomes a “vessel”; he is determined by a fundamental passivity, which gives him a “lunar” nature—like the moon, he must draw and receive his light from a principle outside himself. Thus it comes about that the Jewish soul eternally wavers between a coarse materialism, a raw sensuality and the longing for “redemption” and unattainable “blessedness”. But even the cultural sphere that is not properly Jewish but generally Near Eastern shows us similar destructive divisions. We may mention Assyria and Chaldea—Chaldea even offers us an important clue for the inquiry with which we are actually concerned.

As is clear from its mythology, Assyria, on the one hand, created gods and divinities of a violent, crudely sensual, cruel and wildly bestial type; on the other hand, a divinity that culminates in female figures—figures which ultimately surpass their divine male companions and belong to the sphere of the astral Great Goddesses and the great nature goddesses. One would otherwise seek in vain the Olympian and heavenly Aryan ideal of a solar and supernatural masculinity. In this context, in the typically Near Eastern cultures, the highest type is no longer—as among the ancient Aryans—the royal man, but the priestly mediator.

This “fall”, which is the consequence of the anti-Aryan dualism, is also reflected in the thinking of the ancient Chaldean culture and gives rise within it to a particular form of science, which is precisely the forerunner of that with which we must concern ourselves. It is a priestly, a mathematical-lunar science. It is an astronomical science that turns rather to the planets than to the fixed celestial bodies, rather to the moon than to the sun. Thus for the Babylonians, the night was more sacred than the day (from the symbolism of the day and daylight, on the other hand, arose the entire higher divine figures of the Aryans, from Dyaus to Zeus and Apollo).

Sin, the moon god, stands higher than Shamash, the sun god. This ancient science is fundamentally inseparable from a fatalistic mood; it is determined by the idea of the omnipotence of an alien law, by the awareness of a true transcendence—in short, by a natural and non-heroic limitation in the divine. Even the reckoning of time among the Assyrians and Babylonians had the moon as its basis (among the Egyptians, the sun)—a circumstance that is not without significance. The Jews were so burdened with this limited conception of life that originally the idea of immortality was unknown to them; they knew only Sheol, where without exception all souls, even those of the “patriarchs” and the priestly kings of Israel, lead after death a shadowy, extinguished existence—that is, a kind of Hades or underworld, which, however—in contrast to that of the Aryan peoples—has no counterpart as a seat of the privileged immortality of the “heroes”.

We hardly need to emphasize the destructive nature of such views, as well as their capacity to act as a genuine agent of decomposition within races and cultures of Aryan origin. Here, however, we are not to consider such consequences as develop through various ethical and religious subjects; rather, we are concerned with the effects that relate to the field of knowledge. In place of a vision that has as its presupposition the Cosmos idea—that is, the living connection between the natural and the supernatural, between life and spirit—there now appears a science determined by the opposite premise. Opposed to the materiality of nature there now stand abstract, lifeless laws and relations, first of a lunar-astronomical nature, then of a lunar-mathematical nature, which are at first determined by lunar-pantheistic harmonies, but then—through secularisation—have a universalist-rational stamp. From this stem springs directly the “tradition” of Jewish mathematics, which thus represents a pernicious dissolution, a precise negation of the ancient Aryan order. Everything shows this.

Incidentally, it is significant that Pythagoreanism—in which, as is well known, mathematics played such an important role—was already regarded by the ancients, with a meaningful emphasis on the feminine gender, as a non-Hellenic or non-Aryan phenomenon and as a return to the spirit of that Pelasgian-Asiatic culture which is typical of the pre-Aryan Mediterranean. Pythagoreanism was banished by Rome, which was conscious of its deeper, nobler idea. It is significant that the ancients connected Pythagoras with the Etruscans, that this connection was emphasised in the banned commentaries on the books of Numa Pompilius, and that Pythagoreanism found its greatest distribution in Italy among those peoples where the Pelasgian element predominated—besides the Etruscans, among the Sabellians and in many tribes and cities of southern Italy.

Pythagoreanism, namely, strove to revive a pre-Roman ethnic substratum that Rome, as a representative of a “solar” culture, had subjugated and that was opposed to the Roman spirit. The same applies to the Etruscans. The words of Seneca are well known, reflecting an opinion very widespread in the Roman world: Tuscos Asia sibi vindicat (Asia claims the Etruscans for itself). The almost identical similarity of the Etruscan and Chaldean divination systems is one sign among many.

But we wish to return properly to Judaism. From the earliest times, Judaism has developed a pronounced mathematical and intellectualist interpretation of the world. In its tradition, unlike that of other peoples, number plays as prominent a role as in the Jewish Kabbalah and generally in the esoteric interpretations of Mosaism contained in the Zohar. Just as modern mathematics dissolves the sensory world into number, so Kabbalism dissolved the divine world and made number and letters (to which, in turn, a numerical significance attaches) the means of fathoming the most secret matters of transcendent metaphysics.

Fundamentally, these speculations correspond to the higher aspect of Judaism, which, characteristically, was rejected by rabbinic orthodoxy (Kabbalism is regarded by rabbinic-Talmudic orthodoxy as heresy). Even from the racial standpoint, it can be demonstrated that the current we have designated as intellectualism actually has predominantly Sephardic Jews as its representatives—that is, those Jews who, in comparison to the Ashkenazim, were also regarded by Chamberlain, Drumont, Lapouge, etc., as the nobler stock within the Jewish people. Sephardic Jews are, in fact, Avicebron, Moses of Lyon, Spinoza, Leo the Jew, Maimonides, Jacob, and other representatives of the current already indicated.

In Spinoza, one can see in a striking way how the old lunar and fatalistic spirit, which had already broken through in the Semitic Mediterranean, persists unchanged through the centuries. The Spinozistic contemplation from the standpoint of the eternal—sub specie aeternitatis—is equated with contemplation “in geometric fashion”—more geometrico. The same mode of thought that is inherent in geometric and mathematical thinking is here applied in theology and philosophy with the corresponding result: one arrives, namely, at a fatalistic conception of the world and of God; everything is represented like a flat succession of causes and effects that develop automatically, just as the properties of numbers and geometric figures develop from their definitions. The “lunar” and deterministic spirit receives in Spinoza so perfect an expression that one would search in vain in cultural history for a similar contrast to the “solar” attitude.

To proceed from these ancient manifestations of the Jewish spirit to the modern Jewish representatives of the “positive” mathematical sciences, one has only to take into account the process of secularisation that marks the further development of Western culture. Under new forms, the old spirit continues. As indicated, the Einsteinian theory represents the limiting case of the dissolution of physics into mathematics and pure abstraction—a science which, in order to gain certainty, withdraws into a world consisting of purely algebraic relations and entirely indifferent to the concrete givens of human experience. In this connection, it should be emphasised that the construction of the Einsteinian theory was made possible by the reform of infinitesimal calculus carried out by another Jew—Levi-Civita—just as another Jew—Weyl—is responsible for the further development of Einstein’s physical-algebraic world-picture.

The agreement between the ancient Near Eastern spirit and the modern manifestations of the same becomes even clearer when we approach the speculative field. In this field, Judaism divides into two columns, which stand in the closest connection with the two terms of the Jewish dualism that arose from the decomposition of the ancient Aryan solar synthesis. On the one hand, then, we find Jews among the originators of the modern glorification of life, of the irrational, of becoming, of the unconscious, and of the almighty drive—from Bergson to Simmel and Freud; on the other hand, the Jews are represented in another column, which pursues the path of an abstract rationalism and even of a new mathematical Pythagoreanism.

Alongside Benda and Meyerson, the so-called Marburg School—whose principal representatives are Jews: Hermann Cohen and Cassirer—is very significant in this connection. Whereas Kantian philosophy endeavoured to trace the conditions of every possible experience back to abstract a priori concepts, the Marburg School puts number and the algebraic function in place of the concept and of the Kantian a priori categories. The organ of this philosophy is “thought”, which in its origin is meant as unconditional, and which, from the infinitesimal principle, in complete detachment from sensations and sense-bound representations, derives the whole of mathematical and mathematical-physical science. In this way believes it can do justice to the main concepts and main problems of previous philosophy. One thus sees with what persistence, under new forms, the tradition in question has maintained itself through the centuries.

Should the question of evaluation now be raised, it is clear that its solution encounters particular difficulties if one proceeds from the standpoint of “modern” culture, since such a standpoint is simply that of chaos. It is necessary, on the contrary, to fall back on those primordial and ultimate oppositions already alluded to, which give expressions such as “solar”, “lunar” etc., their meaning.

This turn of mind will, of course, be difficult for every progressive and critical spirit. Such spirits today still hardly realize that “progress” has driven the West to a precipice where only the movement of a fall is possible; in the final phases of this fall—or rather, this involution—of Western culture, conceptions have come to light that are very similar to those that arose from the soul of the Jewish people. This is even the sole reason why Judaism has been able to exert such a decisive influence on “modern” culture. It found a soil already prepared by processes of civilisation; therefore it was quite easy for it to insinuate itself and to accelerate the dissolution of what was already decadent and no longer pure.

Since matters stand thus, every “modern” spirit often feels a certain embarrassment before some developments of anti-Jewish polemics; in some fields where the abstract and theoretical predominate, he fears that he cannot strike at the Jew without at the same time striking “himself” and calling into question the significance and value of sciences that are not exclusively Jewish creations. This fear is justified. But what can be struck along with it is only the result of alien and involutive turns of the European man—that is, a false “self.” The lost contact with the Aryan heritage, with the Aryan ideal of knowledge and action, with the Aryan conception of life and human meaning, makes every radicalism impossible and tends to lead modern man into a labyrinth in which he would seek in vain for points of reference for a decisive struggle.

What we have said about Jewish mathematics, its origins, and the spiritual decomposition connected with those origins, may perhaps already serve as an example and give occasion for useful reflections. The Jewish element is connected on every field with the limiting form of a decline. Thus, while the Jew points to the danger that must first be removed, he also shows us the direction in which the Aryan soul originally went astray. Only when this deviation is overcome through an inner deed will every new decline be prevented from the outset, and the Aryan man be preserved against every corrupting influence emanating from alien elements.

If you would like to support my work you can donate at Ko-Fi, Buy Me a Coffee or with Bitcoin:

BTC address: bc1qqrthd6es2uckxhgsa2qmx2mmww22vtmw92w4ch

Instead of signalling a self-confident advance, this caravan of American hardware—floodlit in the Iraqi night—would signal a retreat. The column of vehicles was likely heading from al-Asad Air Base in Anbar province in western Iraq to the semiautonomous Kurdistan region in the north. It would be a scene repeated at every US base in the country’s federal region as well as other Gulf states, all of them now ripe targets for Iranian ballistic missiles.

Coming just over twenty years after America’s invasion of Iraq—when the juggernaut of Pax Americana seemed unstoppable—the troop drawdown under the looming shadow of geo-political multipolarity is the latest crack in the edifice of empire. Like all empires before it, Judeo-American is slowly succumbing to the vicissitudes of political entropy, eroded both by challengers without and parasites within.

While the superstructure of American dominance still stands, its slow collapse is becoming an inevitability. Like the empires that preceded it—from the Persian, Greek, and Roman to the British—Judeo-America will one day become history.

While the collapse of each empire differs in its particulars, the trajectory of decline is found to depend on a series of variables that remain constant across time and geography.1 The systemic instability of hegemons tends to increase as challengers reach power parity,2 when subordinate states begin to reject the dominant norms and institutions,3 as material capabilities of oppositional nations shift and the costs of empire spiral,4 and when ideological legitimacy and institutional authority begin to critically erode.5

The decline of Judeo-America can be analysed both through the historical precedent of imperial collapse and the contemporaneous sui generis challenges facing the empire today. Historically, Judeo-American stands shoulder to shoulder with other great imperial powers such as the Persian, Mongol, Roman and British empires. But, like the great hegemonic forces which preceded it, America’s empire is destined to degrade, weaken and die.

When comparing Judeo-America with preceding empires, a major historical inflection point is the Industrial Revolution of the 18th and 19th centuries. Technological empires such as the British, Russian, Japanese and Portuguese tend to be characterised by bureaucratic centralisation and the utilisation of technology such as the telegraph, railroads and modern weapons for territorial expansion. These powers utilised empire-building strategies based primarily on economic and industrial dominance in contrast to the territorial and tributary control exercised by pre-modern empires such as the Mongols and Romans.6

Among modern industrial empires—of which Judeo-America is the apotheosis—common patterns of development and disintegration emerge. Compared to ancient hegemons, these powers tend to be larger in scale, face greater competition, demonstrate sharper decline and be shorter-lived relative to size and economic power.7 The largest non-industrial empires had an average life-span of roughly 236 years with their decline spanning about 70 years from peak power. Industrial empires average roughly 215 years with a 41-year decline period.8

Read more

The following is a translation of an article which first appeared in Volk und Rasse (People and Race), issue 4, April 1935. Its central thesis is that exercise and art are not ends in themselves but complementary tools for racial selection and the creation of a lasting aesthetic ideal. The original title is “The Significance of Physical Exercise for the Racial Preservation of the German People”.

“Physical Exercise for Racial Survival”

By Enno Folkerts

Physical exercises are no longer to be understood within the racial-political aspirations of the Third Reich from an individualistic perspective, but only in connection with the preservation and improvement of the national whole. It is desirable that the liberalistic view of sport as an end in itself, typical of the past era, be overcome and that the purpose of all physical exercise be recognised in the context of national fitness.

Physical exercise: we wish to understand it in the sense that the body is trained for the sake of higher life-performance, not merely for higher athletic performance. This must never be the goal, but only the means of any physical education. Of course, one cannot demand that all athletes are clear about the essential significance of physical exercise: just as it is not necessary for a soldier who performs a great and brave deed to understand the strategic meaning of a military manoeuvre. The main thing is that the athlete is generally physically improved, that willpower is increased and that fighting spirit is cultivated.

Everything that is acquired here during practice and in competition in terms of physical prowess benefits not only the individual but the people as a whole, by consequently raising the nation’s physical fitness. For women as well, the gain lies not only in the general increase of physical vitality, but also in the associated capacity for performance. That this, as well as vitality, can be jeopardised by inappropriate physical activity has been sufficiently proven, and should prompt women to turn to physical activity befitting their nature, above all gymnastics, and if possible under conscientious, expert guidance.

Of particular importance is the enhancement of athletic performance in competition. Competition demands, if one wishes to contest it successfully, such great willpower that only the most earnest physical work, combined with a Spartan lifestyle, can lead to the goal. Through this preparatory work, which is carried out in obscurity, competition first acquires its educational meaning. For without the challenge of measuring one athlete’s strength against another and the associated increase, great achievements would generally not be accomplished. Thus, ambition and competitive spirit are placed in the service of physical training. These means are by no means new to us in the education of the armed forces (decorations, prize competitions, etc.).

If, in addition to the aforementioned stimulating effect of competitive games, one also counts the recruiting element in the national sense, which adheres to every great public event, a further essential significance of competitive games still remains unconsidered: the selective/breeding effect. Here we should be interested in the corresponding cultural phenomena of the racially related Greek people.

Arising from eugenic considerations, the competitive games were established in Sparta around 600 BC. All youths and maidens were to compete in these without clothing. First, they were hardened in this way, and then there arose the unique high level of physical training on the unclothed body. It is clear that in this way a valuation of physical beauty among the youth was cultivated, and attention was also drawn to racial differences, insofar as such existed at all. But the most important thing is the racial selection connected with this: undoubtedly, the most beautiful and able-bodied of the youths and maidens will have found their way to one another, and thus ensured racial selection and racial preservation.

For Greek culture at that time, the concept of the most beautiful human being was still synonymous with the Nordic type. If we compare sculptures from that era with our best Nordic youth of today, we have the impression of a genuine similarity in physique and bearing. In the decorative relief from the Temple at Aegina (Figure 1) and the Nordic athlete (Figure 2), we see the same strength and composure in expression, along with a correspondence in body structure. Compare this with the depiction of the decorative relief by the French sculptor Bourdelle (Figure 3). The entire conception stems from an entirely different racial sensibility. It is not the calm and closed composure that prevails, but rather a passionate movement extending into the smallest muscle, an exaggerated, ostentatious exertion of muscular strength, which bulges out abnormally. Note also the Middle Eastern facial features and the claw-like formation of the feet. What manifests here is a purely impulsive approach to the bow-like tension with wild force, whereas in the first two examples it is more controlled and deliberate.

It is to be assumed that in the Greek competitions it was precisely the best Nordic race that distinguished itself—an observation that can also be made today at major athletic competitions in Germany and indeed in other countries. The participants in the competitions each represent a significant positive selection compared to the total body of those engaging in sports, as could again be observed at this year’s German Winter Championships. Thus, the ideal physique of the athlete will have been Nordic race both among the Greeks of the Archaic period and among us—and this not merely on the basis of physical characteristics, but as a total appearance, in style, and indeed in the entire exemplary mental bearing. It corresponds to the Greek striving for balance (harmony) that the masterful contest became the focal point of the competitive games, and the victorious all-around athlete was the most accomplished competitor.

Through wise foresight, limits were thus placed on specialisation. With the racial degeneration of the Greek people, these racial-political lines of thought also faded, and a specialist mentality forced itself to the fore, which is best illustrated by the brutal depictions of fistfighters in later times. As in all of Greek life, foreign-racial elements also appeared in the arena in later periods. Specialisation in sport does not necessarily have to be harmful, but it usually develops the body one-sidedly, and therefore does not correspond to the benefit of a general physical education in the sense of making our youth fit for defence. Among the sportsmen of the present day, the all-around athlete and master Hans Heinz Sievert is therefore likely to represent an ideal figure. He is a farmer’s son of Nordic race and is probably the best athlete in the world.

Antiquity also shows how close the relationship between physical exercise and art can be. The victor in the contest was immortalised by sculptors and thus stands for all time in the arena of striving youth as a model of achievement and of racial ideal form. One must realise the great inspirational moment of how it spurs on the competing youth to win such an honour.

The arena gave the ancient artist the best opportunity to study the body, and there he found the most magnificent models. Today, a sports field offers the same possibility. An artist there, if his eye is trained for physique, would find equally good models of the best Nordic race, if he seriously endeavoured to do so. The past generation of artists, however, in its racial disintegration and decadence, had almost completely lost the eye for the racially good human being and preferred to depict the so-called “interesting” (i.e. ugly) human being.

In reality, however, no great art can grow without an ideal of beauty; above all, the idea of the beautiful must be rooted in the spirit, as was the case with the Greeks. For today’s art, the task is not to create an ideal of beauty through the idealisation of a halfway Nordic human being; rather, the first-class Nordic human being in physique and expression must be discovered (Figure 4) and depicted again and again by artists until the pure image of a coming generation stands before us as a model. The sculptors of antiquity worked no differently. Through the centuries, the striding Apollo was fashioned; generations trained themselves on this single task until it was shaped in perfected beauty. Only in this way can great art arise. Christian art, too, depicted Christ, Mary, and the saints again and again, and through all stylistic epochs varied and deepened that one theme—though, to be sure, in a sense that almost never emphasised the healthy, strong body and the deed-joyful soul.

However, the high-quality and capable body is not merely an innate gift, but must be worked toward through the hard discipline of physical exercise to achieve genuine strength and expressiveness. Herein lies one of the most significant tasks of physical exercise: the physical breeding-education of the racially best youth, which, on the basis of physical breeding-value, will have a healthily firm foundation and also a better opportunity to assert itself in life.

At the same time, the high-quality body of the Nordic athlete is the most convincing means of recruitment for the Nordic idea in general, especially when it appears as a group or team (Figure 5). Only when the goal of breeding-education is realised not merely in the mind but also physically, and when the perfect Nordic body and Nordic expression are placed before the eyes of the people as an ideal image, again and again on every occasion, can a thoroughgoing racial improvement be crowned with success.

If you would like to support my work you can donate at Ko-Fi, Buy Me a Coffee or with Bitcoin:

BTC address: bc1qqrthd6es2uckxhgsa2qmx2mmww22vtmw92w4ch

Having been largely confined to the dark corners of cultural discourse, conspiracy theories were propelled into the political mainstream by QAnon and the Covid 19 pandemic. No longer were conspiracy theorists a kooky and powerless minority—they were now invested with the power to shape America’s political future and did so in 2024 via the re-election of Donald Trump as US President.

The general perception that the public is being misled by our political industrial complex—that maleficent forces are at play under the glistening surface of our democracies—is a perfectly reasonable, and increasingly justified, concern. The Epstein scandal exposed a pulsating core of political corruption, financial fraud and sexual abuse which many suspected but could not comprehend. It has also exposed the very real extent of Jewish power over the American Empire.

However, the psychological architecture of conspiracy theorising is worlds apart from a general cognisance of corruption—and it is one which is increasingly understood and weaponised. Rather than intrepid detectives of shadowy political intrigue, the conspiracy theorist is himself the subject of a conspiracy to exploit his paranoid epistemology for political ends.

The study of conspiracy theorists has tended to explain their behaviour through irrational bias, cognitive error or—at worst—mental deficiency. Research on the personality correlates of conspiracy theorists has found that pseudoscientific beliefs, paranoia, mild schizophrenic traits and religiosity are particularly salient, along with generally lower cognitive ability.1

Conspiracy theorists have been shown to be more prone to cognitive biases such as the conjunction fallacy which describes the probabilistic error of judging a conjunction of two events as more likely than one of its constituent events alone. Conspiracy believers have been found to make significantly more conjunction errors than non‑believers across both conspiracy-themed and neutral domains, implying the salience of general intelligence in conspiracy beliefs.2

Other research has found that a tendency to conspiracy theorising is predicated by hypersensitive agency detection (HAD), the propensity to attribute intentionality, purpose and agency to inanimate objects or events where they are unlikely to exist.3 Conspiracy theorists, it is argued, inherently project purpose, agency and intentionality onto events often when plausible alternative explanations exist. People with HAD bias are more likely to see “someone pulling the strings” behind ambiguous events, making conspiratorial explanations intuitively appealing.

Conspiracy beliefs have been found to be strongly associated with education such that those with higher levels of education are less likely to endorse conspiracy theories.4 Mediating factors in conspiracy belief—such as the tendency toward anthropomorphism in which free will and intentionality are attributed to inanimate objects—tend to be more salient in people with less education.5

That such research is predicated on a liberal bias against the right-wing coded conspiracy theory community has already been remarked upon within academia, with warnings against the othering of those who should be the subjects of objective scientific enquiry.6 There is a growing awareness that conspiracy belief adoption does not simply involve passive knowledge absorption by naive recipients, but a complex cognitive architecture. It is this psychological circuitry which is being hacked in order to propagate a politics stripped of any potential for real-world change.

The ur-example of this cognitive warfare is QAnon. Adherents of the conspiracy theory believe that a cabal of satanic, cannibalistic elites—primarily in government, media and Hollywood—runs a global child sex trafficking ring against which President Donald Trump is waging a secret war, ultimately culminating in a prophesied event known as The Storm in which the cabal would be arrested and executed. The conspiracy—initiated on 4Chan from 2017—was propagated largely through “Qdrops”, cryptic posts from so-called government insiders which were then woven into an overarching narrative by content creators on YouTube and other social media sites. Adherents of the QAnon conspiracy number in the millions, with hundreds of thousands of believers even in non-English speaking countries like Germany.7

What makes QAnon distinct from other conspiracy theories—and what implies high-level US intelligence involvement—is the problem-solving nature underlying it. QAnon created a game-like knowledge environment in which believers are the central character in their own virtual role-play. Instead of passively absorbing information, QAnon believers are encouraged to “do your own research”, to actively decode and encode information within a gamified knowledge matrix.

Read more

The following is a translation of an article which first appeared in Nationalsozialistische Monatshefte (National Socialist Monthly) in July 1935. The article presents in microcosm the debate over so-called low-IQ anti-semitism which is a prevalent it “right-wing” spaces today as it was almost a century ago. The author presents a critique of German conservative thinker Wilhelm Stapel’s position on the Jewish Question in which race is the central point of contention. The author exposes the weakness of the conservative approach to Jewish power which seeks to remain within the received social and intellectual boundaries which Jews themselves have established.

“Wilhelm Stapel and the Jewish Question”

By Matthes Stiegler

The writer Wilhelm Stapel recently expressed himself in a pamphlet on The Literary Dominance of the Jews in Germany 1918–1933.

Anyone who reads this publication attentively must admire the rhetorical skill of the well-known literary figure, who has made a name for himself through his talent for witty polemic and his clever dialectic. Wilhelm Stapel is precisely informed about the literary dominance of the Jews in the November Republic1; he knows the names of the Jewish cliques that determined Germany’s cultural policy at that time, and he knows how to characterise them aptly. However, the National Socialist reviewer soon makes a highly peculiar discovery: in this witty essay, he searches in vain for formulations that express a racial interpretation of history; indeed, if he takes the trouble, he does not find the word “race” even in a single place.

Is it by chance that Wilhelm Stapel in 1937 does not see the connection between the Jewish Question and the Race Question, which is self-evident to National Socialist sensibilities? This question suggests a retrospective look at his previous work, which is naturally of a literary nature. Since Wilhelm Stapel, in the aforementioned pamphlet, explicitly counts himself among those who waged the intellectual struggle against Jewry during the period of the Weimar Republic he has a rightful claim to an appraisal of his statements on the Jewish Question during the period we National Socialists call the Time of Struggle (Kampfzeit).

Wilhelm Stapel has never left any doubt about his position regarding Jewry; he has set down his views on the Jewish Question and its intellectual and practical solution in a series of publications, of which only two shall be examined more closely here: a collection of essays from Deutsches Volkstum, which Wilhelm Stapel revised and published in 1928 under the title Antisemitism and Antigermanism; and a survey titled What We Expect from National Socialism – 20 Answers, published by Albrecht Erich Günther—Wilhelm Stapel’s closest colleague—in 1932, to which Wilhelm Stapel also contributed two programmatic essays.

Wilhelm Stapel says of himself: “Pervaded by the thoughts and feelings of liberal justice, I left the university as a friend of all Jews. Jewish sarcasm appealed to me instinctively…” (Antisemitism, p. 6). His engagement with German cultural experience of the pre-war period, however, soon taught him otherwise and made him more and more an opponent of the Jews in his literary work.

Wilhelm Stapel would consider it unseemly, however, if one were to equate his opposition to the Jews with “that peculiar social phenomenon of ‘antisemitism’” (Antisemitism, p. 67); rather, as an “educated person,” he aims “to take a dignified stance both toward Jewry and toward antisemitism” (Antisemitism, p. 10). For just as he does not wish to see the civil equality of Jews challenged (see Antisemitism, p. 38), just as little does he wish “to hurt the feelings of esteemed and respected Jewish fellow citizens” with his views (Antisemitism, p. 28).

With full dignity, Wilhelm Stapel turns away from the street-level rowdy antisemitism:

“Venting one’s nerves in scandal sheets, sticking on swastikas, painting swastikas—what does that improve? You shall not only not misuse the name of your God, but also not the name of your people. And just as little your symbols. A swastika smeared on all walls has lost all dignity... The task is not to annoy others, but to get along with others in such a way that our national identity does not suffer harm.” (Antisemitism, p. 76).

One can almost see the raised index finger of the oh-so-anti-Jewish publicist, turning away indignantly from the window when two hostile riot columns clash on the street and “uneducated” SA men “annoy” the communists! But it is pointless to discuss here the bloody reality and the reality of symbols. Let us rather hear what Wilhelm Stapel has to say about the solution to the Jewish Question:

“The right solution to the Jewish Question can in each individual case only be found through the right tact. For it seems to me that at its deepest level, the Jewish Question is a question of the feeling for one’s own being” (Antisemitism, p. 28).

Wilhelm Stapel provides a sample of this feeling for being through the following judgment on the role of the Jews in the state leadership of the November Republic:

“As soon as a Jew forces himself or allows himself to be pushed into a responsible leadership position in German politics, he commits no injustice, but a tactlessness” (Antisemitism, p. 22).

With the voice of a preacher, Stapel solicits understanding from German Jewry for these and other “harsh” words, which are truly difficult enough for him:

“Whether the German admits the Jew into his community is not a question of justice or goodwill, but of love. This force alone decides the fate in each individual case—there are no general ‘laws’ for this. Jewish fellow citizens, never forget where God has drawn the boundary” (Antisemitism, p. 34).

Thus far the statements of Wilhelm Stapel on the Jewish Question from the year 1928. The more political tensions grew in the following years, the more visible Wilhelm Stapel became as a politician. The success of his “Christian Statesman” in the theological world encouraged him, in the aforementioned collection What We Expect from National Socialism, to offer the National Socialist movement practical solutions to the Jewish Question. One does not know what to marvel at more: the nonchalance with which Wilhelm Stapel here dares to prescribe rules to the practical politics of National Socialism, or the nonchalance of these prescriptions themselves.

Wilhelm Stapel sets up twelve demands for the solution of the Jewish Question in a National Socialist state, the fulfilment of which he expects from what he calls a “national-corporate state”. If any proof were still needed that Wilhelm Stapel has no feeling for the realities of blood and race, then the following characteristic theses from this practical proposal provide it:

“The corporate-thinking German conceives of Jewry within the Reich as a professional estate. The Jewish estate has a particular religion (not just ‘a different denomination’), particular customs and mores, particular ways of viewing good and bad, right and wrong, honourable and dishonourable, valuable and worthless, purposeful and unpurposeful, and particular modes of behaviour toward the non-Jewish. The Jewish estate claims the right to exist for its particularity. It asserts this right to exist in all relevant areas through a Jewish representative body for the estate.”

With these sentences, nothing less is essentially asserted than: National Socialism would have done well, after the seizure of power, to establish not only the German Labor Front, the Reich Estate of German Handicrafts and the Reich Estate of Farmers, but also a Reich Estate of German Jewry! But let us continue:

“Jewry is exempted from military service. For we do not want to force the Jews into a position where they would have to fight against the Jews of other countries.”

This justification is apparently supposed to be particularly peaceful! If one wanted to fulfil this demand in Wilhelm Stapel’s sense, then there would be no reason why specifically the members of the other “estates” should have to go to war in the future; for they could just as easily as the Jews find themselves in the unpleasant position of having to fight against representatives of their own estates. He continues:

“The two hierarchical functions of judging and educating are forbidden to the Jew within the sphere of Germandom. Germans shall be judged and educated only by Germans. Only within Jewry are Jewish judges and educators possible. So teaching and living at the university, with the exception of theology and German history, does not fall under the concept of education. Jews can therefore be professors and lecturers at German universities. But the specifically educational institutions at the universities must be in the hands of Germans.”

Apart from the senselessness of the demands raised here, it is almost tragically comical that Wilhelm Stapel specifically demands the Aryan paragraph for the very field of theology, which has up to now resisted this obviously necessary protective measure of the National Socialist state by all conceivable means.

If one is hardly surprised anymore that Wilhelm Stapel, as a further thesis, puts forward the demand that intermarriage between Germans and Jews should merely be made more difficult, his ideas about the “conversion” of Jews to Germanness must nevertheless appear completely lacking in understanding to every National Socialist sensibility. We can therefore spare ourselves any explanatory word. For these sentences speak for themselves and reveal Wilhelm Stapel in a peculiar light:

“Neither a nationality nor an estate is something fixed. The transition from one nationality to another, from one estate to another, is a vital process that cannot be eliminated from the world. If one does not wish to suppress nature, then conversion from Jewry to Germanness must be just as possible as conversion from Germanness to Jewry. The problem is this: how does one make such conversions harmless for the existence of the community? In other words: how does one ensure that individuals who detach themselves from their previous community truly convert to the other community and do not merely become renegades? [...] The only possibility of detoxifying conversion is to detach it from the individual and make it a matter of generations. Whoever wishes to convert must take his renunciation of the previous community and his confession to the new community so seriously that he desires both not only and not so much for himself, but rather for an entire generation, that is, for his descendants. He must, for his own person, take upon himself the martyrdom of giving up the rights of the one community without acquiring the rights of the other community, and likewise his descendants. Only in the third generation is the acceptance into the refreshing other community truly carried out. For the intervening period placed between the generations is supposed to provide a certain guarantee that the conversion does not proceed from an interest, but from an inner necessity.”

Wilhelm Stapel is represented in the same collected volume What We Expect from National Socialism with a further contribution on Demands for Cultural Policy. In this context, he also addresses the problem of pacifism. He considers pacifism to be a natural defensive trait of Jewry and oddly concludes from this that Jewish pacifism therefore cannot be subjected to any endangerment “for since the Jewish people is an international people, pacifism is a component of its national definition, and no one shall be harassed in their national definition. Germans are to undermine the practice of pacifist activity by all means.” However, according to Wilhelm Stapel, any German can also enable the necessary and undisturbed pacifist activity for themselves by converting to Judaism!

This retrospective look at Wilhelm Stapel’s literary past would be superfluous if Wilhelm Stapel had abandoned his former views on the relationship between Germany and Jewry and had struggled through to a National Socialist understanding of the Jewish Question. For we are generous enough to let bygones be bygones when German people have found their way to the Führer through inner conviction and demonstrate through their deeds their profound embrace of the National Socialist idea. Conversely, statements that may have been excusable under certain circumstances in the years 1928 and 1932 take on the character of inexcusability in the year 1937.

The Wilhelm Stapel of 1937 has full freedom to make public any inner change of heart he may have. However, he has preferred to offer up his views of yesterday as new and indeed scholarly wisdom. He may book this as strength of character for himself; but he must not be surprised if we draw conclusions from it. And these conclusions are unambiguous.

Although the Wilhelm Stapel of 1937 knows how to speak at great length about the literary dominance of the Jews in Germany from 1918 to 1933, he proves to be a master of concealment. He conceals the fact that in precisely the same period, the National Socialist movement was fighting for the existence or non-existence of the German people against the very same Jewry. Is it not surprising that the scholar Wilhelm Stapel is able to recognise the only contribution of National Socialism to the struggle against the literary dominance of the Jews in the naming of the former Jewish vice-president of the Berlin police—“the National Socialists, as the only ones who dared to fight him, used to call him ‘the Jew’”? Is it not further surprising that the politician Wilhelm Stapel, although he grants Ernst Jünger the ability in 1932 to recognise “what was brewing in Germany” while our movement at that time daily provided proof that it not only possessed the ability to reach such an insight, but alone—which is always the decisive factor historically and politically—was capable of drawing from this insight the conclusions leading to successful action? And is it finally not surprising that the literary critic Wilhelm Stapel, in characterising one of the most odious communist writers, can think of nothing better than to speak, in the style of certain newspapers that have not yet been able to deny their origins, of “the very blond but very fallen Ernst Gläser” in emphatic repetition?

Who, then, has actually waged the struggle against Jewry? Wilhelm Stapel’s answer is:

“We, who fought this struggle to the end… ‘We’ are the representatives of German intellectuality. Had German intellectuality—which out of deep necessity became cultural policy in the period after the World War—not achieved political power in 1933, then German culture would have succumbed to alien domination. This is a historical insight of no small significance. Therefore, the struggles that were waged for the independence of the German spirit between 1918 and 1933 have no small historical significance. The writing of history will one day have to examine and present which opposing forces arose in defence and what the outcome of this struggle was.”

The man of letters Wilhelm Stapel could spare himself both many platitudes and mysterious questions if he were to open himself to the insight present today to every German, that it was not an abstract “German intellectuality”—which became political by force and had to descend into the lowlands of politics—that saved Germany, but solely and exclusively the movement of Adolf Hitler. And we may add, without committing an indiscretion and without anticipating the results of a future science of history, that this struggle of the National Socialist movement involved something much more than the “independence of the German spirit”. It was about preserving our people, as well as every individual German national comrade, for all time from the physical, spiritual and psychological threat posed by Jewry in its various manifestations. The victory of National Socialism, however, was a victory of its worldview, which is grounded neither in confessional, dynastic, nor “spiritual” conflicts, but in racial givens.

Wilhelm Stapel gives us some vivid samples of the political far-sightedness of the German “intellectuality” he represents. Thus, with his characteristic apodeictic certainty, he makes the following diagnosis: “After the Germans were defeated in the World War, the Jews went over to the victor.” This description is underscored by the following turn of phrase: “In France and England, pacifism was a noble cause; it was imbued with responsibility for the fate of humanity.” These sentences are proof of the political cynicism of a man of letters who is alien to us. Perhaps Dr. Stapel will take the trouble to inform himself about the role of world Jewry and world Freemasonry in the pre-history and history of the World War—at the risk of having to read National Socialist literature for once. Perhaps on this occasion he will have doubts about his further claim that in the German post-war period the state apparatus was only conquered by the Jews for a time!

The Stapelian “intellectuality” possesses a conceptual language that allows it to talk past National Socialist questions in an artful way. Thus Stapel knows how to avoid recognising assimilation and Zionism, despite their differences, as two different sides of the same world Jewry. Rather, in his emphatically theologising language, he describes them as “two paths of a culturalised messianism”—and has thus escaped in the safest possible way the danger of finally having to speak about the race question. Perhaps Wilhelm Stapel will object that in one passage of his pamphlet he very much emphasised the racial side of the Jewish Question and will then refer to the following sentence: “The Jewish alien domination was, far more than the French one, at the same time an infusion of foreign blood into the German people.”

This equation is a masterpiece of Stapelian dialectic, employing as it does the vague common denominator of “infusion of foreign blood”. This denominator serves to equate the Jewish danger to the people with the French and—as the overall context of this sentence indicates—with the pseudo-Roman-Latin influences on German cultural development. It is not for nothing that Wilhelm Stapel seems to have a certain spiritual affinity with [the Jewish/German poet] Heinrich Heine, of whom he renders the following peculiar judgment: “There is nothing more misguided than to place the great Jewish fighter with his pointed creatures, with his Jewishly innervated language, alongside the two lofty figures of Goethe and Schiller as a third.” For National Socialism, the case of Heinrich Heine is not a matter of “misguided” or “not misguided”; rather, for it, this question is settled once and for all by the Jewishness of the “great fighter” Heinrich Heine.

It is difficult to add a final word of criticism to these self-testimonies of a man who claims to be taken seriously by party and state not only as a cultural politician but also as a scholar. We have no intention of “doing away with” Dr. Stapel, forbidding him to write, or “fighting against” his journal out of a sense of competition; a readership gathers around a journal that suits it. And as long as there are people of Stapelian “intellectuality,” there will also be readers of his journal; whereby we fully acknowledge that Stapel’s journal has certain merits. But Dr. Stapel will also have had the experience that even in such a journal, one cannot say everything so freely. With articles about the war girls of the Third Reich2 or about the moral dangers of exposed mother’s breasts3, one cannot enhance one’s reputation as a cultural politician; not even if one fancies oneself able to compete with the “Black Corps.”

At this point, however, we would urgently advise Wilhelm Stapel to renounce the fame of being a scholar in the state of Adolf Hitler!

If you would like to support my work you can donate at Ko-Fi, Buy Me a Coffee or with Bitcoin:

BTC address: bc1qqrthd6es2uckxhgsa2qmx2mmww22vtmw92w4ch

The hub of this operation is the UK where Islamic terror attacks and the grooming gangs scandal have provided the kindling for a conflagration of anti-Islam sentiment stoked by figures such as Tommy Robinson (Stephen Yaxley Lennon) who is the de facto leader of the patriotic working class. Robinson—described as “cheap at any price” in the Epstein emails—plays a crucial role in laundering well-meaning nationalist sentiment through the ideological filter of anti-Islamism and eventually into Zionism. Robinson is one component in an elaborate dialectical system designed to manufacture consent for Jewish genocide.

On the ground, counter-jihad is operationalised via mass immigration of Muslims into Europe, promoted by Jewish lobbying and facilitated by Israel-linked NGOs like IsraAid. When in Europe, Muslims are then radicalised by the promotion of Wahhabist/Salafist Islam in Mosques and online, initiated by Israeli intelligence via proxies like Saudi Arabia. The terrorism and general societal friction which follows generates animosity towards extremist forms of Islam, and Muslims generally, which is then amplified by figures like Robinson who ensure counter-jihad discourse remains well within the bounds of the anti-racist liberal paradigm. Muslims writ large are not a problem—and certainly not their race—but only the extremists in their midst. Here, common ground is made with Jews in Israel who are “fighting the same enemy”. The ideological architecture of counter-jihad not only generates support for Zionism but also reactionary ideation against Muslims who fight it. Even those who pass through counter-jihad and come to oppose Zionism often retain psychological barriers to siding with Palestine and Iran.

Counter-jihad ideology is rooted in the Jewish supremacism inherent to Zionism. The core tenets of Zionism are: 1) Jews are God’s chosen people, 2) Greater Israel (from the Nile to the Euphrates) was promised to Jews by God and, 3) The Jewish messiah can only be brought about when Jews are a racial majority in Israel.1

Zionism is framed as a zero-sum game: Jews vs. Muslims (i.e. Palestinians). The fate of Israel is thus an existential fight not only for the survival of Israel but the realisation of the terminus of Zionism in Greater Israel. This existential dichotomy of Jew vs. Muslim functions as an adjunct of Jew vs. Goyim in which humanity is in a perpetual racial war of extermination with the Jewish people whose only option is to rise and kill first.

In order to universalise this paranoid Jewish psychosis, the same existential framework is superimposed onto Europe: The West (Judeo-Christianity) vs. Islam. Hence, Europeans are encouraged to view their political landscape through the same lens as Jews in Israel. Islamophobia and anti-semitism function as two edges of the same Judaic sword—the former brandished in attack against the enemy of Zionism in Palestine and the latter in defence against the enemies of Jewish hegemony in the West.

Dehumanising discourse against Muslims serves to soften up European populations for the killing of Muslims—women and children included—in occupied Palestine. The fever pitch of this sentiment came in the wake of 9/11 when the emotional groundwork was laid for the invasion of Iraq in which hundreds of thousands of civilians were killed.

Such dehumanisation was a core motif of Zionism from its very inception, informed as it is by an overarching Jewish misanthropy. In his 1896 book A Jewish State—the founding text of Zionism—Theodor Herzl equated the indigenous Palestinians with animals that required wiping out to make way for Jewish civilisation:

“It is foolish to revert to old stages of civilisation, as many Zionists would like to do. Supposing, for example, we were obliged to clear a country of wild beasts, we should not set about the business in the fashion of Europeans of the fifth century. We should not take spear and lance and go out singly in pursuit of bears; we would organise a large and active hunting party, drive the animals together, and throw a melinite bomb into their midst.”2

Some 130 years after Herzl’s words were written, Israeli Defence Minister Yoav Gallant, speaking in the wake of October 7th, would describe Palestinians as “human animals”. Other sensationalist propaganda claims like Hamas fighters raped and sexually mutilated Jewish women serve to further reinforce well-established stereotypes and legitimise a moral asymmetry in which violence by Palestinians is interpreted as proof of inherent Muslim savagery while violence against Palestinians is unfortunate but necessary self-defence.3

This paradigm was reinforced by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who, in a 2023 message to Christians, labeled the Palestinian resistance as “monsters who murdered children…who burned babies alive, who took babies hostages.” The battle, he stated, is “not only of Israel against these barbarians, it’s a battle of civilization against barbarism.” In his 2024 address to the US Congress, Netanyahu would reinforce the framing of Israel’s fight against Palestine as one of the West versus the barbarians who seek to destroy our “common civilization”. He said:

“This is not a clash of civilizations. It’s a clash between barbarism and civilization. It’s a clash between those who glorify death and those who sanctify life. For the forces of civilization to triumph, America and Israel must stand together.”

What was once framed as the clash of civilisations—the Judeo-Christian West and the Islamic world—is now downgraded to a clash between the civilised and the barbarian.

The narrative that the West is engaged in an existential battle with Islam is commonly traced to Samuel Huntingdon’s 1996 book The Clash of Civilisations. However, the genesis of this paradigm is the 1990 Atlantic Monthly article by the British-American Jewish historian Bernard Lewis titled The Roots of Muslim Rage. Lewis, a scholar of Middle Eastern and Islamic history, was a Zionist who in 1966 broke away from the Middle East Studies Association of North America, a group he helped found, because of the anti-Israel sentiment that had come to dominate it.

Lewis’ thesis—which omits any reference to Israel—is that hostility towards the West in parts of the Muslim world is rooted not primarily in temporal political disputes, but in a deeper historical and civilisational crisis. He contends that many Muslims experienced the decline of Islamic political power, the rise of Western dominance and the spread of secular modernity as a profound humiliation, producing resentment toward Western influence, values and geopolitical hegemony. After citing examples of the irrationality of anti-US protests in the Muslim world, Lewis states:

“It should now be clear that we are facing a mood and a movement far transcending the levels of issues and policies and the governments that pursue them. This is no less than a clash of civilisations—the perhaps irrational but surely historic reaction of an ancient rival against our Judeo-Christian heritage, our secular present, and the worldwide expansion of both.”4

The dichotomy created is the Judeo-West—in the form of the American empire—versus a backward and reactionary Islam. Muslim anger and resentment against American hegemony is framed as a form of irrational histrionic obstinacy towards the ascendency of a superior civilisation. All of Islamic hatred, writes Lewis, is “directed at us”5—Western civilisation of which Jews are inherently a part.

Just as Whiteness is framed as an intrinsically negative characteristic, so Muslims’ animosity towards the West is something inherent, “something deeper that turns every disagreement into a problem and makes every problem insoluble.”6 Lewis argues:

“At times this hatred goes beyond hostility to specific interests or actions or policies or even countries and becomes a rejection of Western civilisation as such, not only what it does but what it is, and the principles and values that it practices and professes. These are seen as innately evil, and those who promote or accept them as the “enemies of God.”7

This civilisational dialectic is predicated on Western supremacy and Islamic degeneration. “For a long time now”, Lewis writes, “there has been a rising tide of rebellion against this Western paramountcy, and a desire to reassert Muslim values and restore Muslim greatness.”8 The restoration of this greatness will naturally be in contradistinction to Western values of secularism, capitalism and democracy—to the American way of life.

No Jewish critique of Islam would be complete without establishing an association between it and Hitler’s Nazi Germany. Lewis obliges:

“Among the components in the mood of anti-Westernism, and more specifically of anti-Americanism, were certain intellectual influences coming from Europe. One of these was from Germany, where a negative view of America formed part of a school of thought by no means limited to the Nazis but including writers as diverse as Rainer Maria Rilke, Ernst Jünger, and Martin Heidegger. In this perception, America was the ultimate example of civilization without culture…”.9

The inspiration for anti-American sentiment in modern Islam draws not only from German philosophy, National Socialism and Communism but also from the Third-Worldism emanating from post-war Europe. A new variant of the “golden-age” myth placed the Middle East “in the Third World, where the innocence of the non-Western Adam and Eve was ruined by the Western serpent. This view took as axiomatic the goodness and purity of the East and the wickedness of the West, expanding in an exponential curve of evil from Western Europe to the United States.”10

Islam thus takes its place alongside Nazism, Communism and Third-Worldism as one of the great enemies of American liberalism. In pitching the fight with Islam in civilisational terms—of Islam in opposition to secular democracy, capitalism and free speech—Lewis attempts to tap the rich vein of American political mythology. Righteous and rational Muslim anger at Zionism and American imperialism is laundered through Americanism as an irrational and primal rage against the machine of Western supremacy. In this framing, Jews are sublimated into “the West” as one element of a wider civilisation rather than—as is the reality—the leaders of it.

The ideological groundwork for counter-Jihad having been established, other prominent Jewish figures have since sought to propagate it across the political spectrum. These include Bill Maher, Sam Harris, David Horowitz, Sheldon Adelson, Daniel Pipes, Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, Nina Rosenwald, David Yerushalmi, Melanie Phillips, Laura Loomer, Ezra Levant, Andrew Bostom, Leon De Winter, Henryk M. Broder and Ralph Giordano. Prominent non-Jews who push anti-Islamism alongside Zionism include Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Brigitte Gabriel and Geert Wilders.

Netanyahu himself has also been heavily involved with so-called far-right Zionist figures around the world including the former leader of Hungary Victor Orbán. The Jewish former international secretary of the Sweden Democrats Kent Ekeroth has admitted that coordination with Israel serves to legitimise far-right parties in Europe.

Links between Jewish organisations and counter-jihad street organisers like Robinson are well attested to. Daniel Pipes’ Middle East Forum (MEF), a self-styled watchdog on “radical Islam”, claimed it had provided funding and logistical support for a “Free Tommy” event in 2018 and planned more. As well as Robinson, MEF has also funded Dutch anti-Islam politician Wilders.

The Clarion Project—a non-profit supposedly dedicated to countering extremism and linked to Jewish fundamentalist organisation Fire of the Torah—funded and produced the 2005 documentary film Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West which has reportedly distributed to 28 million people in the US prior to 2008 presidential election in which Barack Obama—often labelled a crypto-Muslim—claimed victory.

Funding for counter-jihad groups in the US come in part from Jewish or pro-Jewish organisations such as the Russell Berrie Foundation, the Rosenwald Family Fund, the Newton D. & Rochelle F. Becker Foundations and Charitable Trust, and the Fairbrook Foundation.

Another Jewish writer Gisèle Littman (aka Bat Ye’Or) has played a pivotal role in popularising counter-jihad on the conspiracy theory-adjacent right-wing. Her books The Euro-Arab Axis (2005) and Europe, Globalization, and the Coming of the Universal Caliphate (2011) established the “Eurabia” theory which alleges that from the 1970s, the European Union colluded with the Arab states in a long-term plot to Islamise and Arabise Europe.

Littman—born in Egypt with both British and French citizenship—claims that during the 1973 oil crisis, European nations made a secret deal to ensure oil supplies in exchange for accepting mass Muslim immigration. The ultimate aim of this pact was to create a new geopolitical entity called “Eurabia”, driven in part by a European desire to counterbalance American influence. The theory claims the resulting “Eurabia” is fundamentally anti-semitic, anti-Israel, anti-Christian, anti-Western and anti-American.

Naturally, the fate of Jews and Israel is central to Littman’s theory. She claims that a secret Euro-Arab pact signed in the 1970s was driven by a shared desire to isolate and destroy Israel. In this narrative, Europe’s pro-Arab foreign policy shift was not a pragmatic response to the oil crisis, but a calculated, conspiratorial betrayal of Israel motivated by economic interests and historical anti-semitism. The motif of an inherent and irrational hatred is again employed, with geopolitical anti-Zionism merging with a deep-seated anti-semitism shared by both Europeans and Arabs alike. Littman argues that importing a Palestinian cause into the heart of Europe created a common, Jew-hating culture. This fusion allegedly unites the far-left, far-right and Muslim communities in a shared anti-Jewish project masquerading as political anti-Zionism.

The “Eurabia” narrative would bore deep into the conscience of the European populist right. Anders Behring Breivik, the Norwegian who killed 77 people on the island of Utøya in 2011, cited the “Eurabia” conspiracy in his manifesto. Breivik was chiefly inspired by Norwegian blogger Fjordman (Peder Nøstvold Jensen), a disciple of Littman who has propagated counter-jihad narratives since 2005 on sites such as Gates of Vienna and Brussels Journal. Jensen argues that:

“Europe is being targeted for deliberate colonization by Muslim states, and with coordinated efforts aimed at our Islamization and the elimination of our freedoms. We are being subject to a foreign invasion.”11

Littman’s “Eurabia” conspiracy is in essence an attempt to invert the theory of Jewish power associated with the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, with Muslims now displacing Jews as the “shadowy cabal”. Central to this narrative complex is a Manichean struggle between the forces of good and evil, light and dark. Breivik would regurgitate such themes, alleging that the West is locked in an existential conflict with Islam which is depicted as a “sinister Being who tirelessly seeks the eradication of Christian Europe.”12 He would depict Muslims as “bestowed with inherent, timeless, and malevolent features said to derive from ‘Islam,’ which sets them apart from universal man”.13

Breivik also considered the Israeli right wing as a natural ally in the fight against Islam. He proposed that a new wave of crusaders aid them in expelling all Muslims from the Holy Land, destroying the al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock, and reconstructing the Temple of Solomon. Following this, Jerusalem would “once again” be jointly governed by Christians and Jews.14

Littman is also responsible for coining the term “dhimmitude” to mean Europe being in a state of submission to Islam. This concept—often paired with the spectre of Sharia law—describes an enforced state of inferiority for non-Muslims, drawing a parallel with the historic status of minorities under Islamic rule.

Ironically, many Jewish scholars have argued for Islamic rule to be historically favourable for Jews, including Bernard Lewis himself in his book The Jews of Islam. To Muslims and Christians, Jews have a “certain cosmic stature…for good or for evil, they are seen as significant.”15 Lewis argues that despite institutionalised Islamic inequality (dhimmi status) which tended towards more socially hierarchical, rather than metaphysical, Muslim hostility towards Jews, medieval Christendom more often produced intense theological anti-Judaism, expulsions and mass violence. He writes:

“…the great struggles between Christendom and Islam in the Reconquista and the Crusades brought a sharpening of religious loyalties and antagonisms, and a worsening of the position of minorities—Jewish as well as Christian—under Muslim rule. Even so, in this as in many other things, Islamic practice on the whole turned out to be gentler than Islamic precept—the reverse of the situation in Christendom.”16

In the Middle Ages, Jews under Islam were the more active element of the diaspora and, with few exceptions, “whatever was creative and significant in Jewish life happened in Islamic lands.”17 Jews in Christian Europe became culturally dependent on Jews in the “more advanced and sophisticated” Islamic world which stretched from Spain in the West to Iran and Iraq in the East.18 One can see echoes of this favourable relationship in the obsequious support of Israel found among the nominally Muslim Gulf states such as the UAE and Saudi Arabia.

Eventually, Jews shifted from Judeo-Islamic to Judeo-Christian, possibly perceiving that the former was in a state of existential decline. The term Judeo-Christian was reportedly first used in the mid 1930s as a unifying slogan for both Christians and Jews to rally in support of European Jews facing political oblivion under National Socialist and Fascist movements.19 If the Second World War cemented the Jewish alignment with Christian America, 9/11 was the catalyst for a hard turn against Muslims to buttress the genocidal requirements of Zionism.

Whatever problems a Muslim presence in Europe entail, counter-jihad is not a response which seeks to solve them. Counter-jihad is an elaborate Jewish dialectic designed to legitimise the Greater Israel project, central to which is the genocide of Palestinians.

The nationalist ideal should be for all peoples to live in their own ancestral homelands (excluding Jews) in the spirit of mutual respect and cooperation; Europe for Europeans, the Middle East for Muslims. In this battle, genuine European nationalists can stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Palestinians who wish only to live unmolested in lands from which Jews have forcefully evicted them.

Europeans have every right to question and oppose the negative influence of foreigners in their nations. However, such problems will never be solved—and will in fact be exacerbated—by opposing such influence through a Jewish rhetorical paradigm established only to serve the interest of Zionism. Questioning negative foreign influence needs to start not at the mosque, but at the synagogue.

If you would like to support my work you can donate at Ko-Fi, Buy Me a Coffee or with Bitcoin:

BTC address: bc1qqrthd6es2uckxhgsa2qmx2mmww22vtmw92w4ch

The following is a translation of an article which first appeared in Volk und Rasse (People and Race) in 1935 (vol. 10). An apologia for Germany’s eugenics program, the article discusses the core differences between Aryan metaphysics and the underlying philosophical assumptions of a materialistic and anthropocentric liberalism. It is argued that the contradiction of civilisation, wherein those detrimental to the race are afforded the conditions for survival, requires a return to an environment of natural fitness.

“Man as a Member of a Natural Whole”

By Lothar Stengel von Rutkowski

Just as an era alienated from life and the laws of life drove into people from youth an unbridgeable, constantly gaping rift between body and soul, nature and spirit, and perpetuated this conflict of “two souls in one breast” both in the individual and in the cultural structure of the German people, just so did the past era—both the narrowly constrained medieval and the haughtily liberalistic—separate man from the whole of nature and persuade him that he obeyed entirely different laws, standards and realities than these.

Although in the long run one could not deny a connection between the genesis of a human being and his purely material procreation, one nevertheless asserted—and the more doubts arose, the louder—that his origin was supernatural and supersensible (metaphysical), removed from all material laws.

It was, to be honest, a very anthropocentric view that conceived of man so self-aggrandisingly and uniquely and lifted him out of all nature and natural limitation. Erich Voegelin, in his book The Race Idea in Intellectual History has laid out the gradual transformation of this anthropocentric—fundamentally, from our present standpoint, exceedingly narrow and egoistic—worldview into our now nature-close, awe-filled worldview according to Germanic concepts.

One is probably not mistaken in drawing a parallel between this past, or passing, anthropocentric worldview and the likewise past—but defended to the last by the same circles and powers—geocentric conception of our planet earth and the position of Jerusalem or Rome on this planet. Just as the Jewish people deemed themselves chosen above all other peoples and believed that everything had to proceed according to their laws—just as, in contrast to the Germanic peoples, the animal is considered, out of a repugnant arrogance, unclean and soulless to this day (cf. Kosher slaughtering)—so too was Jerusalem the navel of the world for the Jews and the philological and religious systems that aligned themselves with it, and the Earth was the centre of the universe around which everything else revolved.

This Ptolemaic worldview first had to be destroyed by the three great Western Aryans—Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo—until the Earth, in the minds of men, once again took its place as a member of the whole of nature, which it had held from the very beginning, and people understood with awe that it moved in its orbit according to the same eternal natural laws as the other planets, and that outside our solar system new, perhaps even greater, world systems followed the same laws. For this, a portion of the books of those men stood on the index of forbidden books until 1500.

This cosmic thinking, in its world-embeddedness, has always suited Aryan thought. It has never sought to impose a single fair principle upon all peoples, no matter how racially different they might be. Precisely because the Aryan, knowledgeable in nature, saw the diversity and distinctiveness of individual peoples, he ideologically abides by “each becoming blessed in its own way.” For to those knowledgeable of nature, individuality and natural boundedness, autonomous lawfulness and natural distinctiveness, personality and race do not signify opposites; rather, they complement each other perfectly and are mutually conditioned. Just as in the entirety of great nature, based on the laws of environment and heredity that apply to everything, no two things are ever completely alike. The individual, despite all ties to the hereditary mass passed down from his parents, is unique as a new combination in his chromosome structure. Thus, despite his belonging to the larger units of race, people and tribe, he belongs always only to one specific family, just as outwardly, alongside his family name, he bears a given name reserved for his personality.

It proves the nature-bound and therefore solely correct way of thinking of National Socialism that it tolerates the coexistence of race and personality, common good and citizenry, in contrast both to collectivism and to liberalism, which, fundamentally unbiological, have never tolerated and can never tolerate this tension-filled harmony, because natural lawfulness brings them death.

Today natural science has again paved the way for racial thinking. Science has proven through countless examples that man is as much at home in nature as all living beings. We know today that organic substance, too, breaks down into atoms and molecules, which on a higher level resemble small solar systems. We know the same life of the cell in humans, animals and plants. We can survey the family tree of humanity almost completely clearly back to its most distant beginnings; from hormone research the insight into the inseparable linkage between body and soul, physique and character—as was always intuitively familiar to the Aryan—shines forth before us in the same way in humans and animals. Compare Denzmer’s popularly written book Your Hormones—Your Destiny. Let us remember, finally, that the laws of heredity, which today are largely the basis of state measures, were discovered and researched through plant hybrids and fruit flies.

And yet, despite all these correspondences, the anthropocentric and geocentric view appears to have a certain justification. In one respect, man truly differs from all other living beings, and this is also the cause of his present—and obvious to us all—extensive biological decay, for in one point man has made himself independent of the laws of nature. Admittedly, this independence is limited. This is proven precisely by his biological low point, which finds its equal only in the biological state of his own domestic animals.

Man, alone among all living beings, is able to shape his own environment. Originally, like all other living beings, he was subject to the struggle for existence, even as an individual, and this struggle for existence manifested itself in a sharp biological selection, a differential reproduction, which always automatically had a breeding effect. In the course of this selection, the capacity for thinking ahead and for planning for several generations into the future was bred into man. With this, however, man also acquired the possibility of eliminating the struggle for existence for the individual. The best-bred, on the basis of their intelligence, created a protective rampart against the struggle for existence, behind which the hereditarily ill, weaklings, and the stupid, who would otherwise have been eradicated, could now subsist. Thus man took on a mortgage of the struggle for existence, a mortgage in the form of the hereditarily ill, harmful variants and the mentally inadequate of all kinds.

And this became his undoing. Now, due to the “artificial environment,” the struggle for existence no longer acted in a selective, breeding manner, but in a counter-selective one. Sometimes counter-selective to such an extent that it systematically eradicated the very bearer of this culture and, at his expense, multiplied those who were only a burden on him and, incapable of the struggle for existence themselves, crawled away behind his protective rampart. It now depended on whether, in addition to the intelligence of foresight that had banished the struggle for existence, a further intelligence would emerge that would imitate the selective effect of the eliminated natural laws within the artificial environment in the form of a eugenic policy, culture and worldview, and thus fully reintegrate natural lawfulness into human life.

This intelligence has been mustered by only one race up to now, namely the Nordic race, which formed the germ of Indogermanic culture and Aryan humanity and, as a sign of its thinking in accordance with natural law, venerated the Irminsul1 in the form of the cotyledons2 of eternal life as a sacred symbol. Yet this human group also succumbed to the doom when it allowed its nature-lawful thinking to be destroyed by foreign races and a worldview that originated in foreign brainpans. From the point in time of this ideological upheaval, the artificial environment turned against the Aryan human being as well. An Aryan-based culture became our present-day civilisation, and we now grasp the natural-lawful inexorability that underlies this tragic process.

Today, National Socialism has beaten back the thinking of foreign races in politics, culture and worldview in initial breakthrough battles. It is in the process of clearing an ever-wider path for it, and it is to be hoped that it will succeed in transforming an environment hostile by nature to the Aryan human being—the medieval and liberalistic environment—back into a biological and nature-lawful environment.

If we succeed in this with united forces, then man will once again be a member of the whole of nature, not only according to science but also according to his vitality and strength, and will escape the ruin that inevitably threatens him due to the constant growth of the mortgage he has taken on from the struggle for existence, and will escape the doom that Spengler, in his great vision, designated as the “Decline of the West,” by systematically amortising the mortgage he has incurred through the Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring.

If you would like to support my work you can donate at Ko-Fi, Buy Me a Coffee or with Bitcoin:

BTC address: bc1qqrthd6es2uckxhgsa2qmx2mmww22vtmw92w4ch

Unfortunately, and like many right-wing movements under the aegis of Trumpian plebeianism, much of this nationalism is a political stillbirth. While politics goes global, as the world awakens to the fight against Zionism and Jewish power — nationalists are quietly backing up, Homer Simpson-style, into the hedge of maudlin historical romanticism and mawkish narrative pablum. One of the worst offenders is US-based group Patriot Front.

“Tyrants with delusions of infinite power have declared the American people too weak to revolt” claims the group’s manifesto. “Our tradition is revolution, and our land is where tyrants come to die.” These so-called tyrants go mysteriously unnamed and, in so doing, Patriot Front falls at the first hurdle in the race for political power.

The German legal theorist Carl Schmitt defined politics as fundamentally oriented toward identifying, confronting and, if necessary, fighting an enemy to preserve a political community’s identity and existence. Thus, in order to do politics one must first define a political enemy against whom to fight in order to advance the interests of one’s political in-group. No enemy, no politics.

Oddly, Patriot Front — an organisation clearly seeking some form of political change in America — claims it isn’t actually doing politics after all. They argue:

“Politics have played a large part in destroying this nation, and it will not be politics that will save us. The State that governs us is wholly resistant to the change that is required to save the nation as it convulses and devours itself with unprecedented corruption.”

The “new resistance” against state tyranny that Patriot Front is offering seems to consist of waiting for the state to devour itself before building a new one on the soil of its rotting carcass. Change is not political but psychological, predicated on a return to the bedrock of traditional morality on which the American nation was originally built:

“To form a new and just State, we must first instill a reformed national spirit within our people — a people free from the vices of the modern world and a people with a fervor to see themselves free.”

It is correct to say that political revolution is predicated on a collective psychology; as Ralph Waldo Emerson stated: “Every revolution was first a thought in one man’s mind…”. However, the spirit of revolution must be the prelude to political praxis, not political praxis per se. Change comes from within but is enacted without.

Patriot Front also claims that in order to survive as a culture, heritage and way of being “our nation must learn that its collective interests are fighting against its collective threats of displacement and enslavement.” Exactly how one does this while avoiding the political is left unexplained.

If there is uncertainty over who Patriot Front is fighting against, there is utter bafflement over who they are fighting for. That the term our people refers to White Americans can only be inferred as the group’s nationalist vision fails to include specific references to race. Who, then, is an American?

“To be an American is to be a descendant of conquerors, pioneers, visionaries, and explorers. This unique identity was given to us by our ancestors, and this national spirit remains firmly rooted in our blood.”

An American is then, one assumes, related in some way to the founding stock, a descendent of the pioneers who laid the foundations of the modern republic with their blood, sweat and bones. The status of other White Americans whose ancestors came to the US after its founding is uncertain. The situation becomes even more confused:

“America is truly unique in this pan-European identity which forms the roots of our nationhood. To be an American is to realize this identity and take up the national struggle upon one’s shoulders. Not simply by birth is one granted this title but by the degree to which he works and fulfills the potential of his birth.”

To be a real American is then to embody the spirit of the pioneers who built the nation and to live in accordance with virtue. Real Americans are members of “a family, a community, a nation, and a race beyond that” except when they do not live up to unspecified standards of struggle at which point they presumably stop being Americans and transmogrify into something else. Kafka would have been proud.

Sitting next to the giant Jewish elephant in Patriot Front’s Americana-bedecked room is a slightly less giant but still dangerous Black elephant. For all the problems that American Blacks present, it is difficult to argue against their status as heritage Americans. One assumes that among the virtuous pioneers to whom Patriot Front so lavishly refers, those who brought African slaves to the continent to build America’s wealth are not included.

When the new American state is magically forged from the virtue of its founding descendants, what of the Blacks and other “foreigners” who remain in their tens of millions? Patriot Front answers thus:

“Those of foreign birth may occupy civil status within the lands occupied by the state, and they may even be dutiful citizens, yet they may not be American. Membership within the American nation is inherited through blood, not ink. Even those born in America may yet be foreign. Nationhood cannot be bestowed upon those who are not of the founding stock of our people, and those who do not share the common spirit that permeates our greater civilization, and the European diaspora.”

Those hoping for mass deportations are left disappointed. Patriot Front’s vision for the new America is in essence the old America but administered by a Platonic elite class of virtuous guardians who have traced their genetic lineage back to the founding stock. In this ambitious vision, the novi homines of America — paragons of pioneer spirit — might still get killed by an Indian truck driver or have their throats cut by a schizophrenic Black on the subway. The spirit of America might have changed but not the potential for random violence.

It is not only the material conditions in Patriot Front’s new America which remain unaltered. The rhetorical ecosystem — centred on Americans’ God-given liberties and freedoms — also survives:

“Collective Liberty is the freedom our people must share from the forces which seek nothing less than our binding and unconditional submission.”

Rather than create a sui generis mythos for a new America, Patriot Front is attempting to resuscitate the sclerotic corpse of US democracy and set its toxic brand back on its feet. Not only is the world at large growing weary of American freedom, so are most Americans. For the latter it is the rhetorical cover for an increasingly oppressive state architecture and militarised police force; for the former it is the rhetorical cover for your local girls school being blown up.

If, as Patriot Front argues, “America as we know it is already dead or will not survive” then why seek to clutch desperately at the tattered threads of its myths like a child whose comfort blanket is being blown away in the wind? Central to the American pioneer spirit was the forging of a new nation, not the perpetuation of a dying old one.

If the promises of “an era of rebirth” and “the beginning of a new chapter” are to be realised then what is required is a novel and clearly articulated vision for the future which captures the collective imagination. This is one of the reasons why the Jewish rebranding of America as a nation of immigrants eventually won the day.

Patriot Front’s is the Hellraiser puzzle of political manifestos — a mystery box of ancient allusions and symbols which, if cracked, summons one into the realm of a perpetual American nightmare. The torture method is an eternal reading: a never-ending struggle to untangle the meaning of its twisted syntax and agonised archaism.

The core affliction of Patriot Front’s “grand vision” is the performative nature of the group’s politics — a symbolic gesture towards the political rather than a materialised movement within it. Patriot Front is an embodied contradiction: a group presenting itself as a rugged fighting force for political change whose stated political positions are rooted in a cowardly reticence to offend against the received moral paradigm of American conservatism. Hence, the pretzel logic of avoiding the term White to describe European Americans in order to placate conservatives to whom they appeal for help in realising their pro-White-in-all-but-name national renewal. Surely a pioneer spirit would demand being openly pro-White and expecting cowardly conservatives to fall in line.

Patriot Front’s failure to identify those for whom they seek political power is matched by their failure to identify those from whom they seek to take it. The group argues that “[n]o foreign state waved its banner on the halls of governance.” Yes they did — the flag of Jewish power was raised decades ago and if one seeks the admirable goal of an America run by and for its European peoples then it is from the Jews that power must be taken back.

Patriot Front’s performative nationalism is anti-politics — it is to react to our increasingly hyper-politicised milieu as the turtle does to the threat of a predator: hunker down into the comfortable safety of the familiar.

Securing a future for European nations cannot be, and should not be, achieved unless and until Jewish power has been defeated. National victories can only follow from a global victory — the ultimate victory — against international Zionism. A just European state cannot be built on the bodies of Palestinians who are abandoned to their fate by the so-called new virtuous Americans. Patriot Front would do well to remember that Aryan denotes honour.

Patriot Front’s vision for American — a solipsistic and sepia-toned retrenchment into petty nationalism and received political dogma — is not a bold pioneering step into the political battle but a retreat from it.

If you would like to support my work you can donate at Ko-Fi, Buy Me a Coffee or with Bitcoin:

BTC address: bc1qqrthd6es2uckxhgsa2qmx2mmww22vtmw92w4ch

The following is a translation of an article which first appeared in Nationalsozialistische Monatshefte (National Socialist Monthly) in October 1935. The author argues that Nordic art follows an internally consistent, racially determined lawfulness that prioritises abstract ornament over natural imitation. This artistic will transformed foreign motifs into a dynamic, energetic expression of a Nordic worldview rooted in defiance of fate while still a subject to its power. The author argues that Nordic art sought not beauty or realism, but the embodiment of an eternal, restless spirit through line and form.

“Art and Race of the North”

By Dr. E. G. Troche

Perhaps the most impressive testimony to the inner, racially determined lawfulness of Nordic art is that, after a development lasting many centuries from the same source, a new art emerged which not only loved to draw upon the newly created spiritual content of the Stone and Bronze Ages, but also made use in its forms of an ornamental mode of expression that corresponded to the Nordic spirit.

It is only one of the apparent coincidences of history (for such do not exist) that bronze remained the leading material for so long, until the art practiced upon it had, as in the Stone Age, been exhausted to its final possibilities, and that only then did the new material, iron, achieve its victory. Iron, however, is in itself an unartistic substance, which must first be made suitable for ornament through complicated technical processes (etching, inlaying, plating). Thus it came about that, since the beginning of the Iron Age, art separated itself from the utilitarian object, which, however, contradicted Nordic artistic will.

At the same time, southern cultures developed such dominance during that period that their industrial products were readily imported, and it took centuries before the Nordic creative spirit had so far assimilated the new forms that it could build an independent art upon them. Then metal casting again became prominent — not the conspicuously avoided forging technique of the North, nor the cell mosaic, which became the actual art of the North in the Iron Age — but rather the unity of ornament and bearer was restored, without which ornament cannot be conceived as art.

This inseparable connection of “pure” art with its function must now certainly not be evaluated with the terms “applied art” or “craft.” It is precisely characteristic of a time in which, above all in the exemplary southern cultures, these factors had long been separated. “Applied art” would imply a subordinate relationship and a binding to purpose. Yet this binding was already known to the art of the Bronze Age, and even more so it was no longer present in the highly developed art of the Iron Age. Its relation to the object is therefore inseparable, because it attaches itself to the essence of its bearer, through which it expresses something and thereby, as it were, forms the spirit into a body.

This task can only be fulfilled by an abstract, not a naturalistic, ornament. The same spirit that binds this ornament to its bearer can also be transferred to the relationship of art to its creators. As the Germans projected the impulses of their will, the stirrings of their soul — certainly unconsciously — into them, so too they did not feel that art was called merely to produce purely aesthetic effects, but undoubtedly demanded from it a definite efficacy. Whether this extended to mere ornamentation, to the elevation of religious symbols, to the depiction of demons, or to the ethical, is in principle of equal importance. What matters is the enduring, more deeply rooted character of this art: despite all its freedom, it expresses a feeling of belonging to a higher unity — in a word, to its own worldview — namely, this characteristically Nordic total attitude, according to which all being and becoming have value only in terms of contemplation and creation.

It is therefore characteristic that the North Germans only again developed casting in metal at a relatively late stage, a method that permits no separation between form and object, before they selected from the endless stream of forms coming from the South and then combined them with their own sense of form.

This Nordic art of the Iron Age, which only from about the 6th century AD onward bears an independent Nordic character, is collectively — by no means exhaustively —called animal ornamentation. Its development takes place on the splendid garment fasteners, the so-called fibulae, on discs and mounts, shield bosses and sword fittings, and above all in wood carving, which for the most part has fallen victim to time.

From the very beginning it feels no attachment to the functional form of the objects, and thus we see, especially on the fibulae, how the surfaces are expanded solely for their ornamentation to such an extent that behind them the functional form — in this case the pin — can no longer be seen at all.

In the art of “animal ornamentation,” what is decisive is not the adoption of animal forms, but rather the manner in which they are employed. The origin of the animal motifs is to be sought outside the Nordic cultural sphere. Nevertheless, the North could not have adopted these forms had there not been a certain predisposition; indeed, already at the end of the Bronze Age the intrusion of animal forms into the “vegetative” world of bronze art can be demonstrated.

What remains important and characteristic is only what Nordic art has made out of these new elements. Here we observe the same development proceeding from objective considerations as in earlier periods. For example, in the fibulae the forms are first divided in a clear structure, with emphasis on the edges and nodes, linear and tectonically articulated; then the animal heads and bodies attach themselves to the edges and are finally incorporated into the surface and there broken down ornamentally. Not the adoption of animals, but their integration into the surface, their fragmentation and denaturalisation in a Nordic-ornamental sense, are what is characteristic.

Only when the animals have grown together and become interwoven within the surface, and, independently of their organic, naturalistic form, lead to an abstract, ideal linear pattern — only then has animal ornamentation reached its classical, namely genuinely Nordic, height. These highly developed, carefully conceived, and complex interlacings are not formless; they follow very definite laws of construction and of mutual relation, and even in their most complicated formations can still be reduced to their originally organic components.

What is Nordic in this ornamentation, however, is precisely the solution: the negation of natural representation, its transformation into movement and energy, which in a higher, spiritual form reflects the feeling for nature and life of the Nordic human being. Natural form is the means; the end is the force-directed movement in the service of the overarching unity.

That this new linear art bears such a particularly passionate character should not surprise us, for it arose in the time of the great migrations, when the fighting spirit of the races drove itself to unprecedented feats of will, conquered lands, and filled them with Nordic spirit, giving them above all a new cultural impulse. From the heroic spirit of this time — victorious for the sake of its own right to live and animated by the ambition to conquer new living space spiritually as well — the impetuous dynamism of the Migration-period art, animated by sovereign spirit, surely drew a large part of its strength.

At the same time, animal ornamentation at the height of its development retains that order and discipline which connects it with the classical stages of the Stone and Bronze Ages. It preserves the character of its material, whose forms it accompanies and interprets spiritually. The ornaments are often symmetrical, or they follow one another in rhythmic, endlessly continuing sequence, which has rightly been compared to the alliterative verse of Germanic and Old High German poetry.

The most perfect form of abstract logic is achieved in the “whorls” of the disc fibulae and sword fittings, in which a ceaseless rotation — passing over from one form into another — attains the highest formal unity through a powerful rhythm. The will toward order and law governs, at the first stage, even this intensified movement; and only in the second stage of this art do the animal motifs interlace anew and stretch into inorganic bands, which, asymmetrically intertwined, now lead a completely independent life.

Only in this late “interlaced band ornamentation” — whose parallels in the Stone Age are the zigzag band, and in the Bronze Age the wave band — does the ornament become autonomous and allow its force to flow freely. The animal bodies finally disappear entirely in a dissolution without rule; irregularly broad bands form a looser interlace pattern. This development is confined exclusively to the North Germanic region; it is again characteristic, as a late phase, of the Nordic spirit just as much as the more forceful but, by comparison, still more restrained movement of the earlier stage.

This exuberance and unrestrainedness does not, as we see, represent the sole possibility of Nordic artistic spirit, but rather one among them — and indeed a typically late one. In its younger epochs, Nordic art has something more cautious about it; it holds itself back in stricter objectivity and makes use of the force contained within it for purposeful progress. Yet both sides are equally infused with strength — indeed, in their restraint perhaps even more heroic. In the later phases, the stirrings of emotion come to expression; the unbridled creative drive develops into a kind of “Viking-ism of the spirit” (the Vikings themselves are also a late manifestation of the spirit of the Migration period).

This uninhibited, consistent thinking through of the principle offers for later times a striking parallel to the speculative and scientific — and indeed also the musical — talent of the race (cf. Pinder, The Generational Sequence of the Arts). Admittedly, the final refinement already carries within it the germ of dissolution; but such late phases are the most independent and most creative of the Nordic spirit, and in their overflowing wealth of ideas act like a defiance against their fateful end.

Not in the expansion of its possible applications, but in the pursuit of the artistic principle has the Nordic artistic will unfolded. We must always keep in view the entirely different aim of the southern peoples — directed toward the grasping of existing nature and the representation of a lawful, corporeal beauty — in order to appreciate the distinctiveness and greatness of Nordic art. Nordic art does not seek imitation, nor beauty as such. It does not receive its content from something external, from what confronts human perception, but from the inner essence of things, from the soul of human beings and of nature, which are felt as closely connected, indeed as essentially one and the same (one may think of the Germanic cult of the gods). To the Norse, even Wotan himself was subject to fate. If death was destined for a man, then he wished at least to meet it in battle and to seek it in an honourable way.

The rebellion against a demonic fate is a fundamental trait of the Nordic race, from which, among the Greeks, the mighty tragedies emerged, and which in the North is symbolised through this truly dramatic art. The rising and falling of its directed, aspiring, turning, and again newly strengthened lines and bands — checked at times by other forces — struggles against a fateful power that repeatedly compels them back into its course. At times these are ordered, at times impetuous forms, yet always they seek to be understood as forces, just as the figures of Greek drama are not ordinary human beings but rather lonely souls who, in defiance of fate, accomplish something superhuman.

In the Nordic belief in fate, we must seek the key to the peculiarly abstract — indeed nature-opposed — artistic will of the Germanic peoples. Whoever sees in the decree of fate an unchangeable determination, which must be accepted even with clenched teeth, cannot in the world grasp the unique, mortal phenomenon, but must perceive the higher order — the continuity through time — as the enduring and truly real.

Since the Germanic peoples did not base themselves on the individual but on the kin, on inherited property of the soil, on the purity of the tribe, they could not, in art, take singular, transient things as symbols; rather, they had to seek to represent the eternal, the never-resting spirit that continues through its forces, in the unceasing flow of lines of an abstract ornamental language.

Thus this art becomes a document of the worldview of the Germanic peoples, who —like the philosophy of Plato (this “typically Nordic philosophy”) — seek reality in the “ideas” behind visible things. Greek art, too, so long as it was shaped by the Greeks, did not lose its idealistic tendency despite all southern devotion to beauty and imitation of nature.

Certainly, belief in an unchangeable fate also exists in the world of Islam, which therefore became hostile to images and even produced, in many respects, an ornamental art strikingly similar to Nordic ornamentation. However, the oriental attitude toward fate is one of fatalistic submission; it lacks defiance and heroic resistance, and its ornamentation therefore always returns into itself.

Only the Nordic Germanic peoples created a supernatural, spiritually dynamic art directed against fate and yet governed by its enduring law, and therefore they have embodied the restless spirit as something permanent. Their own destiny, however, contains a Nordic tragedy, like the flight of Icarus. In its deliberate limitation to lines and rods, Germanic art sought to express the whole essence of its race and to say everything that can be said about Nordic being in lines. Even in its final phase, this art, as in the earlier epoch, lived out its possibilities to the utmost limit. Its end, however, makes any higher and more developed artistic language seem inconceivable.

In Norway and Iceland, where the consciously Nordic artists withdrew in defiance of Christianity, this art continued to flourish for a long time and, albeit already mixed, left significant works in the stave church art and even in the woodcarvings of the Norwegian farms (Oseberg ship, Urnes stave church portal). In the south as well, the migrating peoples long adhered to their art and, in any case, used it to newly fertilise the weary Late Antiquity. In Spain, the Visigoths; in Italy, the Ostrogoths, and especially later the Lombards, left works in which, characteristically, the ornamentation alone reveals the purest Germanic spirit (Tomb of Theodoric, churches in Pavia and Cividale, Santa Maria de Taranco, San Miguel de Lino, and many others).

The penetration of Christianity and the founding of the German Empire steered art into entirely new, broader, but initially unfamiliar paths. The blending of the German tribes took place under foreign influences and severe struggles, as the tragedy of the race — which first had to be forced into imperial formation — demanded.

The new develops under completely different conditions, but soon and repeatedly the creative race breaks through and determines a German art that, in its typical course, is most deeply related to the Germanic.

If you would like to support my work you can donate at Ko-Fi, Buy Me a Coffee or with Bitcoin:

BTC address: bc1qqrthd6es2uckxhgsa2qmx2mmww22vtmw92w4ch

Anne Frank is the personification of Jewish suffering. The use of her diary in schools functions not only to build sympathy for Jews but to inoculate young people against the “disease” of anti-semitism and instil antipathy towards National Socialist Germany — a proxy for Europeans writ large. The diary is the central text in the ‘Holocaust’ canon.

Many texts in that canon — like Elie Wiesel’s Night — skirt the porous boundary between first-person historical narrative and fiction. However, the veracity of The Diary of Anne Frank is generally accepted unquestioningly. With more than 30-million copies of the book sold worldwide, few would even dare to blaspheme against St. Anne by accommodating critical questions over her diary’s verisimilitude. Of all the foundational stories propping up the ‘Holocaust’ edifice, Anne Frank’s may be the last to fall.

Annelies Marie Frank was born in Frankfurt, Germany, on June 12, 1929, the youngest of two daughters. Anne Frank’s parents Otto and Edith led a conventional middle-class Jewish life with the primary income coming from her father’s small business. Following Hitler’s ascendency to power in Germany in 1933, the family fled to Amsterdam in The Netherlands where Anne Frank attended school and learned Dutch.

Germany’s invasion of The Netherlands in 1940 forced Dutch Jews to adopt a low profile and eventually the Franks, with another Jewish family and a Jewish dentist called Dussel, went into hiding in the annex of Otto’s office building where they remained for two years. To the sceptic, concealing yourself in your own office building might seem a rather questionable tactic. Another odd fact about these living arrangements is that Anne supposedly slept in the same room as Dussel the dentist.

In 1944, the Frank family was discovered and deported to Westerbork labour camp, and then to Auschwitz where Otto was separated from his wife and children. The two Frank daughters were sent to the Bergen-Belsen labour camp in October 1944. There the typhus epidemic would claim the lives of Anne, then 15, and her sister who are thought to have died in February or March 1945.

According to the official story, Anne Frank was given her first diary — a red and white notebook — on her 13th birthday (June 12, 1942). She began her diary on June 14 and subsequently made entries daily, weekly, or more sporadically, with the final entry made three days before the family was arrested on August 1, 1944.1

Anne Frank supposedly wrote two versions of her diary, referred to as versions “A” and “B”.2 The A version is the authentic version, the “original” hand-written red and white diary in which Anne Frank recorded her experiences. This “A” version is the only one that a reasonable person would consider a “diary” in the usual sense, with contemporaneous hand-written entries made by an author describing real-world events.

This red-and-white “A” diary was used for six months up until December 5, 1942, covering the family’s time before hiding and five months after. Anne Frank stopped making entries on this date despite the notebook still having blank pages.3 A year later on December 22, 1943, Anne Frank then supposedly restarted her diary in a different notebook — a school exercise book (of which no photograph exists). During this gap, Anne Frank either stopped writing completely or continued to write a diary in another book which did not survive.

This school exercise book was used for four months until April 17, 1944, after which Anne Frank switched to a third notebook (of which no photograph exists) until the final entry in August 1944. Therefore, the authentic “A” diary runs over three different physical notebooks with a year gap. The original red and white notebook is on display at the Anne Frank House in Amsterdam but the other two are not accessible.

According to the official narrative, in May 1944 Anne Frank decided to rewrite her diary.4 On May 20 — contemporaneous to her finishing the “A” version in the third notebook — Anne Frank began writing a “B” version of the diary, rewriting every single diary entry beginning in June 1942 on a series of loose sheets of paper, all of which survived. Entries in this “B” version cover the year-long gap in the original “A” version.

Anne Frank allegedly began the rewrite after hearing a Dutch radio broadcast calling for people to save their personal diaries and correspondence as a record of their wartime experiences.5 Anne Frank wrote excitedly about the possibility of publishing a “romance of the Secret Annex” which in the definitive version of the diary has turned into “a novel about the Secret Annex”.6 In her revised diary, Anne Frank changed various details — including the names of the people she was hiding with — and rearranged and consolidated entries.7 The rewritten version of the diary is clearly a novelisation of the “original”.

After the end of the war, Anne’s father Otto Frank — having miraculously not been gassed at Auschwitz — took over the reins of the famous diary. On returning to Amsterdam, Otto Frank obtained his daughter’s notebooks and loose sheet rewrites from a former employee. After reading them, he typed up a copy (Typescript 0) which he lost. He then created another copy (Typescript I) over which he exercised “considerable editorial discretion”8 — omitting entries he considered unworthy and conflating others. Otto Frank then sent Typescript I to a journalist friend Albert Cauvern who suggested various “improvements” and “amplifications”.9 Strangely, another version of Typescript I has hand-written markups made by someone other than Cauvern. In 1946, a revised version of Typescript I was created called Typescript II.

This version was then circulated among Otto Frank’s Jewish associates who unsuccessfully sought out a publisher. One of those associates, encyclopaedia editor Jan Romein, published a short article about the diary in April 1946 which does not mention Anne Frank by name but simply describes the author as “a Jewish girl”.10 Romein wrote that the text of the diary reveals the writer’s insight into the human condition — an astonishing achievement for a 13/14-year-old girl trapped in an attic.

This article attracted the attention of publishers including a Dutch company called Contact. The publishers worked from Typescript II and made further alterations including the correction of typing errors and stylistic changes. Of these changes, the 2003 revised critical edition of the diary states that:

“[T]he reader was left with a literary work by Anne Frank rather than with an autobiographical document sensu strictu.”11

A less generous description would be a literary fraud. The first publication of the diary — called Het Achterhuis (The Dark House) — was released in Dutch in 1947. There followed a German translation of Typescript II for which an even greater degree of editorialising was exercised. The German version was published in 1950 under the title Das Tagebuch der Anne Frank.

In the same year, an English translation of the original Dutch publication was commissioned. This English translation is referred to as version “C”. Anne Frank’s original notebook writings are called version “A” and the loose-sheet copy version “B”. The 2003 revised critical edition of the diary contains all three versions side-by-side. To complicate matters even further, the 1991 definitive English edition The Diary of a Young Girl, edited by Otto Frank and Mirjam Pressler, is different from all three of these versions.

There is a weighty assumption in the preceding history: that Annelies Marie Frank even wrote a diary in the first place. Central to the alternative version of Anne Frank’s diary is the Jewish writer and former US intelligence agent Meyer Levin.

There is little doubt that Anne Frank’s father Otto was closely involved in the creation of the diary as we know it today. However, the writing style of the diary — based on Typescript II — is advanced and exhibits “a deep sense of culture, insight, and sometimes intense Jewishness”.12 By his own admission, Otto Frank did not have a strong Jewish identity and was apparently a rather patriotic German.13 Otto Frank was neither a professional writer nor even a dilettante; no other written works of his have been found. There was, however, a person in his orbit who had both the literary ability and intense Jewish identity required to produce such a work.

Meyer Levin was born in Chicago to Jewish emigré parents in 1905. He earned his doctorate in 1924 and received the National Jewish Book Award in 1966 and 1967. As a young man he moved to Palestine to live on a kibbutz and in a later book The Obsession describes himself as a Zionist, a socialist Jew and a victim of anti-semitism.14

As a journalist, Levin worked as an editor and film critic for Esquire magazine before covering the Spanish Civil War. He later moved to Hollywood and during The Second World War worked for the US government’s Office of War Information producing propaganda films. He also spent time in England with the Psychological Warfare Division.

Levin’s fictional output is heavily inspired by his Jewishness. A 1947 screenplay called My Father’s House recounts the life of a 10-year-old ‘Holocaust’ victim called David who was separated from his father in Nazi-occupied Poland. Following the end of the war, David travels to Palestine to find his father only to be informed on the way that his parents had been murdered by the National Socialists.

Another of Levin’s works — Kibbutz Buchenwald — is based on his experience at the Buchenwald camp when it was “liberated” by US troops in April 1945. A group of former inmates created a Jewish commune on a farm close to the former camp site at which a young couple supposedly kept a Hebrew diary of their experience.15 Levin then allegedly acquired, translated and published the diary in English. Much of the prose of this diary is highly literary and political.16 One passage reads:

“In a secret spot deep in the woods, in a place where normal, empty folk never penetrate, we eleven stars came together, and in a historic moment we created our society of the falling stars.”17

Levin’s body of work is of a piece — quasi-documentary style films and pseudo-journal style propaganda texts promoting Zionism and Jewish interests more broadly.

In the official version of the Anne Frank story, Otto Frank appointed Levin as his literary agent in the US in 1952. Levin was determined to write and produce a play about Anne Frank, and his association with Otto implies some kind of working relationship. Levin tried and failed to find a producer for the project and so Otto granted the rights to the play to another Jewish producer Kermit Bloomgarden who then contracted screenwriters Albert Hackett and Frances Goodrich to dramatise the diary for the stage. The play debuted in 1955 to rave reviews.

Furious, Meyer Levin sued Otto Frank and Bloomgarden for plagiarism and breach of contract. In 1958, Levin was awarded $50,000 in damages but this judgement was overturned on appeal, prompting him to seek restitution via a Jewish board of elders in New York. Eventually Otto Frank was compelled to pay Levin $15,000 in damages but this did not quench the fire of hatred between the two.

Another possible version of this story has Levin, following the muted success of Kibbutz Buchenwald, searching around post-war Europe for a compelling story of Jewish suffering. Through his Jewish networks he stumbles upon the Frank family and makes Otto an offer he can’t refuse: to resurrect his daughter in dramatic diary form. Meyer’s first draft — Typescript I — is sent to Otto for review and then to Albert Cauvern. There follows Typescript II, and then in time the Dutch, German and English publications. The job of creating the original diaries — the notebooks and loose-sheets — might have been delegated to a young female acquaintance of Levin.

This version of the story would explain the appointment of Levin as Otto Frank’s literary agent and account for the compositional maturity and quality of the published diary.18 Although the initial legal dispute between the two played out in open court, the final resolution was sought within the safe confines of the Jewish community. Despite the enmity between Frank and Levin, maintaining the secrecy of the project took precedence. Both men died in the early 1980s (Levin in Jerusalem) leaving only speculation as to the actual provenance of Anne Frank’s famous diary.

The literary quality of the original notebook diary entries — the “A” version — might not strike a reasonable person as emanating from the pen of a 13/14-year-old girl. One entry of February 23, 1944 reads:

“And I believe that nature sets all fear at rest for every trouble, even when there are bombs or gunfire. Oh, who knows, perhaps it won’t be long before I can share this overwhelming feeling of bliss with Peter.”19

The Peter referred to here is the son of the van Pels family who were hiding with the Franks. Peter later becomes Anne’s lover in the diary. The theme of love — or sexual desire — is another point of contention, as is the explicit language supposedly used by a young girl to describe her body. One passage from the original diary reads:

“The little hole underneath is so terribly small that I simply can’t imagine how a man can get in there, let alone how a whole baby can get out. The hole is so small that you can’t even put your index finger in, not easily anyway. That’s all it is and yet it plays such an important role!”20

Strangely, this and any other similar explicit passages did not make it into the later version of the notes.

In his critique of hyper-capitalism, the French philosopher Jean Baudrillard coined the concept of the simulacrum to describe the nature of our media-saturated existence within modernity. The simulacrum refers to a copy without an original — a representation that has replaced, and become more real than, the reality it supposedly represents.

He argues that in our postmodern societies, images and signs have evolved through three orders. In the first order, the simulacrum is a clear counterfeit of reality; it imitates an original but acknowledges the original’s authority as in a person’s portrait. In the second order, mass production of identical copies severs any ties to a unique original. In the third order, the simulacrum precedes and determines reality; signs refer only to other signs, creating a closed system. The real is now no longer distinguishable from the simulation.

With The Diary of Anne Frank we have arrived at the hyperreal, an experience of pure simulation in which the real has been entirely eclipsed by mythological media spectacle. Annelies Marie Frank — a Jewish girl who may or may not have written a diary — has been replaced by the hyperreal Anne Frank, the writer of the most famous diary the world has ever known.

For those who stand opposed to our current political paradigm, the great task before us is to traverse the landscape of the hyperreal and seek out a homeland of truth. To clear a path, the myth of Anne Frank requires deconstruction.

If you would like to support my work you can donate at Ko-Fi, Buy Me a Coffee or with Bitcoin:

BTC address: bc1qqrthd6es2uckxhgsa2qmx2mmww22vtmw92w4ch

Holocaust Questions I: Death by Diesel Exhaust

Holocaust Questions II: The Six Million

Holocaust Questions III: Piles of Shoes

Holocaust Questions IV: Gas Chambers (1)

Holocaust Questions IV: Gas Chambers (2)

Holocaust Questions V: Mud Diamonds

Holocaust Questions VI: Piles of Bodies

Holocaust Inversion: The Serpent Eats Itself

The following is a translation of an article which first appeared in Nationalsozialistische Monatshefte (National Socialist Monthly) in October 1938. The article outlines the capture of French institutions by Jews before the outbreak of The Second World War, precipitated by the deracinated nature of French antisemitism. It argues that the revival of Catholicism in France — with its universalist appeals and brotherly Judeophilia — was directed primarily against the threat of an ideological anti-Jewish Germany.

“Jews and Catholics in France”

By Dr. Waltherd Vernunft

For about a year now, publications dealing with the Jewish question have been increasing on the French book market. Without doubt, the solution to this question in Germany on the one hand, and the growing Jewish immigration and the open or covert parasitic activity in France on the other, have brought this topic into the focus of public interest. However, nothing has yet been said about the direction and effect of the public discussion. The question recently posed — Will we become anti-Semites? — remains, for the time being, merely a book title.

At the beginning of this year, the book Bagatelles pour un Massacre [Trifles for a Massacre] by Louis-Ferdinand Céline1 appeared, in which this well-known writer reveals himself as a critic and polemicist of great stature. With a surprising vehemence and a boldness unusual in France, he attacks the Jewish “parasite” in his extensive work. For the effect produced by this book, it is irrelevant whether Céline is correct in everything or whether he is guilty of various distortions and exaggerations. However, by pushing his passionate polemic against the Jewish “poison” far beyond its target, he cannot, for example, reproach Louis XIV and Racine for being “Jewish in nature”; he distances himself from the natural ground upon which the attack can be carried out — namely, from a clear definition of Jewry and from a consciously völkisch demarcation from it. In doing so, he gave all opponents — Jews and friends of Jews — the opportunity to have his work judged negatively by the broader reading public.

Characteristic of this is the review the book received in the widely read, yet thoroughly liberal literary weekly Les Nouvelles Littéraires. The review is titled “Rabelais reborn,” and the reviewer, the journalist Francis de Miomandre, contents himself with pointing out that echoes of Rabelais2 can be heard throughout Céline’s work. The rare linguistic brilliance, the richness and vividness of expression are praised; vulgarities and distorted words are excused with reference to Rabelais as concessions to the reader’s taste; but not a word is said about the factual content of the book, and no position is taken.

The book had two kinds of effects in the national-liberal, bourgeois world, which still largely represents what is truly France. Either one became enthusiastic about the fighting spirit of the author, admired him — perhaps out of a sense of status — for his courage and audacity, but ultimately allowed the book to remain merely a literary event, even with a certain ironic pride that only in France such a sharply exaggerated polemic could be possible without disturbing public order. Or one believed, as a highly civilised person of tone and speech, that above all the intolerance toward the Jew must be rejected as a relapse into barbarism. Only a few voices were raised to carry forward Céline’s unique warning. That under these circumstances the counteroffensive immediately initiated by Jewish circles was successful is easy to understand. In the Jewish publishing house Calmann-Lévy, a new edition soon appeared of a work long since outdated in content, Israël et les Nations [Israel and the Nations] from the year 1893, along with others before and after it, all of which — whether appealing to the greatness, the tragedy, and the mission of the Jewish people, or to the humanity and generosity of the host nation — served the same purpose. Céline, however, paid for his daring with the loss of his position as a doctor in Clichy.

That Céline and other champions have little prospect of being heard in public means, conversely, that one may draw a clear conclusion about the present degree of Judaisation in France.

The first strong reaction to Jewish emancipation beginning with the Revolution was the national movement of the Dreyfus Affair, to which the theorist of antisemitism, Édouard Drumont, contributed not insignificantly with his book La France Juive [Jewish France]. But the focus soon shifted. Through skilful manoeuvring and by exploiting the advancing anticlericalism, interested circles succeeded in diverting attention from the core problem and in building up the Dreyfus Affair into a spiritually divisive conflict that shook the unity of the nation. When the Jewish captain Dreyfus was rehabilitated, this symbolically meant that the völkisch consciousness had been defeated: nothing now stood in the way of an unchecked expansion of Jewry.

During the World War, the Jew — as also in Germany — knew how to revive the myth of the sacrificial devotion of the Jewish soldier and to secure for himself the “love” of his “fatherland.” With the drift toward national politics, with the increasing urgency of social distress — which seemed to concern only the individual parties — the Jew and, in his wake, Freemasonry gained ever greater scope for action, until finally in 1934, under the sign of the Popular Front, the great experiment was dared: to allow a Jew to rise to the head of the government.

Even though Léon Blum3 has since resigned as head of government, this does not at all signify a defeat of Jewish power. It was, as stated, an attempt to test one’s own strength and at the same time to conquer new positions. It was an attempt to infiltrate the French people’s still somewhat existing defensive forces. We know today that this undertaking has succeeded. Blum remains, as leader of the great governing party of the Socialists (SFIO), decisively influential for national events. Alongside him already sit four Jews in the government, quite apart from the staffs of the individual cabinets, in which the percentage of Jews rose enormously during the Popular Front government. Léon Blum, Mendes-France, Jules Moch, Minister of Education Jean Zay, and Colonial Minister Georges Mandel (Jeroboam Rothschild-Mandelsohn) prove that Jewry has reached its peak. A recovery is completely impossible so long as one works with a liberal majority, with the numerical majority in parliament. Thus the situation is all the clearer, as at the same time Freemasonry has expanded its power. Alongside Blum stood during the Popular Front period the Freemason Camille Chautemps at the head of the government.

It is almost superfluous to point out that big capital is, for the most part, in the hands of Jewish or Masonic circles. Dependence on high finance becomes evident throughout public life — in the parties, in the press, in economic circles and social organisations, and not least in the cultural life of the nation. Certain groups are crystallisation points of Jewish influence in events. Thus, the parliamentary faction of the Socialists counts 20–30 Jews among its members, among them all the most prominent: Blum, Moch, Grumbach, Zyromski. The same names appear among the staff of Le Populaire, the official organ of the SFIO. According to a note in the nationalist weekly Gringoire of 13 May 1938, those working for Le Populaire include: Blum, Rosenfeld, Jean-Maurice Herrmann, Marie-Louise Herrmann, Moch, Zyromski, Weil-Reynal, Cohen-Adria, Goldschild, Serge Moati, Nicolitch, Liebermann, Schlesinger, Julius Deutsch, Angelo Tasca (called André Leroux), Frossard, Hirsch, Hermann, Raney, Schiffrin, Runnemann, F. Wreschbourg, Betty Brunschvicg and Maurice Hirschovits.

Nothing need be said about the Jewish share in the Communist Party of France. In recent years, the Communists have received with open arms Jews who emigrated or fled from Germany. Their organ, L’Humanité, was founded in 1904 by eleven Jewish and only one non-Jewish capitalist. Ce Soir, founded in 1937 by the Communists against the major evening paper Paris-Soir, and like L’Humanité financially supported by the Comintern, names as its director Louis Aragon and among its staff Bloch.

The Radical and Radical-Socialist Party is the stronghold of Freemasonry. The most prominent Freemason in its ranks is the former Prime Minister and current Vice President Chautemps.

The influential international pacifist League for Human Rights has as its president the Jew Victor Basch. The International League Against Antisemitism (LICA) is led by Bernard Lecache. In these and other small leagues, Jews who have emigrated from all parts of the world find the warmest reception. As an example of the high degree of Judaisation of state and public life, we finally cite from the major Paris press: the editor-in-chief of L’Intransigeant, Gallus (the pen name of Louis Lazarus); the owner of the nationalist Figaro, the Romanian Jew Cotnareanu; and the director of the political weekly Aux Écoutes, Paul Lévy.

The leading economic newspaper L’Information is said to be financially dependent on the Jewish banking house Lazare. Given the usual concealment of financial actions, especially in the press, one is often forced in the question of the origin of capital to rely on assumptions that may frequently even be surpassed by reality.

To decompose the life of a nation in its entirety is among the primary principles of international Jewry. Without intellectual and psychological preparation, political action would be denied to it. In intellectual-cultural life it finds the point of application to influence public opinion and the judgment of the individual in a lasting way. As before, in France the share of the roughly 350,000 Jews in cultural and scientific life is so strong as in the years since the World War. Among the most prominent philosophers — without whose work philosophical discourse in France would today be impossible — are Jews such as Bergson, Brunschvicg, Lévy-Bruhl, Meyerson, Durkheim, G. Milhaud, Politzer and Baruzi. Among important literary critics are J. R. Bloch, Daniel Halévy, Gustave Cohen and Louis Lazarus. Renowned contemporary writers include: Julien Benda, André Maurois, Marcel Proust (d. 1922), René Schwob, André Spire and Kistemakers. André Maurois is not only a popular novelist, but also — because of his services to and the spread of the English image in France — a Commander of the Order of the British Empire, and has recently been elected as an “Immortal” to the Académie Française.

Even more pronounced is the Judaisation where, alongside literary activity, advertising and commercial skill play a role. The recently deceased literary critic Albert Thibaudet already pointed out that the French theatre had for decades been completely Judaised. At the top of theater programs stand the plays of Henry Bernstein, Porto-Riche, Zola, Francis de Croisset (François Wiener), Romain Coolus, Alfred Savoir and Kistemakers. Characteristic of the present condition of the theatre is its ownership structure: no fewer than twelve theatres in Paris have Jewish directors or owners. It is not without irony that the advocate of revolutionary socialist ideas, the Théâtre du Peuple, recently moved from the Théâtre Sarah-Bernhardt to the Théâtre Pigalle. Since Pigalle belongs to Baron Rothschild, the representatives of the “people” have thus found their way to Jewish high finance. The opening piece at the Théâtre Pigalle was Le Foyer, a satire written by Octave Mirbeau and performed by the Théâtre Antoine. The content of this rather tasteless drama is the life and activity of the fashionable world, presented to the worker in a caricatured and distorted form, while at the same time diverting his attention from the machinations of his own “leaders.”

Like the stages, most Parisian cinemas are also in Jewish hands. In this year the Jews are reaping the harvest. Paris presents itself as one of the metropolises of world Jewry, after several major film palaces have recently opened here. The reader now finds in almost all major daily newspapers, among the announcements of current films, about two Yiddish films daily, whereas German films, for example, are hardly advertised anymore. Yet it is even more remarkable that the operation of Parisian “nightlife” is carried out by Jews. At the music halls, which Parisians were once so proud of, Marie Dubas, Mireille, Lysauty and Pills — all Jews — now perform.

Most dangerous is certainly the Jewish foreign infiltration of French radio. The private stations Radio-Cité, Radio 37, and the Poste Parisien belong to Bleustein, Gémon and Grünebaum. However, the activities of Georges Mandel as Post and Telegraph Minister, and after him Léon Blum as Prime Minister, have primarily resulted in a foreign infiltration of the state stations with Jews. In its issue of May 13, 1935, the nationalist weekly Je Suis Partout provides a list of contributors to state broadcasters. Accordingly, in the Superior Council, five Jews sit on the literary section, five Jews on the musical section. The Economic and Social Department includes Georges Cobens-Salvador and Grünebaum-Ballin, the brother-in-law of Léon Blum; the News Department includes Georges Boris. The most frequently played composers are: Darius Milhaud (on average once in every three concerts), Arthur Honegger, Reynaldo Hahn, Lazarus, Kirstchmann, Manuel Rosenthal, and for a long time already included: Kurt Weill, Leo Fall, Gershwin, Balmann, Heymann, Rabn, André Bloch and Oscar Straus.

The orchestra conductors are mostly Jews, such as Albert Wolff, Roger Ellis, Maurice André, Manuel Rosenthal and Victor Pascal. Among the soloists, one constantly hears Perlemutter, Quatrochi, Keitlinger, Tzipine, Sighera, Albert Ferring, Lazare Lévy, Lucien Schwartz, Lucien Wurmser, Serge Tannenbaum, Léon Bartum, Lucien Worms, Jacques Bloch, Bartch, Bicèle Rubin, Marcelle Meyer, Micheline Rabn, Clara Haskil, Marika and Monique Haas, Marcelle Samson and Lilly Kastine.

There is no area of intellectual life that is not infected by Jews. The names listed on these pages are mostly only a selection; they are those generally considered “prominent” in France. Since only a few dare to lift the veil that Jewry has spread over its activities, all research encounters great difficulties, especially where pseudonyms and name changes are intended to conceal. Just a few more pieces of information may complete the painted picture. Two of the largest book publishing houses in France are Jewish, Calmann-Lévy and Plon. In the field of painting and visual arts, Jews have banded together into entire artist groups. Their promotion becomes frightening when one sees that the president of the National Museums, David Weill (who is also a member of the Institut de France), and that the General Director of the Academy of Fine Arts is Suismann. A recent survey found that currently 15% of all French doctors are Jews, in Paris even 30%, whereas in 1931 it was only 10%. At the medical faculty in Paris, in 1935, there were 322 students to 1,530 foreigners, most of them Jews. This figure will likely have increased further by 1938.

It is impossible that broad strata of the French people, who have remained healthy, do not have some, if only instinctive, defence against the increasing Judaisation. The French provinces in particular have hardly entered into close contact with Jewry. There are a few centres from which the Jews embark on their path to power. Among these, thanks to its central location, Paris is the largest and, since important decisions are always made here, the most significant.

It has already been emphasised above that open rebellion against Jewish influence requires great combative determination. It lies in the nature of the Frenchman and the structure of his mentality that this combative disposition, which conscious Frenchmen call heroism and which existed in earlier centuries under different conditions, is today largely absent. Where it is found in potential, it is all too often obscured by the results of 150 years of education in the ideas of freedom and tolerance. Since the ideal that bears the nation is not a völkish one but a humanitarian one, since the highest good is not the preservation of the national individuality but the realisation of the idea of civilization, the Frenchman, wedded to these ideas, earnestly regards anti-Semitism as a relapse into barbarism and, after the naturalisation of a foreigner — for him, the Jew alone counts as such — no longer raises any objection to the claims now made on an equal footing.

The broad masses, especially the labor force, are moreover so deeply entangled in international class struggles that they must be philosemitic for political “conviction,” for example as anti-fascists. Thus the Communists and Socialists on the one hand, and the bourgeois parties of the center on the other (the Parti Social Français of Colonel de la Rocque is also to be included here, albeit conditionally), have become collecting basins for all Jew-hating and Jew-friendly opinions.

What remain are the groups of the French Right, the nationalist parties. From their ranks come today the only warnings against the Jewish danger. For decades, voices have been raised here demanding a reduction of the Jewish share in public life to an appropriate measure. The fragmentation of nationally minded Frenchmen into many parties and groups has, however, resulted in the defensive struggle so far being conducted without any clear plan.

Moreover, in purely proportional terms, the voices of the Right are inferior to those of the governing parties. The warning calls are repeatedly overcome by the skilful tactics of Jewry. How easy it is, after all, in France to expose the opponent of Jewry to general ridicule by invoking slogans about the enlightened, progressive spirit! How apparently simple it is today to suspect the fighter for a national renewal of dictatorial intentions and to denounce him as a ‘fascist’ or ‘Hitler agent’ before the entire working class and all bourgeois patriots. National vanity or proletarian solidarity is stirred up in order to block from the outset the path of any possible völkisch renewal.

Finally — and this weighs most heavily — the Jewish question is in many places only very rarely a racial-biological question; it does not arise from the struggle for the preservation of French substance, but is often posed in the wish to free oneself from troublesome competition and burdensome disturbances, or else from a doctrinaire attitude according to which the Jew is to be eliminated simply because he does not fit into the ideal of a völkisch, Latin France. Thus some complaints arise from business circles and professional organisations out of fear of being outperformed by Jews. Thus the leader of the royalist Action Française, Charles Maurras, has been an opponent of Jews since the turn of the century because, like Protestants and the ‘Métèques’4 Jews were said to have broken the Latin harmony of old France and to have brought poison and barbarism over the modern nation.

Even the weekly journal Je Suis Partout, which for one or two years has stood at the forefront of the struggle against the Judaisation of France and which, with its distinguished German correspondents Lucien Rebatet and Claude Jeantet, published an extensive special issue on 15 April under the title Les Juifs, ultimately remains within the framework of the nation-state without addressing the Jewish question as a racial-völkisch question. Despite the extraordinary care and attention with which Lucien Rebatet in particular gathers and organises the material, and despite his considerable understanding for Germany’s so-called just struggle for liberation, it is surprising when, in the same breath, mention is made of the ‘great’ Jews—Spinoza and Heine—who are said to be exempt from condemnation. Nevertheless, this newspaper, whose editor-in-chief Robert Brasillach works closely with the Popular Party (Parti Populaire Français) of Doriot, remains—apart from a few simple pioneers—the only one that also touches upon the biological, eugenic side of the Jewish question.

French antisemitism arises from concern for the survival of the nation and flows into the great struggle for a new France. However much it still stands in its beginnings, it will hardly be able to be excluded from the increasingly severe life-crisis of present-day France. The power of the Jews has reached a peak; national unrest likewise. From this unrest emerge the first insights, which today are still timidly expressed, but which one day will inevitably have to be applied in a decisive struggle. If France is to succeed in finding a truly völkisch reality before its downfall as a nation, then the question of Jewish overforeignisation and degeneration will have to be resolved.

Despite the approaches outlined above, the currently existing national ‘renewal movements’ offer no confidence in the unbroken strength of France. If one searches today for true renewers, one encounters individual men, small groups who are twenty years ahead of their surroundings, but one finds only in one place a force that is in a position to fundamentally shape the worldview and spirit of the age. That is the Catholic Church and its vanguard, the Catholic Action.

It is well known that Catholicism in France, as a result of historical circumstances and intellectual developments, but above all through the French national character, developed early on a peculiar form in the special manifestation of Gallicanism. In a relaxed form it represents a secularised Roman Catholicism. In this form it has stood since the 17th century between Roman dogma and secular enthusiasm. Only the French Revolution began to undermine it, until under the influence of materialist progress ideology, laicism gained the upper hand (law on the separation of Church and State, 1905). Although Catholicism continued to exist as a formal religious confession, it suffered more and more a flattening and disregard of its principles. It remained a habitual obligation; the individual oriented himself by it, but no longer lived within it. Thus it came about that, most recently under the Popular Front government, a world collapsed after naïve minds had placed in the Front Populaire the last hope of a general revival. The discouragement of the disappointed masses becomes general. In this situation, however, the Catholic Church becomes a place of refuge, all the more so as in it a strong principle of life continues to assert itself unwaveringly. The Church has not ceased to live. Chaos was for it the unique opportunity to return France to its ‘eldest daughter.’ Prudent, purposeful men arose to call for a consolidation in faith, for a recovery within the bosom of the Church. With all the means of modern propaganda, supported by a powerful press, Catholic Action spread rapidly throughout the country.

The first contacts between the Vatican and the French government were followed by a cultural activity of enormous scope. Important publishing houses, journals and books, film and radio constantly emphasised the urgent importance of the Catholic cause. Religious schooling, which had been banned since 1905, began to expand again with growing crisis sentiment and hostility to the Popular Front, and although it still received no state subsidies, it nevertheless succeeded — under tacit approval by former opponents — in acquiring a new foundation from which families could be won over with the greatest intensity of activity.

Outside the school as well, the clergy is now beginning to become the bearer of youth education. Denominational youth organisations, scouting groups and sporting youth associations are already to a large extent under the direct leadership of the Church. Through skilful church policy, with imposing ceremonies and with flattery, the Church has once again secured a position within the French state system. Not least through the exploitation of foreign-political circumstances, a ‘friendship’ with the state leadership was achieved, which found its first visible expression in Pacelli’s visit to Paris in 1937. Since then, France has begun to take pride in ‘its’ Cardinal Verdier, who is regarded as one of the Pope’s most trusted representatives. The encyclical directed against National Socialism in 1937 found through him a loud echo in the French public. For the centenary celebration of apostolic work for the Catholic mission abroad, a mass was finally held in Notre-Dame in Paris by the nuncio Valerio Valeri, at which the French government was officially represented for the first time.

That such certainty of purpose, in a time of general confusion, must impress thousands of seekers is obvious. Since Catholicism appears to be carrying out a regeneration of its substance — since cardinals, priests and Catholic writers tirelessly preach the renewal of the Catholic faith — the Church seems called upon to play a decisive role in national renewal. The confusions and errors of the time can be overcome through the one true faith, which over centuries has made France into the great power that it is. In particular, the national parties are those that, within the hierarchical order of the Church, rediscover the unity of France. Today they are the strongest supports of the Catholic advance. Decisive is the fact that Catholicism has now revived not in its Gallican form, but in its original, ultramontane form.

Even so, all this might still be an internal French development. But the Christmas message of Archbishop Cardinal Verdier to the Communists of France places this zealous activity of the Church in a completely different light. At the moment when the Church, as a clearly international organisation with the goal of dissolving nationalities, extends its hand for cooperation, all its protestations of a national will to reconstruction become lies. Here two universal powers meet, which for reasons of expediency are willing to cooperate for a time. The cause, however, lies in the ‘dangerous’ radiations of the German national awakening, which could strike at the core of Catholic imperialism. The will to power is concealed behind phrases of humanity, which find particular resonance in France. To support the facts, internal German affairs are reshaped into atrocity reports, in order to secure for oneself the sympathy of the world for the ‘cruelly persecuted’ German Catholics. Once again, after the realisation of Greater Germany, the Vatican complaint about the ‘suppression of religious freedom’ in Austria—now withdrawn from the sphere of ecclesiastical-political influence — finds its greatest resonance, especially in France, which in any case — out of resentment over the loss of European hegemony — stands bitterly opposed to the Anschluss.

At the same time, however, this outcry for freedom and justice, this invocation of the dignity of Western man, can be spread with even greater effect. For do not thousands from the chosen people of Israel share the same fate as their Catholic brothers? Dogmatic differences fade away. With bold dialectic, the common root of Rome and Judah in the one God, the personal God of the sanctified Old Testament, is emphasised. The millennia-old sufferings of Israel become the sufferings of the Church of Peter; every Jewish soul is courted, and salvation is promised to it through conversion to the Catholic faith. Antisemitism becomes, for Rome, a means of counter-propaganda, with which Judaism gains a reliable aid in asserting universal claims to power. The Communist and the Jew become allies in the realisation of the first practical goal: the encirclement of Germany.

It is not certain who took the first step in this Judeo-Catholic rapprochement. Judaism too, after the loss of its positions in Germany, had the strongest interest in securing, alongside Soviet Russia, another mortal enemy of the new Germany as an ally in struggle. This had to be all the more considered because, despite all positions of power, it was beginning to feel no longer entirely secure in France. This insecurity set in when Jewish immigration from Germany increased, when further streams of Jews from Romania and Austria poured into the country, and when the first, still muted mass reactions — particularly of the Paris working class — became noticeable. To this were added the decrees of the new Daladier cabinet, which prevented the immediate naturalisation of foreigners. Thus, conversely, the Catholic Church could become a factor of security for Judaism.

It is not only external events and combinations that justify speaking of a Judeo-Catholic rapprochement, indeed cooperation. A convincing proof is the series of publications Présences, issued under the direction of the liberal Catholic Daniel Rops and with the collaboration of notable Catholic and Jewish writers since the beginning of this year by Plon. From this series we mention first of all the book Les Juifs from January of this year. It has symptomatic significance, since in collective work a circle of French intellectuals — who are regarded as bearers of Christian renewal — have committed themselves to Judaism. At the same time, the book sheds the correct light on the intellectual character of this community of authors. It concerns Catholics such as Jacques Maritain, Paul Claudel, the Jesuit Bonsirven; Jews such as René Schwob, André Spire, Simon Lando and several others less well known.

The compilation of the individual articles was undertaken by Daniel-Rops, who also plays a role in the strongly intellectualistic spiritual-political renewal movement of Personalism. Most of the authors are insignificant. Their contributions serve only the purpose of giving the publication the appearance of a free intellectual exchange. The articles, especially those of the Jewish contributors as well as the Protestant publicist Denis de Rougemont, are to be regarded as showpieces. It is decisive that the initiative comes from the Catholic side. Here, the contributions by Claude and especially Maritain are particularly important to us. It should also be noted that two articles by Dupuis and Montagne, by virtue of their presentation, constitute a complete rejection of the book’s guiding idea — for instance, when Dupuis assesses Germany’s measures regarding the Jews very positively and as necessary. The fact that a German Catholic is also represented (anonymously, of course!) only further illuminates the intention. This German Catholic speaks of the sufferings of Jews and Christians, which are brought together on a higher plane, toward a common, mysterious goal through the “persecution” in Germany.

For some time now, one can consistently observe among the aforementioned Catholic writers at least a tolerant attitude toward the Jews. François Mauriac, by his own account, is in constant struggle between the writer’s duty to write the truth of life and the Catholic’s duty to do good. The truths of life for him are the deaths of the flesh. The great power he attributes to sexuality in human life leads us to suspect that he has not remained uninfluenced by either the value of the Jew Marcel Proust or the sexual pathology of the Jew Freud. It also seems to us that the theme constantly recurring in his works — the overcoming of carnal addiction through divine grace — is less genuinely felt than contrived and forced. Another fervent Catholic, Georges Bernanos, receives this assessment from the Jewish theater-maker Bernstein: “A very great artist, this Bernanos! He sent me all his books. I read them with passion.”

To assess the attitude of Claudel and Maritain, we turn again to the aforementioned book, for their contributions give us clear information about the connections hinted at. The Neo-Thomist Paul Claudel, recognised as a significant poet, wrote a letter in 1936 to the organiser of the Jewish World Congress, in which he said, among other things: Catholics have too much to suffer in the world not to be more committed than ever to religious freedom. The disgraceful and stupid legislation directed against your religious brothers in Germany fills me with outrage and horror. It is Israel that, with heroic courage and a spiritual tenacity that cannot be explained without a calling from above, has always asserted, against the paganism of Greece, the idea of a personal and transcendent God who is higher than all the superstition of heathenism.

The actual basic chord of the book is struck by the theoretician of Catholicism, the Thomist Jacques Maritain. His article, entitled L’Impossible Antisémitisme [The Impossible Anti-Semitism], is a unique sequence of intellectual acrobatics and sophistries. He defines the position of anti-Semitism: the war of the beast in man against Israel. The position of the Catholic, he says, is: the struggle of spiritual realities for the salvation of the world and the salvation of Israel. He further concludes: The Catholic Church needs Judaism in order to enhance the splendour of its eternity. For Judaism has chosen the earth and only finds its orientation toward the universe in the Diaspora. But thereby it is ripe for Catholicism. Israel is not perfidious (perfide), it is unfaithful (infidèle); it is rejected as a church, but not as a people: “And still she (Juda as a church) is awaited by the Father, who has not ceased to love her.” Against his will, the good Jew, the Jew of the spirit, bears the sweet cross; thereby he betrays Judaism without knowing it.

Maritain’s entire dialectic aims to protect Judaism from itself and to lead it on the path to Christianity. According to Maritain, the people of Israel are necessary as a stimulus to keep the nations restless, to leave them dissatisfied as long as they have no God. To activate earthly history is Israel’s permanent mission; its fate, however, is to endure the shocks and blows of the earth because it gave away the care for heaven into other hands. In Maritain’s expositions, Jews and Catholics move ever closer together: Christians are bad because they did not want to hear the word of the Church, which follows the supernatural. Israel as a church failed because it defaulted on its spiritual task; the Jewish people, by contrast, follows a higher calling in history. Maritain further excuses the “allegedly” bad characteristics of the Jews. For him, it is the Christian’s fault if the Jew gains power over him. Maritain’s ultimate goal is a direct understanding with the spiritual Jewish community within a spiritual family. The foundation of the intended pluralism is an ethical legal order. Finally, anti-Semitism is to be rejected if only because Christianity has its source in Jewish revelation.

This remarkably far-reaching inclusion of the Jew into the realm of the Catholic Church — remarkable even coming from a Catholic — becomes immediately understandable to us when we learn that Maritain is married to a Jewish woman, and that he has thereby necessarily poisoned his life and work. Refreshing is the sharp reprimand and the contempt born of honest indignation that he receives from the staff member of the newspaper Je uis Partout, Lucien Rebatet, in a review of the said book. Rebatet accuses him bluntly of treason and concludes his article with the words: “We are astonished at the renewal of paganism among the Germans. Have the Maritains from over there not been the primary responsible parties for that?”

Daniel-Rops, in his foreword to the book Les Juifs, opposes the “abhorrent acts of violence” of anti-Semitism with the spirit of free criticism, concluding the book with the determination of the fact that Judaism exists. For him, the Jew is like a thorn in the flesh of the nations. If one wanted to remove this thorn, much would be missing from the world. Daniel-Rops draws the consequence from the problem discussed in a comparison of Judaism with Communism, which exercises a similar function as a regulator in the life of nations. The task of the time is to ensure that both fulfil themselves in the Christian spirit.

One will have to follow the further publications in the series Présences with attention. In any case, the named Catholic writers have already expressed themselves so unequivocally that a fundamental clarification from the side of the Catholic Church is necessary to prove the private character of this advance in favour of Judaism. After everything that has been said here, we cannot believe that this is merely an isolated action.

If you would like to support my work you can donate at Ko-Fi, Buy Me a Coffee or with Bitcoin:

BTC address: bc1qqrthd6es2uckxhgsa2qmx2mmww22vtmw92w4ch

The North Vietnamese recruits drowned in the flames. Disorientated and trying to regroup, they were blown out of their shelters and thrown into nets of bullets. From above, American helicopters rained down fire on the survivors until the blood flowed through the trees like red mud. When the flames finally parted, the diamond-shaped clearing was piled high with bodies — broken, blown apart and vaporised.

The story of this nightmare is told by Bao Ninh1, one of the survivors of the Glorious 27th. It was a scene repeated ad nauseam during the two decades America fought with the North Vietnamese Communists for control of the country. The Vietnam War is significant not only for the victory of a military underdog against a vastly superior power — and the violent horror of the conflict — but also for the lengths that underdog was prepared to go in order to secure that victory.

Fifty years after the end of the Vietnam War, the Judeo-American empire is still on its crusade to spread freedom and democracy around the world, this time in Iran. Understanding how North Vietnam defeated America then is crucial to grasping Iran’s path to victory today — a path that demands an unwavering, even suicidal, will to sacrifice, from which final victory will be won not on the military battlefield but in the political arena.

American military intervention in Vietnam began in 1954 after the defeat of France at Dien Bien Phu, but direct commitment of US troops did not occur until a decade later. In 1965 the populations of America and Vietnam were 194 million and 19 million respectively. America’s armed forces totalled 2.5 million, dwarfing Vietnam’s 256,000. The relative force ratio favoured the Americans 53:1.2 This made the Vietnam War an asymmetric conflict.

An asymmetric war is defined by one side’s material power — measured by a combination of its population and armed forces — being at least five times greater than that of its opponent.3 The principle of international relations since the time of ancient Greece has been that in war, power implies victory. Thus, in asymmetric wars the stronger actor should always win. However, over the last 200 years, weaker actors have been victorious in almost 30% of all asymmetric conflicts and won with increasing diachronic frequency.4

A core component of America’s war on the North Vietnamese was its strategic bombing campaign codenamed Rolling Thunder. Its primary goal was to destroy the will of the North to support the guerrilla war against the South.5 American military and civilian leaders believed that terror bombing would both hamper the North’s ability to wage war and coerce its leadership into giving up when a breaking point had been reached. The underlying assumption was that there was some level of punishment at which the North Vietnamese would break and their morale and resolve to continue fighting crumble.6

General William Westmoreland, Commander of US forces in Vietnam, shared this assumption, arguing that the North Vietnamese, convinced that military victory was impossible, would not be able to endure further punishment.7 He said:

“We’ll just go on bleeding them until Hanoi wakes up to the fact that they have bled their country to the point of national disaster for generations. Then they will have to reassess their position.”8

Writing in 1967, Jewish journalist David Halberstam vividly described America’s win condition:

“You simply grind out a punishing war, year after year, using that immense American firepower, crushing the enemy and a good deal of the population, until finally there has been so much death and destruction that the enemy will stumble out of the forest, as stunned and numb as the rest of the Vietnamese people.”9

The key metric against which the progress of such tactics was to be judged was the notorious body count. This death metric assumed a tipping point of North Vietnamese casualties at which the tide of their willingness to prosecute the war would turn. By the end of the conflict, the North had suffered approximately 950,765 dead compared to 220,357 South Vietnamese and 46,498 Americans.10 More conservative estimates put the number of North Vietnamese deaths at between 500,000 and 600,000 which would mean a loss of 2.5% to 3% of the prewar population in the country. It is believed that the North lost tens of thousands of men in single operations such as the Tet Offensive of 1968 and the Easter Offensive of 1972.11 These levels of battle deaths are unprecedented in military history and matched only by those seen in both world wars. The North was seemingly willing to face extermination levels of losses in order to secure victory.12

The North Vietnamese will was exemplified by General Vo Nguyen Giap. In a response to a question put to him in 1969 regarding how long the war could last, he said:

“It will last as long as necessary — 10, 15, 20, 50 years. Until as our President [Ho Chi Minh] says we have won total victory. Yes, even 20, even 50 years. We aren’t afraid, and we aren’t in a hurry.”13

Such sentiments were echoed by the Communist leader Ho Chi Minh himself. He is quoted as saying:

“We will fight to find victory. Everything depends on the Americans. If we want to make war for 20 years, then we shall make war for 20 years.”14

Such ideological commitment made the Vietnam War a conflict of will and patience. By any metric of warfare, the US defeated the North militarily but despite such overwhelming power could not force the Communists to negotiate a peace. As in a chess game, the North used the clock against their opponents until the American public lost the stomach for continued sacrifice. In contrast, the Communists were able to draw on an increasingly committed Vietnamese public radicalised by the barbarity of the American bombing campaign.

Those who sought the temperature of morale in North Vietnam during the war were reminded of the do-or-die spirit of the Irish rebellion or the 19th century Russian zealots.15 On visiting the country in 1966, New York Times reporter Harrison Salisbury observed:

“I seldom talked to any North Vietnamese without some reference coming into the conversation of the people’s preparedness to fight ten, fifteen, even twenty years in order to achieve victory. At first I thought such expressions might reflect government propaganda…but…I began to realize that this was a national psychology.”16

Studies on North Vietnamese and Viet Cong prisoners of war found a steadfast morale not equalled by German National Socialist soldiers in The Second World War or Chinese soldiers in the Korean War.17 These men held an unshakable faith in the final victory despite military setbacks and being told the war would be long and fierce.18 The most prominent sources of strength were not a fanatic commitment to Communism but rather “an astonishing uniform…belief in their cause”, “a firm belief that they cannot…lose the war”, and a “deep personal hatred, a true abhorrence of their enemy, the United States”.19

Such was the potency of Vietnamese spirit that American military and political leaders had to concede that their capitulation would still not be brought about even via a full-scale invasion of the North or the use of a nuclear weapon.20 Instead of America breaking the will of the North Vietnamese, it was the North Vietnamese who broke the will of America.

Crucial to the conflict in Vietnam was not either side’s military capability to wage war, but rather their political capability.21 The experience of the first and second world wars reinforced the notion that the key criterion in military victory was military superiority. The Vietnamese — who first defeated a 2,000-strong French force and then a 500,000-strong American force — destroyed this notion. In both cases Vietnam did not defeat their opponents militarily, but rather via progressive attrition of their political capability to continue fighting.

In such asymmetric warfare, political victories can be gained from stalemate or even outright defeats. Although the 1968 Tet Offensive was a victory for America on the ground, it marked a strategic defeat and a turning point in the war. The impact of the Tet Offensive led to a congressional review of US policy in Vietnam, the replacement of Westmoreland and the reduction of American troops in theatre.

It had been an entrenched military belief up until Vietnam that an enemy’s will to continue fighting is irrelevant if his military capabilities have been destroyed. The Vietnamese inverted such logic and leveraged political pressure against the US where democratic freedoms guarantee the right to protest. Unable to compete technologically with America’s military industrial complex, they aimed to destroy the US’s political capacity wherein if the popular will to fight is destroyed then technological superiority is rendered mute.

The ability of America to mobilise its forces is a matter of politics, not material. The US war in Vietnam has had arguably the greatest political impact on both international and American domestic politics since The Second World War despite the fact that the peak of the conflict in 1968 saw no more than one quarter of one per cent of the American public serving as military personnel.22 In the aftermath of the Tet Offensive, a request for 200,000 more troops was denied not because of a lack of resources but a lack of political will.

A major problem for America in such asymmetrical warfare is the nation’s geographic safety. Countries like Vietnam or Iran can pose no direct threat to the US homeland while, conversely, America threatens either occupation or extermination for them. For the smaller power, war with the US is total while for the US it is necessarily limited.23 Thus, full mobilisation of American military resources — and the inevitable casualties that would be incurred — can never be politically justified. As a rhetorical workaround to this problem, wild claims of their lesser opponents’ ability to strike America are spun up to manufacture some kind of political justification. While such asymmetrical conflicts cause the US domestic polity to fracture, the lesser power can draw on renewed nationalist sentiment with disparate factions united in the face of an external enemy. Resistance is not only seen as a viable alternative to surrender but a patriotic duty.

Asymmetrical conflicts can be contrasted with the Clausewitzian war of “pure form” when a “grand and powerful purpose” is at stake.24 Only in such conditions can full mobilisation of national resources be justified and those disparate factions unified in a common cause: “the overthrow of the enemy”. In such symmetrical conflicts — like that between Germany and Russia in The Second World War — where the survival of both sides is at stake can total war be a political reality. In such totalistic scenarios the propensity to question the morality of the means of war is attenuated given the stakes of the conflict.

Attrition of the greater power’s political capability is not necessarily a result of battlefield losses or errors but a function of the conflictual relationship between belligerents.25 When a greater power perceives a war as limited because their opponent is weaker and poses no domestic threat, the prosecution of the conflict does not take primacy over other governmental or bureaucratic goals or the interests of divergent political factions. Empty threats of the opponents’ abilities to threaten domestically are for public consumption and not taken seriously among political decision-makers.

To avoid defeat, the lesser power needs to maintain a basic level of protection from total destruction. To achieve victory, they must be capable of steadily inflicting “costs” on their more powerful opponent. It is not enough for them to remain undefeated, they must also be seen to be undefeated. As part of the attritional process, the lesser power should provoke the greater power into escalating its ground forces, since such escalation generates economic and political costs domestically. Such a pattern of escalation was seen not only in the Vietnam but also in Algeria, Portuguese Africa and Northern Ireland.26

The direct costs that the lesser power imposes on the greater power are the usual costs of war: casualties and destroyed matériel. However, the strategy is not to destroy the enemy’s military capability — an unrealistic goal — but to impose indirect psychological and political costs on the enemy by exposing and deepening political contradictions within their domestic polity. Direct military costs imposed are only of real value when they translate into indirect political damage. Provided that the lesser power can maintain a steady attrition of their opponent’s political will, the balance of political forces within the greater power will eventually assume an oppositional posture toward the conflict.27

The lesser power does not underestimate the material resources of the greater power and their devastating potential. Rather, the lesser power maintains an awareness of the political constraints placed on those resources’ maximal deployment. Such political constraints are real and become more salient the longer the war escalates. When the Vietnamese talked of the war with America stretching on for 50 years or more, such was the calculus.

Thus in 1969 did America’s national security adviser Henry Kissinger sum up the Vietnam War:

“We fought a military war; our opponents fought a political one. We sought physical attrition; our opponents aimed for psychological exhaustion. In the process, we lost sight of one of the cardinal maxims of guerrilla warfare: the guerrilla wins if he does not lose. The conventional army loses if it does not win.”28

A similar dynamic is at play today between the Judeo-American empire and Iran but this time with a rogue variable: Israel. The Iranians have already demonstrated their political will to fight a war of attrition with America and win — for Iran this conflict is existential.

Conversely, the US finds itself in another conflict with an opponent who cannot threaten the American homeland. The difference between the Vietnam War and the latest conflict with Iran is the complete capture of American politics by Jews and the occupation of the White House by a Jewish supremacist President. What complicates the application of the political capability theory to the current conflict is that the American political and military complex’s raison d’être is the interests of Israel, not America. Unlike the Vietnam War, there is no political bloc in America powerful enough, or even willing, to pressure the government to back down. Zionist politicians cannot oppose a Zionist war.

A breaking point for America implies a breaking point for its relationship with Israel. The strength of the American political system will be measured by its ability to withstand growing anti-Israel sentiment and widespread knowledge that the war with Iran is being fought for Jews alone. If such a political breaking point for the US does not materialise, then, as with Vietnam, endurance may ultimately be exhausted by the imposition of a military draft. In its latest war, American streets may become the most crucial front.

If you would like to support my work you can donate at Ko-Fi, Buy Me a Coffee or with Bitcoin:

BTC address: bc1qqrthd6es2uckxhgsa2qmx2mmww22vtmw92w4ch