Category: National Socialism
“Literally, why did this even become an argument?”
It’s been brought to my attention that we’re being accused of various things by various people as a result of the article that I posted that was titled ‘English genetic heritage is not German’. It appears that some people, including Carolyn Yeager at The Heretics Hour, have chosen for some reason to seize upon people’s remarks in the comments section of that article to build a characterisation of our position which is very incorrect. DanielS has been accused of being ‘anti-German’, and by proxy I have therefore been accused of abetting ‘anti-German’ thought.
Nothing could be further from the facts. DanielS is not ‘anti-German’, and I’m not abetting ‘anti-German’ thought. In good faith, I’ll assume that Carolyn Yeager’s misinterpretation of my intent is not intentional, and so I’ll explain in the most concise way what my outlook on this is, in the hopes that truth and understanding will prevail.
Heritage and slogans
When I put up the article about how ‘English genetic heritage is not German’, it was entirely for the purpose of showing a way of dispelling the usual liberal sloganeering in the UK that begins with the false appeal to the so-called ‘fact’ of English being all ‘mixed German immigrants’, which is then inexorably extended into a claim that ‘since they are already beyond identification, what is wrong with a little more mixing?’ Obviously the most effective way—a way that is also in accordance with reality—to fight against that kind of liberal sloganeering and to empower the British people to fortify themselves in the belief that the ground they stand on is theirs and that they have a justifiable claim to maintain dominance over their own civic space, is to point out that British people are not merely ‘mixed German immigrants’ of no discernible identity, but in fact they all evolved in the location that they are living in for many thousands of years and as such have a justification to really call themselves ‘British’.
Maintaining this view of a really-existent ‘Britishness’, and suggesting that it should be fashioned into a mass line and propagated to the British people, in no way detracts from the identity of German people, or Germanic peoples as a whole. I don’t see why that should be confusing to some people. It also does not suggest that there should be enmity between Britain and Germany. In fact, it remains our position at Majorityrights that all nations in Europe should stand together while respecting each other’s differences: pan-European regionalism. This is the same position that I also take with regards to Asia and pan-Asian regionalism.
Sometimes mistakes are made
I also get a sense that some of this fury that has been directed toward Majorityrights by the critics, has something to do with the fact that we don’t bow down to Adolf Hitler on every issue, historical and concerning the prosecution of the Second World War. I would say to those people who criticise Majorityrights that it is possible—and this is not a petty-moral statement, it is a statement of cold facts, total administration, and direct geostrategic power concepts—to recognise the structural achievements of the National Socialist movement in Germany and say that it was highly significant in not only raising critical awareness of the influence and threat of Bolshevism, but in fact showing that it was possible to marshal an equally deadly force against them, without having to literally endorse every single ridiculous action and personal preference of Adolf Hitler, every member of the SS, and the general staff of the German Army. Sometimes people do things that are really bad ideas.
It is possible to have a nuanced view, and my view is nuanced.
Obviously, the European war against the Russian Bolshevik regime and its collaborators in Europe, much like the Greater East Asia War against the liberal-capitalist powers, namely, the United States, France, Britain, the Netherlands, and their collaborators, was a crucial moment in history. No alliance in history other than Axis, has been able to unite so many people of diverse ethnic backgrounds against both liberalism and communism at the same time. And no alliance in history has ever come closer to overturning the liberal-capitalist world order in a war of manoeuvre.
These coalitions were to become possible due to the social and economic forces that were activated as a consequence of something like the National Socialist movement of Germany having arisen to power.
Germany rendered assistance to Japan by becoming a viable partner for the duration of the war, and this also engendered a situation where countries like Burma, parts of India, swathes of South East Asia, including Indonesia, Singapore, and others, were able to struggle against their colonial oppressors with the hopes both of independence and of a regional redress of the global systemic inequalities that characterised the liberal-capitalist world order. It also was the case that many Central Asians were enthusiastic about co-operation with Germany as well, particularly some of the Crimean Tatars who must have been relieved to see the 11th German Army under General Erich von Manstein as well as Stay-behind Group D show up in their territory to remove the Russian and Jewish occupiers that had been appearing on their land because of the Soviet incursions into Crimea.
It could be said that in the developing world, the international boundaries and the recognition of ethno-states governed by their own ethnic group’s elites rather than those of another group, is a kind of world that could not have come into existence without the ethno-nationalist consciousness and the live-fire demonstration of the use of deadly force that characterised the Axis approach, particularly in the Pacific.
It wasn’t that any particular person imposed National Socialism onto the German people from above only. It was actually the fact that the liberal-capitalist world view was vying for hegemony over all spheres of human life, and as a result, the ethno-nationalist world view had to fight against it in all spheres of life in order that it could triumph over it. This is the meaning of ‘totalitarianism’ when it is not used as a pejorative by liberals. While being coincident with ‘authoritarianism’, it is not a synonym for it, nor is it a synonym for ‘bad things’. The inauguration of the National Socialist state in Germany, was not the moment that ethno-nationalist world views triumphed. Rather, the inauguration of the National Socialist state was a sign and a consequence of the fact that the ethno-nationalist world view had already triumphed over liberalism among these people, and had in turn given rise to the change in the class character, ethnic composition and loyalties of the persons occupying the big tent known as the state.
This is of course the same logic that applies when talking about Fascist Italy, Right-Socialist Japan, and so on.
I am not necessarily inveighing against that phenomenon.
So with all of that said, where is the argument here? As far as I’m aware, one of the most significant disagreements is largely about the conduct of National Socialist Germany to its East. There are three elements of what happened in that region which are elements of a serious mistake that was made by Germany, a mistake which created excess risk for what—in light of the enormity of what was being fought for by Axis—was relatively little potential gain. Those elements are:
Now, any one of those reasons standing by itself, might cause someone to argue that they might be able to make it so that the benefit accrued to Germany would outweigh the cost, with respect to the larger agenda of war being conducted against the United States and against Russia.
But with all three points taken together as synergistic and inseparable as a complex system—an ecology—it becomes very clear that the conduct of Germany in Central and Eastern Europe was an inadvisable and unacceptable risk. Taking a preference for disrupting the complex systems that were the Central European nations, for the sake of ‘living-space’, rather than collaborating with the systems as they existed, produced an additional and unnecessary drag against European war-fighting capabilities, which heightened the risk of dis-integration of supply chains and thus heightened the risk of being defeated. You’ve heard of Richard III of England’s line “my kingdom for a horse!”, now try “my empire for the next shipment of ball-bearings within the appropriate time scale.”
This is the way that I look at it, it’s very much an Asian perspective that looks at the ‘big picture’, and it’s a view that I know is at odds with many of the people who criticise Majorityrights. But it is not an irrational view, and I wish that the critics would think about these issues and reflect on the errors where errors exist. I am in no way proposing that this is the sole reason for Axis difficulties in Europe at that time, but I am saying that it is a factor which certainly didn’t help the situation.
A way to the correct line
I would reiterate as well, that this is not a moralising condemnation of Germany, nor is it a moralising condemnation of those who have criticised Majorityrights. I am standing entirely apart from petty-moralist considerations and I am only talking about what I see as a matter of bad risk assessment and bad prioritisation by them when carrying out war of position and war of manoeuvre.
There are no belaboured moral statements or revisionist endorsements here, and so any liberals who are hyperventilating somewhere out there saying “isn’t this too much?”, I’d invite those liberals to take slow, deep breaths, and to not start making noises at me or overreacting.
Most of this post has been about the past, but it also has importance for the future as well, because getting the correct line on this issue of the past, allows people to also get the correct mass line for the future as well and to learn from mistakes. European ethnic-nationalists can be great if they can repair this rift between themselves, with all sides acknowledging errors where errors have occurred. It’s crucially necessary going forward, so that Europe can correctly define its borders and stand as one, as ‘Europe, whole and free’.
I’d like to also add that although the temptation for many to view it this way will be strong, this article should also not be interpreted as a ‘challenge’ issued by me to Carolyn Yeager. There will be no ‘Kumiko Oumae vs. Carolyn Yeager’ catfight-showdown at sunset with knives, so any observers having those thoughts ought to put away the popcorn, at least for now.
This is only an invitation for conversation and perhaps conflict resolution. Something that is characterised less by knives, and more by tea and biscuits. Maybe.
Kumiko Oumae works in the defence and security sector in the UK. Her opinions here are entirely her own.
The interview is quite a long one by our standards, but I believe it is entertaining and informative throughout.
Given that no-one seems to conceptually acknowledge the dark side (so to speak) of inclusive fitness theory it perhaps undermines the creditability of those that wish to make broad political points using inclusive fitness theory as to (1) do they actually fully understand the theory and (2) do they understand how excess competition effectively removes relatedness from the picture (siblings killing siblings is perfectly optimal within many animal species from the point of view of the victorious Sib).
Given that fitness within social evolution can be derived from both the individual level and the group level (note all evolutionary change concerns changes in alleles and their frequencies) as demonstrated by Hamilton and Price’s work (and Steve Frank etc) in hierarchical selection theory how do these insights relate to political economy?
For example, if we take Aristotle seriously than any polis must be a balance between the parts and the whole (individuals and the group) what mechanism can be used to discourage ‘free-riding’ and self-serving perfidy by our own indigenous elites? Accountability to the groups interests seems lacking in contemporary Western life.
If Europeans are so ‘individuated’ - uniquely so? - why is it that only a few centuries ago that Celts, Nordic people etc were so tribal and ultra-communitarian in their cultures. Why the stark difference in pre-modern pagan social ontology compared to the ontology of liberal modernity. Given the relatively short time frame any explanation based upon changes in gene frequency would seem analytically bankrupt. The Greeks also had a more communitarian social-ontology (Sparta anyone?, Aristotle and virtue ethics etc).
Given the social ontology of liberal modernity (massive ideological emphasis on individ- uals and individualism) what type of personalities and psychological traits succeed within such a environment? If all human interactions are viewed through the prism of individual competition is that healthy or wise for the long term sustainability of the group (one could speak here too of free-riding and the slow accumulation of toxic ‘externalities’ cultural, environmental, social etc generated by liberal modernity which in short term benefit certain individuals but at the longer term determent of everyone).
Given that all political societies are ultimately about power and power relationships (see Carl Schmidt), and that power is always open to abuse, a high degree of relatetedness/ homogeneity/ social capital is by itself not enough. What mechanism of elite accountability and social cohesion are possible and necessary?
If denied the siblicide point, then why are civil wars so vicious and nasty (often the worst)? Higher levels of relatedness (on average) didn’t stop Englishmen, or Irishmen from utterly hateful behaviour towards their brothers during civil wars…
In this third and penultimate part of my essay on the Rotherham Syndrome I am going to expand on the disconnection between philosophy (and philosophically-derived politics) and thinking that comes out of ethnic or racial conflict. In particular, I will focus on the dynamics of absolutism and its ascription of human value.
A petty history
A few years ago I came across the story, I think in a television history, of the last civilian to be hanged in the Third Reich. I don’t remember his name. I cannot find a link to the story on-line, so I hope I have it right. But my memory is that this unfortunate man was a resident of a small south-western German town which lay in the path of the advancing US Army. I suppose it must have been early- to mid-April 1945.
The war was already lost, of course. That knowledge had been building among the people since the defeat at Stalingrad and Goebbel’s Sportspalast Speech of 18 February 1943 (which changed the tone of the propaganda from a war of conquest to one of national survival). The general thrall to a military dictator and the whole mesmerising, deceitful dream of German greatness and glory was dissolving in the acid of the military reality. By April 1945, with the Allies fighting on German soil, the general will of German civilians would have been for the killing and destruction to be brought to an end, and for Germany to find its way into whatever future was available to it. But the Allies were only interested in complete and unconditional surrender. Every last German town would fall, this little one included. This was not going to be where the Allies would first be held and then pushed back.
Despite The Guilt Trips of World War II (discussed below on the anniversary of Dresden)
Here is an interview request that I sent to Dr. Christian Lindtner on February 12th
Dear Dr. Lindtner,
As producer for Majorityrights.com, I am writing you to inquire as to the possibility of arranging for an interview.
Majority Rights takes a position (secular) regarding Christianity which very much respects your scholarly critique.
Nevertheless, while I am writing you at this email address, my inquiry actually has more to do with a hope to discuss appropriate response to the fall-out of World War II, facts and mythos.
Your videos discussing holocaust revisionism are the most credible on the topic that I have seen. I do not see it as necessary to go-over that same ground in exhaustive detail. My position is that subsequent generations of Germans and others are innocent and ought not have to continue to pay, irrespective of the facts of Nazi Germany.
I am not anti-German and I am assuming that neither are you, anti-German.
My question is, how do we assert our innocence, along with that of present day Germans, to warrant implementing our defense of our nations as the preserves of our native nationals? - particularly in light of, and despite, the holocaust?
I believe that despite the holocaust that Germany and Europe does not owe the world, Jews, or anybody, its destruction through immigration and assimilation.
This is different from what holocaust deniers, even revisionists, are saying. Committed revisionists and deniers seem to believe everything, all of our defensive warrant, hinges upon debunking the holocaust. It is perhaps easier for me to see that as not necessarily the case as my ancestors even, had even less in the way of historical responsibility. Nevertheless, revisionists seem to have an overwhelming desire to unburden us of guilt trips* for these events, for which no guilt ought to be assigned them - and as a result, it seems to me that they are making the cause for European national sovereignty more resisted and less trustworthy when, in fact, it is a fully legitimate cause and ought to be seen that way irrespective of the holocaust.
What I seek from you in an interview is to help build this case to establish the warrant of European nations to preserve their nations for their native kinds despite The World Wars, whatever the facts.
Please say that you will grant us the interview Dr. Lindtner. It can be very important to inter-European peace and survival.
For those of you who take exception to my deferential use of the word “holocaust”, understand that by it I mean a name given to mass deaths of Jews in the world war, however they came about, irrespective of any obnoxious elevation of importance of Jewish deaths over European deaths - which Dr. Lindtner recognizes in his characterizing it, holocaustianity, as a religion.
At the Yalta conference, just days before the Dresden firebombing..
And this comment on the article..
From a particularist/nationalist perspective it’s best to write it off as a painful learning experience and get on with nationalism 2.0.”
I keep hearing these retarded arguments that the Nazis shouldn’t have invaded Russia and that Britain should’ve let Nazi Germany do as it liked with Poland. If 20/20 hindsight is exercised, then it should be said that Hitler shouldn’t have invaded Poland.
The next argument, also retardedly Buchananesque, is that Poland was betrayed to the umpteenth degree anyway and therefore Germany invading was of no matter.
But even under Soviet control, Poland retained a semblance of national boundaries, more importantly from its point of view, its language and more importantly still, its native genetic homogeneity. Horrible as Soviet control was, neither Poland’s boundaries, language nor genetics were in Hitler’s plans.
The holocaust of the peoples of Dresden is horrible. It is an unspeakable loss of European genetic treasure. As were all the European deaths of World War II - a war unnecessarily fought as a 1) conventional military war and unnecessarily 2) inter-European as it largely was, pitting R1b against R1a - both frames, conventional militarism and anti-Polinism/anti-Slav, were Hitler’s/Friedrich The Great’s.
If you want to use 20/20 hindsight to re-frame World War II and what should not have been done, take it to herr E1B1B1 Hitler.
Don’t kid yourself.
Look at how sick and enraged that Europeans were of ANOTHER World War, which Hitler and his worldview had some small part in initiating, a worldview that had the thin pretense of warrant to take lands and displace peoples up to the Urals on the basis of three and a half small cites being given to Poland by Versailles, a world view that had the design of removing your nation newly established after a bitter ordeal and fight of 123 years, and the realization of his plans of smashing it, taking it away again, killing your father, wife, your daughter, your brother, and you too, charged with an imperson- al mission of bombing a precious German city, might just allow yourself to do that.
A habit, custom, and world view following the line of Friedrich the Great, based on inter-European militarism and a friend enemy distinction of Germanics/Slavs is what should be rejected with 20/20 hindsight - not that Roosevelt and Churchill shouldn’t have gotten into the war, but that Hitler shouldn’t have ordered it in that way.
And don’t kid yourself either - if you know that a European nation like his has plans to take your nation and eliminate you (that was basically known) and some Jew points a gun at that European guy looking to kill you, what are you going to say? No, Mr. Jew, don’t shoot at this guy looking to kill me?
If you want to exercise 20/20 hindsight, for all the European deaths, where it should not have started, the epistemological blunder was with herr E1B1B1 Hitler’s world view and actions thereupon. And if you want to keep Europeans hating and fighting each other, just keep promoting the “innocence” of his worldview and the “supreme and singular guilt” of the Allied leaders.
Black Lies are being circulated in White Nationalism -
“He only modestly sought territory ‘wrongly’ appropriated”
Those claims are demonstrably false from the beginning of Mein Kampf:
“People of the same blood should be in the same Reich. The German people will have no right to engage in a colonial policy until they shall have brought all their children together in one state. When the territory of the Reich embraces all the Germans and finds itself unable to assure them a livelihood, only then can the moral right arise from the need of the people to acquire foreign territory. The plow is then the sword and the tears of war shall produce the daily bread for the generations to come.”
Germans in Slavic Lands, Poles and Other Eastern Europeans in Western Europe
When grappling with the extent and length of entanglement of Jewish interests in European affairs, perhaps one can come to appreciate GW’s fastidious concern to separate what is authentic native/nationalist European - and what is not - through his ontology project.
On Hitler and those who worship this betrayer of Strasser, etc.
Subtitled: don’t send a boy or other fools to do a man’s job.
TT, Terrible Tommy Metzger:
Lets compare and contrast what the man, Metzger, is saying, not only to what Carolyn or Rodney Martin might say, but to the kids at Renegade:
In this episode, Kyle Hunt interviews a young Russian American woman living in Sweden and working for Red Ice Radio:
For some background, what always struck me as curious about Kyle Hunt was how cool he thought Hitler and the Third Reich were (he’s now re-running Goebbels propaganda with “The Greatest Story Never Told”; and isn’t it good to incite inter-European war on the basis of a disingenuous claim to be concerned for truth?); with him in charge over there, so too would be the sentiments of anyone he would allow to have prominent voice at Renegade. At first I thought he might be dissuaded without too much difficulty and I tried. I realized that I was wasting my time when he treated the pro Hitler zealot, Marcus, as if he was way cool, level headed and spot on accurate in what he was saying. With that, I lost a great deal of respect for Hunt. It is not that he cannot change, but it may take a while, i.e., he is pretty young - a boy trying to do a man’s job.
Here’s the problem with these Hitler-heads over at Renegade. They’re young and don’t have the breadth and depth of experience and knowledge to provide sage guidance.
Where these sorts get their view and confidence seems often to have the common denominator of William Pierce (or the like) – smart man, no doubt, but with a philosophical and historical view that was insufficient to the task.
Nevertheless, Pierce provides cookie-cutter confidence to these kids, or chews their cud, for another analogy. Without a lot of experience, these kids can just move right into a world view that organizes things in a coherent way, just follow its pre-cut forms and drink its cud – easy, no doubt, “Hitler was right. Simple as that.” We just have to get past all this Jewish propaganda.
Indeed, a Jewish marshaled modernist world is a confusing and decadent world - it calls for a return to moral coherence. But is Nazism the right “moral” coherence? Of course not. Don’t send a boy or a fool to do a man’s job. That is a lesson that I have learned the hard way, but I did learn, after trying to enlist people too young or ill-suited to participate on a fairly level basis.
Now you’ve got The Renegade youths, as we might call them, appealing to young girls with Hitlerism - “It’s OK, so long as you don’t wave swastikas around, because the Jews have stigmatized this great Aryan symbol, have effectively but merely defamed NS Germany, while also corrupting our pre-Christian paganism…that older generation that didn’t see all this like we do, they gotta die.”
..Odimism, very smart religion, go to die in battle…just because, or rather because you are a coward and won’t get a maiden in valhalla if you don’t go and die in battle..even though Odin knows and you know that you are going to lose and die, just because, not because your people need defending (brilliant religion, Islam, its race mixing universalism, dysgenesis on behalf of virgins in heaven, is duly challenged).
The old generation gotta die, those cowards ain’t gettin’ no poontang in valhalla.
Well, not until you get old enough to be worthy, which you ain’t.
They’ve got young girls over there believing that Hitler was darn ok all over again, one getting pregnant by a heroin addict - who is now set to ask for money – but that’s ok, you can even be a heroin addict and ask for money, get a fair “Aryan” maiden pregnant, so long as you are cool with Hitler, don’t believe in something like the holocaust or other Nazi wrong-doings.
You don’t even have to be fully European, you can be a one quarter Syran heroin addict, so long as you are committed to Hitler. Overcompensating for not being perfectly European, with that anti-Jewish perspective, you can promote Africans as really OK (wouldn’t want to be distracted and lose sight of the J.Q.), you can promote the most cataclysmic killing of Europeans by Europeans just because you are committed to Hitler and because you are an anti-Jew – after all, some of those Jew broads are prettier than some White women, while black women…not too much of a threat. ..Slavic women? Hmm, yeah, that’s a threat, competition too, Hitler must have been right.
I guess maybe even a Russian woman can see the “logic” in that.
What does a woman want? Confidence!
Aha. What a revelation.
...Not to the average White American male: Who also sees that there is nothing more confident than a young Negro male (it may be argued that the Negro’s confidence is helped-along by his having nothing to lose and everything to gain).
Aren’t we so glad and inspired that women just love CONFIDENCE! Above all, above race, confidence uber alles! It’s Nature’s way! And we know that nature unmediated by culture corresponds perfectly with E.G.I. ...doesn’t it?
In fact, in a multi-cultural hell-hole orchestrated by Jewish and corrupt capitalist/ objectivist interests, to be sheerly confident is about as ignorant as it gets. Women (females, I should say) getting-off on confidence in that context is about as stupid and corrupt as it gets.
And it gets to the heart of one of our most serious problems, in how Jews pander and corrupt some base instincts in our co-evolutionary females: incitement to genetic competition, appeal to narrow (ignorant), anti-social, alpha male confidence, etc.
The proper and authentic White response in this situation is not perfect confidence at all, but a sufficient measure of its counter-measure - taking a wary, analytical step back and taking into account the necessary factors of our long term interests - i.e. sufficient intellectual assessment. If that does not turn the girls on, well too bad, but their instincts pandered to and uncritiqued have shown what they lead to - puerile girls walking around with primates – oooh, so confident! And to correct the effect of these primates on society? Where they might not leave enough cute guys around, we’ll have a night of the long knives – ooh so confident! Let’s get rid of those guys who aren’t cute enough anyway…the one’s capable of confidence’s counterpart - empathy. Yeah! A world of sociopaths!...er, isn’t that what we have?
Speaking of the irony of that, Rodney Martin has actually called for a night of the long knives. Can you imagine? This fool is chomping at the bit for a resurrection of the Third Reich and its agenda verbatim. Rodney is another coming-up through the William Pierce school of “history”. But in Rodney’s case, a pet peeve of his is being enraged because Germany lost Breslau after World War II. Even though they had it even according to The Versailles Treaty prior to World War II, and would have kept it if not for Hitler’s war- mongering (but Rodney will blame everyone else, not Hitler). You know, Breslau, now Polish Wroclaw, started-out as a Bohemian city, then after going back and forth between Bohemian and Polish control a few times, a Mongol invasion wiped-out the Poles there. Rodney says his family is from there. Maybe it is not a coincidence that he looks the way he does – kind of puts some truth to the World War I stereotype of “the Hun.”
Rodney doesn’t have much good to say about Poland, but follows William Pierce’s cookie cutter (the Nazis were really being good to Poland). In fact, the first Rodney addressed me was to smear me as to how bad I was for challenging Marcus’ crap heap of anti- Polish propaganda - including saying that Germany was entitled to the western third of Poland and that World War II had never ended. Kyle Hunt continued to speak with the Nazi Marcus after that episode as if he is just the coolest, most reasonable guy.
Now where was that “White man March” again? When? How???
Its so well organized. But? Why? Because the “organizer” believes in Hitler.
Rather, don’t send a boy or a fool to do a man’s job.
That Hitler and the Nazis were not White/European nationalists, nor can they represent the interests of White/European peoples.
I would like to clear the way further for Majority Rights as a place of sanity for White interests.
Indeed, if a former head of state where I am from had the attitude toward Germans and Germany that Hitler had, for example, toward Slavs and Eastern Europe, frankly, I would not boast of this man, but would be eager to leave him in the past as an embarrassing expression of overcompensation. I am frankly surprised that this is not the default position of every self-identifying White nationalist.
Hitler’s was a position which could only have led to inter-European fighting and diversion from our proper organization.
On the other hand, the Germans I meet in my travels, by sharp contrast, are very fine people; I am eager to help them, as I might, to ensure the flourishing of their particular native European form and ways; as well as to unburden them of undue guilt and foreign impositions. This generation had nothing to do with World War II, for better or worse. I am sure that there are sufficient many of them who see fit to participate in our mutual and discreet survivals as European nations and peoples.
I was ready to dive right-in with this frame of mind years, in fact decades, ago. One of the crucial issues obstructing this has been, and is, the absurd position of some self-proclaimed White Nationalists that we somehow need Hitler or to redeem Hitler. We need nothing of the kind. We need Europeans deeper and wiser. Let there be no mistake, those who insist upon Hitler and Nazism are Not White Nationalists.