For den som følger litt med på temaet innvandring og demografiske prognoser er det klart at Nordmenn i løpet av historisk kort tid vil være i mindretall i eget land. Det samme gjelder for alle vest-europeiske land, den europeiske urbefolkningen vil snart være i mindretall. Urbefolkningen, pliktoppfyllende og lojale som de er, prioriterer utdanning og jobb for å kunne forsørge både seg selv, ikke-integrerbare innvandrere og ett stadig voksende byråkrati med sine skattebidrag. Dette nå i en grad som fører til at egne barn velges bort. Bra er det synes noen, for innvandrerne kan føde barna våre. Resultatet, enten man liker det eller ikke, blir ihvertfall at urbefolkningen krymper mens våre nye landsmenn blir stadig flere.
Vi ser stadig tydeligere at den ikke-vestlige befolkningen faktisk heller ikke ønsker å bli en integrert del av sine respektive nye hjemland. De bygger istedet opp sitt eget nettverk og sine egne samfunn, og ofte er disse samfunnene rotfestet i verdier de har hentet fra landet de kom fra.
Dette burde ikke overraske noen. Det er noe vestlige myndigheter faktisk legger opp til. Innvandrere får massiv støtte til å opprettholde egen kultur og eget verdigrunnlag. Når man tenker litt nøye etter så er det naturlig at slik må det jo også være siden myndighetenes egentlige og også tydelig uttalte mål er å få ett multikulturelt samfunn. At dette er det faktiske målet har hittil vært litt vanskelig å forstå fordi myndighetene underveis i stor grad har fortalt oss at på sikt vil innvandrerne bli integrert, lære vestlig kultur og bli som oss. Vi har ikke helt trodd på dette, men vi har nå likevel gitt dem en sjanse.
Når det nå viser seg at så ikke er tilfelle og at myndighetene i tillegg egentlig mener at det ikke finnes noen norsk kultur, ei heller ett opprinnelig norsk folk, så blir det enda klarere hvor vi er på vei, og hvor vi har vært på vei lenge.
Dette har jo kanskje de fleste etterhvert fått med seg, og det er vel ikke noe nytt i dette så langt. Multikultur har vi og multikultur skal vi ha sies det.
Når vi nå begynner å se resultatene av multikulturen, og at resultatene faktisk er dårligere enn selv det den mest pessimistiske kritikeren kunne forutse for 10 – 20 – 30 år siden, er det noen som mener at myndighetene må være mindre begavet som har påført landet slik skade som vi nå aner konturene av.
Det tror ikke jeg. Jeg tror politikere er akkurat like begavede som de fleste andre, hverken mer eller mindre. Det er derfor definitivt ikke dumskap alene som har ført oss ut i elendigheten.
Det har vært, og er fremdeles, en sterk vilje hos myndighetene til multi-kultur på tross av de negative erfaringene som nå er for alle å se. At utviklingen, om vi ser gjennom demografiske tall og prosenter, vil føre til at mennesker, – bak tall og prosenter – hvite europeere, på sikt står i fare for bli utryddet skal jeg ikke utdype videre her og nå, men kun konstatere at så ille er det faktisk. Dette tragiske faktum vil selvsagt alle forstå om de ser på historien, statistikker og utviklingen i andre land.
At samtlige europeiske land, unntatt i en viss grad de landene som tidligere har vært plaget av kommunismen, har ført den samme destruktive innvandrings-politikken taler også for at vi må se ting i en større sammenheng for å finne bakgrunnen og motivasjonen for myndighetenes ønske om å ødelegge sine egne homogene, mono-kulturelle, fredelige og suksessrike nasjoner. Det finnes nemlig en idealistisk og angivelig moralsk høyverdig begrunnelse for en slik utvikling selv om de færreste har hørt om den eller tenkt over hva den kan være.
Du smiler nå kanskje overbærende og håper på en eller annen konspirasjonsteori. Da må jeg skuffe deg, det jeg nå skal påpeke er i høyeste grad både påtagelig og mulig å verifisere.
For å finne årsaken må vi tilbake til andre verdenskrig og det skrekkveldet som der eksisterte. Det er ikke til å unngå at det som da skjedde med forfølgelse og drap av millioner av jøder og enkelte andre folkegrupper satte en skrekk i hele verden. I den senere tid har jeg også måttet lære meg selv at gjengjeldelsen mot Tyskland og det tyske folket stod i stil med den ondskapen Tyskland selv hadde stått for under krigen.
At kloke mennesker da, etterhvert som røyken hadde lagt seg, lanserte slagordet «ALDRI MER» er derfor i høyeste grad til å forstå.
Hva som hadde skjedd, og hvordan det kunne skje ble også i ettertid grundig analysert. At jødene som var de som hadde lidd mest av alle fikk være med på disse analysene var vel også helt naturlig, selv om dette nødvendigvis ville føre til en ikke helt objektiv analyse. At England og USA også hadde dårlig samvittighet for ikke å ha grepet inn tidligere enn de gjorde, og når de tilslutt grep inn, vant krigen og muligens tok igjen det tapte og vel så det, gjorde vel heller ikke ønsket om en nøktern og realistisk analyse større. Kort fortalt er dette ett av de mørkeste kapitler i Europas historie. Millioner av jøder og andre drept av tyskere og millioner av tyskere drept av russiske kommunister og allierte styrker.
Jeg skal nå ikke mene noe mer om analysen og de som stod bak den. Jeg trenger hverken å tilbakevise den eller støtte den. Jeg kan bare oppsummere den slik den veldig grovt sett blir formidlet til oss idag:
At Tyskland var det ondeste riket verden har sett.
At tyskere, med sin sans for egne idealer og sitt hat mot jøder og kommunisme, var det ondeste folk verden har sett. Og at ønsket om ett rike for én rase, og den gjennomføringsevnen tyskerne viste, skyldtes den etniske homogeniteten, mono-kulturen, og samholdet i det tyske folket.
Artikler som dette er helt i tiden og nører også opp under det jeg vil kalle «Vår kollektive Germanske skyld».
Javel, når man har kommet til denne konklusjonen og skal sørge for at noe lignende aldri skal skje igjen er det svært nærliggende å tro at man lander på at den beste løsningen er å sørge for at det for fremtiden ikke finnes hvite, etnisk homogene, mono-kulturelle samfunn hvor slik ondskap kan få utvikle seg.
Da springer multi-kulturen frem som en tilsynelatende enkel, mild og human løsning på det som for tiden utvilsomt fremstod som verdens største problem og potensiale for ny «ondskap».
For å ta oss litt tilbake i tid, og for at man skal kunne føle på hva det er vi snakker skal jeg nå poste ett essay skrevet av Tomislaw Sunic. Han vil uten tvil av de fleste stemples som en talsmann for rasisme og spreder av NAZI-Propaganda. For mange nasjonalsosialister er han sikkert en stor helt. For meg er han kun en av mange nye kilder til allsidig informasjon.
Noe som er fint med dette essayet er at det kan leses av alle, og alle vil ha utbytte av å lese det.
Om du er blitzer og allerede hater hvite europeere, eller om du sitter hos Vepsen eller andre steder og har til oppgave å følge med på farlige blogger kan du trygt lese videre og se at kampen mot hvite europeere er viktigere enn noengang.
Om du er «NAZIST» kan du lese videre og sikkert nikke anerkjennende.
Om du er en helt vanlig person som ganske enkelt lurer på hva som skjer i Europa for tiden, og med din beste vilje ikke klarer å forstå hvordan det er mulig for våre politikere å fortsette den destruktive politikken som føres, bør du også lese videre. Essayet illustrerer nemlig det som hittil har manglet i «gåten»: Motivet for utviklingen.
I tillegg inneholder essayet en del interessant og ikke alment kjent historie.
Når man har lest essayet er man litt bedre rustet til å vurdere om det er riktig å utrydde europeisk kultur og folk og destabilisere og svekke hele Europa, pga av noe som skjedde for 70 – 80 år siden.
Når du har forstått det angivelig edle motivet for det som skjer, kan du også vurdere om den lidelsen europeere allerede, og i fremtiden enda mer, vil måtte tåle kan forsvares moralsk utfra motivet.
Når vi nå etterhvert også ser at Europa som Midt-Østen vil eksplodere i borgerkrig til sist, kan man også spørre seg om multi-kulturen egentlig var en løsning eller bare rigging av en ny scene for en ny Europeisk tragedie.
Artkkelen er hentet fra The Occidental Observer.
No word in the modern Western parlance is as scary as the word ‘race.’ It is avoided like the plague by contemporary opinion makers, except when they gleefully use its verbal derivative “racist” against right-wingers, White nationalists, forever looming ‘neo-Nazis’ and their proverbial bed fellows ‘anti-Semites.’In modern science, let alone in the social sciences, the word and the concept of race is denounced as a social construct, not being admitted as biological reality, despite overwhelming evidence that race is not just skin deep and that different races world-wide show marked differences in behavior, cultural achievements, and in IQ. As professor Daniel A. Beach recently noted: “Race pervades a great deal of social and interpersonal issues with which we must contend, yet we have no effective way of talking about it.”
Unlike their colleagues in the social sciences, many Western biologists and geneticists are well aware of differences among races, yet they prefer to resort to esoteric verbiage and expressions, such as “mapping the genome,” or “different gene pools” or “different haplotypes,” when doing research on the tricky subject of race.
Prior to the early 20th century the words ‘race’ and ‘racist’ were rarely used in the English, French, or German languages in Europe. Everybody knew which race he belonged to. The etymology of the word ‘race’ is still unclear, although most likely it derives from the old Latin word ‘radix,’ meaning roots, or the German ‘reiza, meaning family lineage. Its significance became ideologically loaded only in the late 1920s. Over the last 50 years, it has undergone a total semantic distortion. Indeed, if one were to follow the logic and discourse of professional antiracists, peoples of European ancestry must be all certified racists. Why? Because it is still an unwritten rule that White males and females all over the West mate and date solely within their own race.
European “Gestalt”: In Quest of Order and Form
The concept of eugenics is now associated with National Socialism and has come to be understood among the educated classes as the epitome of evil. In fact, however, eugenic measures were a standard family practice from time immemorial among European tribes. Undoubtedly, each family had to be prolific with a multitude of children able to work on the land or to guard the household. This meant allowing and frequently facilitating the death of children who were sickly or had disabilities.
Until recently in the European countryside when a young girl and boy were about to start dating, parents first inquired about whether their respective fathers or mothers were alcoholics, whether somebody in their family tree had some serious illness, such as diabetes, tuberculosis, or some nervous disorder — or even inborn proclivity to criminal behavior. A semi-literate, yet intelligent European peasant or farmer did not have to be versed in sociobiology or have a degree in molecular biology in order to realize that hereditary diseases of the unfortunate partner could easily be transmitted to the newborns, with deadly social consequences for the entire family.
In France it is still common to hear the expression “elle est de bonne race” (“she is of good breed or character”) for a good looking and healthy woman. In the Croatian or the Serbian language one can hear among young adults the colloquial adjective ‘rasna’ (‘raceful’) when depicting a good and healthy looking woman. In such particular instances ‘race’ is more a synonym of good health and good looks and less a scientific term for a distinctive European appearance.
After 1945 everything changed. The whole hell of moralizing and do-good pontificating broke loose. The more degenerate, the more maladaptive and the uglier — the better. The role of the environment became a sacrosanct dogma of liberal and communist world improvers, while blind faith in progress became a shining path for a promiscuous end of history. Especially the German word ‘Rasse,’ which was commonly used in the 1920s, 30s and the early 40’s, came to be highly uncomfortable for postwar German politicians who were themselves to be groomed by the Allies in self-hate and guilt feelings about their race.’Rasse’ is a sharp monosyllabic word whose consonant ‘s’ requires the speaker to emit a hissing sound.
Hence the reason that the legacy of National Socialism and thousands of German titles dealing with race, racial hygiene, racial studies, racial mixing, etc., had to disappear from library shelves, only to reappear as a subject of criminal proceedings in modern Germany. The German ruling class today is quick to raise the red flag against scholars who dare to use this word in a normative and value free manner. Shortly after WWII, thousands of books dealing with race and racial differences were burned and destroyed by the Allies. Institutes specializing in racial hygiene, such as Deutsche Gesellschaft für Rassenhygiene or the prestigious Kaiser Wilhelm Institut für Anthropologie, were closed down. Hundreds of European doctors and specialists in genetics and biology — if not spirited out furtively to the USA or the USSR — were hunted down as war criminals, or denounced as proverbial Nazi quacks. (See Manfred Heinemann, Hochschuloffiziere und Wiederaufbau des Hochschulwesens in Westdeutschland,1944–1952. See also Reinhard Grohnert, Die Entnazifizierung in Baden 1945–1949.)
In Gods We Trust: Ancient “Ethnic Profiling”
The word ‘race’ did not exist but the sense of racial beauty and racial awareness was firmly grounded in the minds of ancient Europeans. In Homer’s Iliad most gods and goddesses are fair skinned and light eyed. Athena is described by Pindar as as the “blond and blue eyed goddess,” whereas tricksters or fickle persons, personified by satires and centaurs had repulsive Levantine features with wooly hair, thick lips and hooked noses. (R. Peterson, The Classical World, 1985, pp 30–31).
In the Middle Ages one encounters those grotesque images of ugliness on basilicas and cathedrals where gargoyles were used as ornamented water spouts projecting from roofs or water fountains. Those negative images displaying non-European racial traits would be banned today, as our modern multiracial pontiffs do not tolerate racial stereotyping, or what they euphemistically call ‘ethnic profiling.’ Likely, many out-group individuals in modern American or European cities would detect in those figures strange resemblance to their own non-European facial traits.
Gargoyle from Westminster Abbey, London
In a well-researched, yet forgotten book, Professor Allen G. Roper (Ancient Eugenics, 1913) provides a great many citations from ancient Greek and Latin texts describing eugenic practices by the old Greeks and Romans. Infanticide was not considered a barbaric act, but a paramount political necessity for a city-state in perennial crisis and warfare. They did not have a luxury of feeding genetic misfits, potential crooks, or the dregs of racial outgroups. The Spartan leader Solon drafted the first eugenic laws, and the Stoic Roman philosopher Seneca encouraged infanticide for misfits. “We drown the weaklings and the monstrosity. It is not passion but reason to separate the useless from the fit.”
In ancient Rome of the Republic, racial purity and close-knit bonds among kin were extremely valued. The whole concept of the city-state was premised on a small family unit, with the typical pater familias at the helm. Even today in popular unwritten culture in Europe, a saying goes that a “person’s character can best be recognized in his facial features.” Conversely, “a person’s distortedcharacter follows his distorted countenance,” a saying that was common in ancient Rome(“Distortum vultum sequitur distortio morum.”).
It is a dangerous mistake, very widespread among White European American nationalists that the ancient Greeks were all of Nordic ancestry. As I have written elsewhere, the blond dolichocephalic faces that one finds painted on old Greek murals or pottery, or even bronze busts of Roman and Greek leaders, had primarily normative value; they were meant as the enhanced ideal type for what White Europeans should be — not the reflection of what they looked like in real life.
This is particularly relevant because of childish quarrels among European and American Whites nationalists and self-proclaimed Aryans. Such people often imagine ancient Spartan warriors as blond giants — or even picture the Waffen SS as superhuman extraterrestrial beings.
It should come as no surprise that the concept of beauty and race in prewar Europe, and particular in prewar Germany, witnessed a return to romanticized classicism. Models from antiquity and the Renaissance were adapted to the prevailing spirit of the times. Numerous German sculptors worked on their projects while benefiting from the logistic and financial support of the National Socialist political elite. Their sculptures resembled, either by form, or by composition, the works of Praxiteles or of Phidias of ancient Greece, or those executed by Michelangelo during the Renaissance. The most prominent German sculptors in the Third Reich were Arno Breker, Josef Thorak, and Fritz Klimsch, who although enjoying the significant logistical support of the National Socialist regime, were never members of the NSDAP.
After the Second World War, as the result of pressure from the Allies, Europe — and to a large extent America itself — were forced to open its doors to abstract art (Jackson Pollock, Piet Mondrian, etc) and, consequently Euro Americans and in particularly the Germans had to stifle the production of their traditional figurative art. A large number of paintings and other works of art executed during the Third Reich were either removed or destroyed. Several hundred sculptures were demolished or trashed during the Allied air bombardments. After the war, a considerable number of works of art were confiscated by the Americans, because of “their pornographic character.” In the spring of 1947, 8,722 paintings and sculptures of German artists were transported to the United States. Of these, only a small number have been returned to the Federal Republic of Germany.
Arno Breker’s work thrown in a backyard, 1945
The concept of racial beauty in ancient Greece or during the Renaissance in the 15th century Italy was often used as a pedagogical and graphic tool to provide the sense of order and form (Gestalt). In traditional Europe and America the vast majority of citizens were never ever the replicas of these hyperreal beauties represented on busts or sculptures.
Paintings of women by the late Italians Botticelli or Titian, or sculptures by the modern Germans Breker or Thorak, did not suggest that that all Italian and German women have elongated Gothic limbs, thin noses and Nordic cranial index.
The whole purpose of classicism and neoclassicisms, particularly in plastic art, but also in philosophy and literature suggested that Europeans had to abide by the cosmic rules of racial form and order. Whatever and whoever departs from order — brings in decadence and death.
The word and epithet ‘racist’ and ‘racism’ are usually hurled against White nationalists, never ever scathing other racial non-European outgroups. Over the last fifty years, no effort has been spared by the Western system and its mediacracy to pathologize White Western peoples into endless atonement and perpetual guilt feelings about their White race. The intended goal was to create a perception that all non-European races and outgroups are immune to sentiments of xenophobia or racial exclusion. The incessant anti-White propaganda and the idealization of non-Whites has attained grotesque dimensions, resulting in clinical self-hate and neurotic behavior among the majority of Whites.
Were such sickening attitudes of White Europeans and White Americans not suicidal, they would appear laughable at best. The sense of territorial imperative, the seething interracial hate is far more salient and violent among and amidst non-Whites than among Whites.
Beauty of the Beast
Mexican Americans do not like African Americans (see here, here). Neither do American Asians like African Americans and Mexican Americans combined (see AmRen’s list of racial conflict in the US). In a likely scenario of Whites becoming a displaced minority in the USA and Europe, other races would soon be at each other’s throat with violence surpassing the imagination of White peoples.
Similarly, in South Africa, the influential Xhosa tribesmen, who hold important political positions, resent Zulus, but so are they themselves the target of hate by Ndebele and Kwazulus. In Rwanda, Tutsis, who consider themselves more “European” and more civilized, hate Hutus, but so do Hutus hate Tutsis. Generally, Arab-speaking populations in northern Africa and the Middle East resent dark, Black neighbors below the Sahara belt.
The Sikhs in Punjab consider themselves the best looking people on the Indian subcontinent, ridiculing as less human the populace in neighboring Rajasthan. It is a common practice among Indian women, but also among women in the Middle East, not to expose themselves to sun, as White skin has more charm and provides huge social prestige. The ex-president of Pakistan, Benazir Bhutto, with her quasi-Euro- Mediterranean facial traits and complexion, gave her country an enormous sense of pride.
A Mexican cabbage picker from Salinas in California’s Central Valley is often encouraged by do-good US liberal White attorneys to yammer about being discriminated against by Whites, and, of course, this is standard procedure for organizations like the anti-White ADL. Yet it would never cross the cabbage picker’s mind to voice similar grievances or ask the ADL to remedy his lot in his native Mexico. It is considered an unwritten rule that the bulk of the Mexican diplomatic corps should be made up of Whites, ‘hidalgos’ of sorts, so that a California “cholo” never dares to envisage his niche amidst them. He knows very well his socio-racial place, and if not tempted by robbing or stealing he can only dream in his barrio about having his sister or daughter married to a light skinned Anglo. Former Mexican president Vicente Fox (who did his best to make the US a non-White country by ridding Mexico of its dark-skinned citizens) looked more like a picture perfect antebellum “gringo” than like an LA “beaner.”
In Turkey high social positions and political perks, as well as diplomatic postings are the protected turf of individuals whose ancestry goes back to White slaves from 16th-century Southeastern Europe and the 18th-century Transcaucasia—not to the steppes of Turkmenistan. There is no worse insult for a Turk or an Iranian to dub them “Arabs” — which they are not. In the Red Light District of Istanbul, Aksaray, a stupendous 6-foot White Russian hooker is very, very pricy indeed, whereas a ride with a tiny Philipino woman costs almost nothing. The father of modern Turkey, Kemal Pasha Ataturk, was a tall man with blue eyes of either Illyrian or Slavic ancestry, who spent more time brooding over modern Turks as hypothetical descendants of the Indo-European Hittites than recounting the exploits of pillaging Asiatic horsemen. It would never ever cross the mind of a stocky half-Mongoloid, unibrow blue collar worker in Ankara to ask for his share of Turkish social glitz — except when he arrives to Germany or Belgium with already good premonition of Germany’s self-hate and its tax payers’ largesse.
Kemal Pasha Ataturk
“We” vs. “They” — the ”Other” is the basic conceptual pillar in the studies of racial psychology, whereby every racial group or subgroup dreams to be a bit more of the Other, provided that the Other is genetically better equipped. Thus an attractive White European or American woman with recessive Mediterranean genes may nervously pluck the stubborn hair on her upper lip or depilates her widow’s peak. Or a short Alpine-headed man from southern France may purchase high-healed boots. These are often issues of social acceptance or social rejection. Sometimes they can be matters of life or death.
One can only imagine the dramatic self-perception of non-Whites landing in America or in Europe, however modest or low their IQ may be. After all, which non-European mother, be it in Berlin, Stockholm, or San Antonio, does not strive to see, or at least project her son or daughter into a better gene pool, however much she may envy or hate her White host? And if her son is already doomed to be a victim of poor heredity, then some hyper-real surgical trick might do the job— as witnessed by the facial escapades of the Western hero, the late pop star Michael Jackson.
The Painful Otherness
The normative concept of beauty and the general code of social and political conduct and civility are exclusively of European origin. This includes the famous “body language” practiced by White liberal politicians and avidly mimicked by non-white politicians. Hence the norm for all peoples, of all races world-wide is to accept White Otherness either by emulating or mimicking its phenotype. The Western heritage, regardless of whether it is despised or loved by non-Europeans, is viewed either consciously or subconsciously as the ideal type and role model for all.
The major crime of the liberal system and its human rights pontiffs is that on the one hand it preaches diversity and uniqueness of each culture and each ethnic group, while on the other hand, because of its egalitarian, levelling and procrustean tactics, it fosters discriminatory policies against all races and all peoples wordwide. The liberal ideology of global ‘panmixia’ destroys individual cultures of different peoples while imposing feelings of cultural and racial inferiority on all. Thus, many non-Europeans, especially if cultivated, are implicitly forced to be ashamed of their roots, while accepting something which is alien to their psychophysical and cultural heritage.
While Europeans of different ethnic origins and with different facial traits (Dinaric, Alpine, Mediterranean, Nordic) do not have trouble in blending in, non-European races have considerable difficulties. This often results in feelings of racial exclusion, and consequently in criminal activities, especially among younger new comers to the USA or to Europe.
In a little known, yet highly significant preface to the second edition of his once famous book (Rasse und Seele [Race and Soul], 2nd edition, 1943), and following the attacks by the Vatican clergy against the racial laws of Nationalist Socialist Germany, the once-famous German psychologist and anthropologist Ludwig Ferdinand Clauss, wrote:
We have been accused of considering only the Nordic race as worthy and all other races as inferior. Wherever such “evidence” was believed, it has affected us negatively.
This is especially true because the word “Nordic” is easily misunderstood and misinterpreted by laymen, which has created all kinds of mischief. This was entirely mistaken and unnecessary.
It is true that in Germany and elsewhere, a number of books and booklets have been published that assert this sort of thing. From the beginning, the psychology of race clearly teaches us that each race finds ultimate value in itself. … In the final analysis it is the only factor that determines racial-spiritual values.
Every race bears within itself its own value system and standard of excellence; and no race can be evaluated by the standards of any other race. … Only a person who could stand above all races and transcend race would be able to make “objective” statements about a given human race. … Such a person does not exist, however, because to be human means to be conditioned and determined by race.
Perhaps God knows the true hierarchy of races, but we humans do not.
The German Volk or Nation is a mixture of various races, in which the Nordic race clearly predominates. However, there is an admixture of “Blood” in the German Volk (for example Mediterranean). Today it is no longer possible to sow mistrust between friendly peoples. … Each step in international and colonial politics confirms the tenets of racial psychology and increases its usefulness (practical utility) in dealing with different peoples. Its goal is not to divide and separate nations, but rather to connect them by objectively establishing enlightened understanding between them.(my translation)
Clauss is labelled a “Nazi scholar” by his Jewish and liberal detractors, although some of his remarks run counter to Hollywood custom-designed “Nazi Nordicists” and self-proclaimed Aryans, all the more because Clauss, like many German anthropologists, wrote much about Bedouins, and is still considered an authority on Arabic culture.
The Jew vs. the Same
It would be interesting to find out what was crossing the mind of the Jewish American author Susan Sontag, who famously said that “the White race is thecancer of human history.” If one grants that the White race is a cancer, Sontag is putting herself in an awkward position. Does she reject being White? Implicitly she suggested that Jews are not Whites, which only confirms the thesis of hundreds if not millions of of White racialists that Jews constitute a uniqueracial/ethnic group — and not just a different culture or a different religion.
Consequently, can Sontag’s Jewish compatriots be Whites — in the sense their White Euro-American liberal friends want them to be? Her defamatorycomments on Whites imply that Jews do not fall into the category of Whites. But as practice has shown in Jew-Gentile relationships all over the West, neither do they like being called “Jews” by non-Jews — except when they need to capitalize on their Jewishness, both figuratively and financially. Yet implicitly,many Jews, while rejecting Whiteness in its “anti-Semitic” “right-wing,” or “Nazi” connotation — are not at all opposed to displaying their Whiteness. The late Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, with his feigned self-assertiveness, must have been well aware that his quasi-Nordic facial traits would be popular with his fellow Jews.
Many Jews quite rightly resent the German word and the concept of “Mischlinge” (crossbreeds) or “Mauscheljude” (trickster Jew or hidden Jew). At the same time, many Jews like to conceal as much as they can their original Turko-Kazharic-Semitic features. As I wrote earlier, the more things look hyper-real,the more real they get eventually. By the same logic, if Jews get upset by anti-Semites, why not call Jews Semites? Most likely this would be an offensive word for them too.
Tons of books on this subject are very difficult to obtain, especially if written in German. As a result, this most incendiary topic of our times is debated only in private or avoided completely. One thing is when Jewish authors like Salcia Landmann (Die Juden als Rasse, 1981) and Jon Entine (Abraham’s Children: Race, Identity, and the DNA of the Chosen People) write objectively — albeit from a Jewish perspective — about the “Jews as a race.” Yet it is quite a different story when a famous German anthropologist and eugenicist, also dubbed a “Nazi,” Otmar von Verschuer, writes about “the Jewish race.” It appears that the expression and the concept “the Jewish race” can only have safe passage and scholarly legitimacy when used and discussed by Jews.
In April 1988, several weeks before I was awarded a PhD degree in political science at the University of California–Santa Barbara, I had a private and casual dinner with a famous author of human ecology, professor emeritus Garrett Hardin. After a beer or two, he told me, if I recall his words well: “Look, Tom, I have been lecturing in biology; I can get away with saying things to my students about race that you will never ever be able to in humanities.”
Being young and living in the allegedly freest country in the world, I did not exactly understand what he meant. Years later I grasped the meaning of his words. I realized that there are academic fields in humanities that are subject to strict inquisitorial control and to undisputed canons of political rectitude. This sacred triangle consists of three subjects: a) modern historiography; b) Jewish power and influence; and c) the race question. Lecturing in an open an honest way on these topics means receiving a kiss of academic death.
Intellectual terror in American colleges is well-hidden behind the garb of feigned academic conviviality and the “have-a-wonderful-day” rhetoric of superficially friendly peers. Yet it has far more insidious effects than the naked terror I experienced in a drab ex-Communist Europe.
Apart from being a derogatory, value-laden word that immediately lends itself to an array of catastrophic fantasies and judgment day scenarios, the word “Nazi” also gives birth to a schizoid behavior among a number of White nationalists, particularly in America. Many of them seriously project in their minds National Socialist Germany as a country populated by Albino-like Nordic-Übermenschen) possessing a hidden force that could be resuscitated any day either in Patagonia or on astral UFO’s. As noted previously in TOO(see hereand here), the false reenactment of political events leads to their farcical repetition — with dangerous political consequences. In our postmodernity, the overkill of false images leads to the real kill. The often rowdy and infantile behavior of such “proud Aryan internet warriors” scares off serious White people who could otherwise be of some help in these decisive days of struggle for Western civilization. We must ask ourselves: Cui bono? Who benefits?
Indeed, the surreal image of National Socialism as exclusively Nordic has been promoted by the left — antifascist scholars, environmentalists, Freudo-Boasians, various Jewish and pro-Jewish academic think tanks, the caviar-left, the gated community White liberals, etc. How? For decades they have been cranking out an overkill of one-sided books and movies on National Socialism and racism, and this for two simple reasons. First, it pays well and provides lush media and academic sinecures. Secondly, there has been a well-conceived pedagogical project ever since 1945 to prevent a critical reexamination of race and racism.
A Hollywood image of a German officer (the “Jew Hunter”) played by Christof Waltz in Quentin Tarantino’s Inglourious Basterds, a fantasy of Jewish revenge
Diane Kruger and Christof Waltz who played major roles as Germans in Inglourious Basterds
The Many Faces of National Socialism
For starters, the second most powerful National Socialist man in the Third Reich was a dark-haired “shrunken German” (“nachgedunkelter Schrumpfgermane”), the proverbial Joseph Goebbels, a thin man, little over 5 feet tall, whose stature and face resembled more an ancient Roman quaestor than a blond fighting machine. His thin lips, a round protruding back head (occiput), sad, yet very sharp eyes, testified to a man who under different historical circumstances would have made an excellent professor in comparative literature. Goebbels was born in the German province of Westphalia, close to France. In the 1st century ad, this area was an important Roman military outpost and a region in which many Germans today still show distinct Mediterranean facial traits.
The much discussed German anti-Slavic policies, which were based on the alleged racial inferiority of Slavs, are nonsense — all the more so since at least one out of three Germans carries the name of Slavic origin. Prior to 1945, well over 15 million Germans were born and lived in the Slavic speaking areas of East Europe, including the third-ranking man in the National Socialist command, the Russian-Baltic born German Alfred Rosenberg. Rosenberg’s face shows Nordic features with a slight Alpine Slavic streak.
The linguistic approach to the study of races should not be neglected because it was common for many Slavs all over Europe to change their names to German names (“Weber,” ” Bauer,” “Schmitt”), just as it was common for many Germans to change their names to Slavic ones. One needs to open up the white pages in Vienna, or in the once heavily Polish-populated Rhine basin, or in Berlin, to realize that one in every three German names ends with the Slavic syllable, such as ‘ski,’ ‘tschc,’ or ‘c.’
In former Prussia — which is today under Russian and Polish jurisdiction — lived a significant number of Germans of French ancestry with names like “Fontane,” “de Maizière”, or “Lafontaine,” bearing witness to a significant group of expelled 16th-century French Protestant Huguenots, many of whom became prominent German leaders and scholars. Unlike all other European kingdoms, 18th-century Prussia under Frederick the Great was the first country to endorse, the American Declaration of Independence. Prussia was then the most tolerant place on earth, attracting Enlightenment philosophers from France and from other parts of Europe.
Some of the highest ranking German generals in the Wehrmacht were of Slavic-German origin. Their family names are clearly Slavic and their skull morphology points to a large variety of all European subracial types, from the Alpine(“ostisch”), the Mediterranean (“westisch”) to the Nordic: Hans Hellmich, Curt Badinski, Bruno Chrobeck, Emil Dedek, Heinrich Domansky, Walter Dybilasz, Erich Glodkowski, Kurt Mierzinsky, Adalbert Mikulicz, Bronislaw Pawel, Georg Radziej, Hans Radisch, Franz Zednicek, Walter von Brauchitsch. So were the other high German officers such as the master of panzer warfare, the round-headed Heinz Guderian, who was of distant Armenian origin, or the tall and big-nosed Wilhelm Canaris, who was of Italian/Greek origin. (See the important book by Christopher Dolbeau — practically unknown in France — Face au Bolchevisme: Petit dictionnaire des résistances nationales à l’Est de l’Europe: 1917–1989. (Against Bolshevism: A Little Dictionary of National Resistances in East Europe: 1917–1989).
The Beautiful Beast?
To assume, therefore, that the Institute for Racial Hygiene in Germany or the Gestapo were checking the names or the cranial index of high German officials, before admitting them to high military positions is academic lunacy. Yet a type of deliberate lunacy is still alive in some influential anti-German conspiratorial circles in the West and in America. The alleged racism of Germans against Slavs was part and parcel of the Allied propaganda and later of the Frankfurt School, whose goal was to whip up Slavs during and after WWII into anti-German frenzy. By accepting more than one million volunteers from Russia, Ukraine, Croatia, Slovakia, etc. in the Wehrmacht and by allowing half a million non-German European volunteers in the Waffen SS, the German high military command thought it could create its own version of united Europe and successfully fight the war on two fronts.
Even the very bad guys — the men most feared by Communists and Jews all over Europe and only trusted by Adolf Hitler in the last year of the war — were not quite the paradigms of the “Nazi Nordic” supermen. Or were they? Those haunting five were: the SS Gestapo and Interpol chief, the Austrian-born Ernst Kaltenbrunner; the Czech-Moravian born SS Reichskommissar and Foreign Minister hopeful, Arthur Seyss Inquart (real name Arthur Zajtich); the Austrian- born SS Chief of Special Forces, whose name appears to be of Hungarian origin, Otto Skorzeny; the Italian, Trieste-born SS police chief of Slovenian origin, Odilo Globocnik, who put down the Warsaw Jewish ghetto uprising in late April 1943; and finally the Croat-born Wehrmacht general, Lothar von Rendulic, who, even long after the war, was considered an expert on terrorist communist guerilla warfare. Many of their fellow travelers — the ones who escaped suicide or the Allied gallows — played a crucial role in the development of the US strategy for Cold War Communist containment.
Otto Skorzeny, whose face had a prominent Schmiss (German for “gash”) from academic fencing in his youth
Physically, all these men could be described as of the Dinaro-Nordic mixture, with prominent long heads and, to top it off, they are well over 6 foot tall, with Kaltenbrunner measuring 6′ 7″ (201 cm) feet and Skorzeny 6′ 4″ (194 cm). It is striking that all five were born in the former Austro-Hungarian Empire, an area of Europe where Hitler himself was born and which he knew best.
Traditionally, tall stature has been a matter of pride and a trademark of ethnic groups in this part of southeast Mitteleuropa. From Bavaria to Austria, along the German-speaking northern Italian province of South Tyrol and stretching further along the Croatian coast down to Montenegro, this part of Europe had been literally the military highway of different European and non-European armies since time immemorial. It is a convergence point of all European ethnicities: Goths, Celts, Latins, Illyrians and Slavs, with some inescapable Asiatic, Turkic recessive genes still to be detected, particularly further inland in the eastern Balkans. The Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius in the 3rd century brought hundreds of thousands Roman legionaries to defend the limes on the Danube against Barbarians. The same can be said of the Goths who settled there in the 4th century and of Napoleon’s Grande Armée, which went on foot all the way from Paris to Vienna, then further north to Moscow and then further south to the Croatian coastal and medieval town of Dubrovnik. There was a brief Mongol incursion in the 13th century, followed later, from the late 15th to the early 18th century by lengthy and painful Turkish invasions, which the populace in this region holds in very bitter memory. The German derivative of the noun ‘Türke,’ the past participle verb ‘getürkt’ (‘faked,’ ‘screwed up’) has a very derogatory meaning today. So does the noun ‘Turčin’ among Croats, or ‘Turco’ in Italian — words still used to depict gross and violent behavior.
It is a common sight in the capital city of Bolzano, in South Tyrol and in the Croat coastal town of Split, to see lank long-limbed women who are 6 feet tall. Incidentally, the tallest man in Europe was a Croat, Grgo Kusic (1892–1918), who was 7’9” tall (2.37m) and who served in the Royal Guard of the late Austrian emperor Franz Joseph II. His contemporary, the Montenegrin Princess Helenameasured 6 feet and was married to the late Italian King Vicror Emmanuel III, who measured a modest 5 feet.
California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger also comes from this region. Born in the small village of Thal, right on the Slovenian-Styrian Austrian border, his physique and facial traits are not quite common for this region. He is a typical Nordic specimen — highly intelligent, although his square jaw is reminiscent of old Cro-Magnon chromosomes. Although born as a provincial “hillbilly” (“Bergtrottel” in colloquial German), after being successfully coached by his wife Maria (a member of the Kennedy dynasty), he learned the ropes of political survival in America. A few Californian pep talks about multiracial conviviality, coupled with his generous donations to Jewish organizations,made him a success story that his lookalikes in Austria could only dream of. Otherwise, under different historical circumstances, he would have ended up like his father, singing a different political tune — albeit with another heavy accent.
The term ‘racism’ has a generic meaning today, denoting social ostracism of outgroups, or in the worst case scenario, depicting an act of savagery meted out by some race or some warring party to another race or ethnic group. In the standard usage today the word ‘racism’ is not necessarily a referent for a different skin color, or a depiction of someone’s high or low cognitive ability. As a result of constant semantic shifts the word ‘racism’ is used to describe a form of barbarism, generally viewed as despicable and contrary to the most basic norms of human conduct.
If one accepts this very general and generic definition of racism, then the German people, shortly after WWII, became a prime victim of the most massive form of racism and racial discrimination — unseen and unheard of at any time in the history of mankind. The scope of terror inflicted to the German people during the Allied firebombing of German cities, the degree of suffering experienced by millions of German civilians in Eastern Europe in the aftermath of the war, goes beyond human imagination. By its scope and its sophistication this peculiar type of cruelty against Germans is hardly comparable to any earlier tragedy of any other race or ethnicity in Africa or Asia during colonial times. It had clear racial, linguistic and judicial overtones still awaiting an objective scholarly examination.
Images of Dresden after the fire bombing of February 13, 1945
Numerous books have been published by prominent authors, including the well- known American legal scholar Alfred de Zayas, the German historian Franz W.Seidler, and the Canadian historian James Bacque on the expulsion of Germans, the policy of starving of hundreds of thousands of surrendered German soldiers along the Rhine river that was carried out by the Allied commander Dwight Eisenhower, the grand theft of German property, mass rapes of over 2 million German women by Soviet soldiers, slave labor of captured young German children, etc. Yet most of these books, although based on solid forensic research and physical evidence, are barely accessible, and they are never mentioned in higher education in the USA and in Europe.
Germany’s European allies, such as Hungary, or the wartime France, dearly paid their collaboration with Germany too. Few French students, let alone American students, know that over 70,000 French civilians perished under American bombs from 1942 to 1944. They cannot be blamed, as there are no sites of commemoration for the bombs’ victims in France. Tiny Croatia, which remained the loyal ally of Germany to the last day of WWII, paid a heavy price too, losing the best part of its gene pool, after its middle class had been wiped out by Yugoslav Communists. Although considered today the most beautiful country in Europe and a prime tourist destination, Croatia is essentially a huge graveyard. In 1945 it became the largest communist killing field of ethnic Germans and Croats in Europe (see here and here).
It is still common in the Karst area in the mountains of southern Croatia to stumble upon small ravines and pits with rusted German helmets, rosary beads and scattered bones. Beyond the carnage of WWII and its immediate aftermath, the root causes of the recent interethnic war in the Balkans are the direct outcome of forcible Allied creation at Yalta and Potsdam of the artificial multicultural entity known as Yugoslavia.
The question that comes to mind is: Why is this unique form of racism against Germans not debated in public as is for instance the plight of Jews during WWII? While acknowledging that others suffered greatly during WWII and that Germany also committed large-scale atrocities against others, one still wonders: Why are the enormous crimes against the Germans simply not discussed?
The answer may not be hard to find. We are still living in the period where history has been written by the victors. The topic of the war and postwar German losses cannot be debated in academe or in public life because the gigantic scale of German suffering would automatically and immediately eclipse all other competing victimologies combined.
What is striking is that there is still no official tally as to the number of German civilians and soldiers who perished in the period from 1938 to 1950. Why has the German government never released the exact casualty figure? One can only read in some marginal revisionist journals or hear occasional rumours that 6 to 12 million Germans perished during that that time span — but there is no official document endorsing this allegation. And this silence is very, very telling, indeed.
Racism against Germans had been well thought out and was brought to its academic perfection before the war’s end. An influential American Jewish businessman, Theodore Kaufman, published in 1940 a small pamphlet titledGermany Must Perish! In 1942 pamphlet Kill, his counterpart, the high Soviet-Jewish official Ilya Ehrenburg, unabashedly urged Soviets solders to spare no mercy against the Germans: “The Germans are not human beings. Henceforth the word German means to us the most terrible curse. From now on the word ‘German’ will trigger your rifle.”
The Morgenthau Plan, devised by two ethnic Jews — Secretary of the TreasuryHenry Morgenthau, Jr. and Assistant Treasury Secretary Harry Dexter White— would have killed 10 million Germans by starvation and disease in the first two years after the war. (White has been named as a Soviet spy on the basis of the Venona documents.) This would have been in addition to the 1 million that had been killed in saturation bombing and 3 million in forced expulsions. As Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson wrote in his diary, “I found around me, particularly Morgenthau, a very bitter atmosphere of personal resentment against the entire German people without regard to individual guilt, of the Nazis.”
As recounted by Joseph Bendersky, American military officers commonly believed that there were many anti‑German Jews in the U.S. military government after World War II who were bent on de‑nazification and revenge. “Feeling inhibited from speaking publicly by alleged Jewish power, a number of officers, as well as some government officials, complained incessantly in private that Jewish ‘refugees in American uniforms,’ together with Jews in the U.S. government, unduly affected American policy toward Germany in a variety of detrimental ways” (p. 364). Refugee officers (i.e., German Jews returning as members of the U.S. military government) treated Germans brutally, including sadistic beatings and starvation (p. 365). In general, these Jews advocated harsh treatment, the concept of collective guilt, and trials for general staff officers.The reputation of these refugee officers was so bad that the Army ended up firing personnel who had entered the U.S. after 1933.
Although modern mainstream historiography and the media downplay Kaufmann’s little booklet and Ehrenburg’s hectoring of Soviet soldiers, their words had a significant psychological impact on the behavior of Allied soldiers.
Anti-German hatred did not stop when the war was over. It is still well alive and thriving, albeit by resorting to far more sophisticated methods. Over the last 70 years anti-German racism, under the guise of the fluid word ‘antifascism’ has been the pivot of the “negative legitimacy” of Western civilization in the eyes of intellectual elites. Anti-German hatred still represents the unavoidable pillar of the world order, including international law. Any dent in it would seriously harm the modern system and would possibly bring it down.
There is also a psychological dimension to a racist act. Usually the bigger the magnitude of a racist crime the more intellectual effort is needed by its perpetrator to hide it, or explain it away, either by propagandistic or by pedagogical tools. Perpetrators of huge racist crimes, such as those committed by the Allies against the German people, were subsequently obliged to project their own crimes on their German victims. By reversing the semantics of the word ‘racism,’ they were able to carry out their own racist policies, while at the same time naming the German victim as an exemplary role model of racism. Consequently, the victors of WWII had no other option but to trivialize or hush up their crimes, while simultaneously doctoring up the image of their own victimhoods while ascribing their own evildoing as a racially inborn trait of the defeated German side. The postmodern liberal “antifascist” and “antiracist” discourse of “crying wolf” — blaming the Other for one’s own dark and criminal secrets, can be traced to good old fable teller Aesop and his allegories about human duplicity.
Freda Utley, a former communist intellectual, who very early learned the meta-language of the Allied propaganda and who later turned into an anticommunist writer, observed the psychology of the victors and their usage of semantic pyrotechnics. As early as 1948 she knew what would become of Germany:
A thoughtful American professor, whom I met in Heidelberg, expressed the opinion that the United States military authorities on entering Germany and seeing the ghastly destruction wrought by our obliteration bombing were fearful that knowledge of it would cause a revulsion of opinion in America and might prevent the carrying out of Washington’s policy for Germany by awakening sympathy for the defeated and realization of our war crimes. This, he believes, is the reason why a whole fleet of aircraft was used by General Eisenhower to bring journalists, Congressmen, and churchmen to see the concentration camps; the idea being that the sight of Hitler’s starved victims would obliterate consciousness of our own guilt. Certainly it worked out that way.” (Freda Utley,The High Cost of Vengeance (Chicago: Henry Regnery Co. 1949)
Judicial Review or Racial Review?
There is also a judicial aspect of modern anti-German racism, well observed by the German legal scholar Carl Schmitt, who witnessed himself this unparalleled German drama. Wars declared “good” and specifically wars fought in the name of “democracy and human rights,” are the most barbaric ones. A democratic warrior is obliged to place his enemy below democratic standards, or simply set him outside the category of human beings. This was likely the image of Germans crossing the mind of American commanders when given orders to firebomb German cities. There were no longer “bad Krauts” residing in the crosshairs of the bombers, but monstrous beasts — a unique type of bacteria, a special form of disease that needed to be chemically removed in order to make the word safe for democracy.
Psychologically speaking American aircraft pilots or naïve GIs had perfect consciousness, being firmly convinced that some ugly telluric creatures from the Bible, some stray Gogs or Magogs, lived down under in the medieval cities of Cologne, Dresden, Bremen, and Munich. It is no accident that the largest Allied firebombing — of Hamburg in July 1943 — had a code name from the Old Testament: ‘Gomorrah.’
This pattern of demonization of the adversary was first used by the North against the South in legitimizing the Union aggression in 1863 and later on in brainwashing the Southerners. More recently it was used by George W. Bush and his neocon advisors in legitimizing military intervention in Iraq, notably by parroting the expression “Axis of Evil,” put together by his Canadian-American Jewish advisor David Frum in subliminal reference to Axis countries of WWII. In both historical instances, Deuteronomy, Chapter VII, with its prescriptions for genocide, was used as a handbook against unchosen ones. As Schmitt writes:
Hostility becomes so absolute that even the most ancient sacral differentiation between the enemy and the criminal disappears in the paroxysm of self-righteousness. To doubt one’s own justice appears as treason; to show interest in the opponent’s arguments is viewed as treacherousness, and the attempt to start discussion is considered as agreement with the enemy. (Ex Captivitate Salus, Erfahrungen der Zeit 1945/47 (Köln: Greven Verlag, 1950, p. 58).
After 1945, with the hindsight of the Allied terror bombing and fresh memories of immense suffering, the mimicry of political rectitude amidst the new German ruling class was comprehensible. Hundreds of thousands of German intellectuals had to be purged from schools and universities and newspapers and also obliged to fill out the demeaning Questionnaires (“Fragebogen”), while renouncing over and over again their “authoritarian personality.” The high priests of the Frankfurt School, specialists in “laundering the German character,”accomplished their work meticulously. (See Caspar Schrenck von Notzing;also my Homo Americanus.) In the decades to come German politicians had to prove that they could perform their liberal democratic tasks better than their American tutors. Given that all signs of nationalism, let alone racialism, had to be erased, the only form of patriotism allowed to Germans was “constitutional patriotism”: “The German people had to adapt itself to the constitution, instead of adapting the constitution to the German people,” writes the German legal scholar, Günther Maschke (Das bewaffnete Wort (“Die Verschwörung der Flakhelfer”) (Wien und Lepzig: Karolinger Verlag, 1997) p. 74; my emphasis).
The word ‘German’ has become synonymous with evil. German studies in the US academe have been thoroughly neglected; any mentioning of “German culture” is still reminiscent of the time span stretching from 1933 to 1945. Today, the Germans are a thoroughly neurotic people, a case of the victor’s successful cultural (and genetic?) engineering — probably the most unique case in the history of mankind.
The peculiar hatred of German tormentors must be put into wider psychological perspective and possibly also described by an evolutionary psychologist. It was largely the subconscious knowledge of their low character in comparison to the Germans that tormentors of the German people acted in such a barbaric fashion.
The German people, as the synthesis of all European races and residing in the place where North and West meet South and East in Europe, are in many ways the most accomplished of all Indo-European peoples. Rising from the ashes of WWII, they have built the strongest, most productive economy in Europe.Germans have a special sense of space and order (Ordnung and Ortung), which other European peoples do not have to the same degree. There is a joke that even a German drug addict knows how to neatly dispose of his used needles.
In addition, the German language is the richest Indo-European language. It enables hundreds of thousands of neologisms and compound nouns; it is timeless and endless and ideal for philosophical speculation. Unlike the English language and even more so the highly contextual French language (which is full of antonyms and homonyms), the German language is a straight-forward and a very “earthbound” language, having in addition a solid normative grammar. Alas, unlike French, its major fault is that it does not give a speaker latitude for diplomatic weaselling.
The paradox of our postmodernity is that despite being the most demonized people on earth, Germans are the most welcome people anywhere. Unlike the French, the English, and let alone the Americans, who are resented, if not despised in foreign countries, German businessmen, tourists and even their politically correct elites, are welcome everywhere. From the Arabic casbahs to India’s bazaars, barefooted street kids yell in great respect when they spot Germans: “Alemani! Alemani!” Officially, even Germany’s former archenemies in Russia and Israel reserve to German diplomats a far more lavish treatment than they do to other foreign diplomats.
Subconsciously everybody knows that something terrible and unspeakable happened to Germans. But it’s not deserving loud and open discourse — at least not for now.
In late June 1944, the Anglo-American troops were well entrenched in Normandy after successfully cutting off German supply lines from the north-eastern part of France. On their way to the borders of the Reich, the Americans GIs would occasionally capture small military units wearing German uniforms that they first took for Japanese soldiers. It turned out that these were Turkmen and Azeri soldiers fighting on the Western front under German patronage.
Bizarre interracial encounters not only occurred in the Pacific between the Japanese and Americans, but also in north-western Italy, in the province of Friuli, where it was common in April 1945 to spot retreating pockets of Asian civilians and slanted-eyed soldiers in German uniforms fleeing the incoming Soviet advance along with their German allies (Christopher Dolbeau, Face au Bolchevisme: 1917–1989, 2002, pp. 302–303; see also, Patrik von zur Mühlen, Zwischen Hakenkreuz und Sowjetstern, 1971).
In the last year of the war, National Socialist Germany, which over the last 60 years has been maligned for its real and surreal racist prejudices and practices, had hundreds of thousands of non-European volunteers fighting the global war against communism and colonialism. Many of those non-European troops had firmly believed that NS Germany would provide them with independence from the rule of colonial France and England. The German Wehrmacht had thousands of Arab fighters, Indian fighters and even two black fighters from Guadeloupe fighting alongside with the Germans, such as the famous Louis Joachim-Eugène and Norbert Désirée!
Space does not allow recounting each individual event that took place after the end of hostilities. But although meagre, the literature on non-European fighters in the German Wehrmacht sheds a different light on the already highly complex picture of German racial policies in the Third Reich. However, what is clear today is that 70 years after the war, neither the winning side nor to the losing side benefited from the conflict. In fact as a prominent German historian Ernest Nolte writes (Der europäische Burgerkrieg 1917–1945 : Nationalsozialismus und Bolschewismus, 1987), this was the largest European civil war in history, substantially draining the White gene pool.
All subsequent events in the world up to the present, be they on the theoretical or institutional level, be they in the field of social sciences or world politics, are directly linked to this largest intra-White bloodshedding in history.
Race or Religion?
In the late 1940’s hundreds of prominent National Socialist dignitaries managed to escape to Egypt, Turkey and Syria. Most converted to Islam, married there and adopted Muslim names. A substantial number of them played a crucial role in early Egyptian politics under president Gamal Abdel Nasser, providing valuable intelligence to Egyptians and Syrians on the newly born state of Israel. Numerous ex-SS intelligence officers, academics and physicians, such as Hans Appler — alias Sakah Chaffar, Joachim Daemling — alias Ibrahim Mustafa, Ludwig Heiden — alias El Hadj, Aribert Heim — alias Tarek Hussein Farid, and many, many others are still warmly remembered in the Syrian and Egyptian intelligence community.
It is quite common among White nationalists in Europe and America to single out Muslim immigrants as the major threat to White Euro-American societies because their demographic growth is likely to turn Europe into an Islamic state. The United Kingdom, France, or for that matter the European Union as a whole, have a large number of South Asian and Arab Muslims. One study found that there were at least 15 million Muslims in the EU, and possibly as many as 23 million. This number does not include over 10 million White autochthonous European Muslims, particularly in the Balkans.
Yet a sharp difference must be made between race and religion. For example, only one third of Catholics in the world today are White, with two thirds being of mixed race living mostly in a Latin America and the Philippines. One need only take a walk in St. Peter’s Square in Rome to spot swarms of non-European Catholic seminarians. Unlike Judaism, which is a highly ethnocentric monotheistic religion, the other two monotheistic religions, also born in the Middle East — Islam and Christianity — ignore, at least in theory, the distinction between race and religion.
There are also double standards in depicting the deluge of Muslim non-European outgroups into Europe and America. These groups are unquestionably changing the racial profile of their White host countries. But while it is relatively safe to criticize the alleged violent nature of Islam in academic circles, one rarely hears that the violence against non-Jews in the Old Testament shows that Judaism is inherently violent.
And in the contemporary world, why criticize the violent nature of Islam while avoiding criticism of the violent nature of Zionism?
Many White nationalists are justly concerned about the inflow of non-European races. But many of these non-Europeans, such as Hindus residing in the UK, are extremely resentful of Islam. Ethnic and religious conflict in the future may well be a complex affair, as it already is in the United States, where Latinos have ethnically cleansed Blacks from some areas of Southern California (see here, here, and here).
The whole liberal hypocrisy on race was well described by Alain Brossat, who notes that in France making fun of Arabs or describing them as terrorists, obscurantists, or enemies of democracy and republicanism is considered protected free speech. On the other hand, making fun of rabbis or vehemently criticizing the politics of the state of Israel will result in draconian penalties.
To make the subject of race even more complicated, during different historical eras the Catholic Church endorsed highly promiscuous miscegenation policies, particularly in Latin America during Spanish rule. From the 16th to 19th centuries, a few Spanish White settlers and hordes of ordinary criminals from all parts of Europe found a safe haven in fertile Paraguay, only to be forced by the powerful Jesuit clergy to marry Guarani Indian women — simply because there were no White women around.
The Christian Gospel of “love thy neighbour” certainly played an additional role in the process of miscegenation all over Latin America. There has been a gradual depletion of the White gene pool caused by racial mongrelisation. This has often resulted in frequent coup d’états and poor economic growth, despite the fact that Latin America is rich in natural resources.
Moreover, the interplay of race and religion is further complicated by the fact that there are well over 10 million indigenous Muslims in Europe, mostly Bosnians and Albanians whose gene pool is relatively well preserved and who are often more European than White European Christians. Bosnian Muslims present a very peculiar case, being all of European stock with a high number of strikingly blond people. In the Middle Ages their ancestors were renowned as heretics known as “Bogumils”, with strong ties to French Cathars and Albingensians.
In the late 15th century with the onslaught of Turks against Europe, Bosnian Bogumils converted in droves to Islam — partly because of their hostility to the Vatican, and partly because their White race propelled them quickly into lucrative positions in the Ottoman hierarchy. The Ottomans offered them prestigious titles — “beys,” “pashas,” or “grand viziers.” Valued and praised because of their physical stature and race, Slavic Muslims, including the Albanians, who are of old Indo-European Illyrian stock, played for centuries an important role as elite soldiers known as janissaries who were posted as provincial rulers throughout the Ottoman empire, which in some periods stretched from today’s Algeria in the West to Yemen in the East, and all the way to Hungary in central Europe.
During WWII, many Bosnian and Albanian Muslims were highly regarded by NS Germany. The Catholic pro-fascist Croat leader, Ante Pavelic built a large mosque in the heart of the Croatian baroque city of Zagreb, while frequently referring to Bosnian Muslims as the “purest Croats.” In 1943, under the supervision of Heinrich Himmler, a Bosnian Waffen SS Handschar was established under German command.
The story of race and racism in the Third Reich is complex and endless in its scope. It still needs to be objectively written. Surprisingly perhaps, some “half-Jews” or “quarter-Jews” played a significant political and military role in NS Germany; many took part in the anti-communist campaign in the East. Among the famous “Mischlings,” or crossbreeds, was the famous German admiral Bernhard Rogge, Field Marshal Erhard Milch, Field Marshal Von Manstein (born Lewinski), the panzer general Fritz Bayerlein, etc. In his book, Hitler’s Jewish Soldiers, the Jewish American historian Bryan Mark Rigg estimates that between 120,000 to 160,000 Germans of Jewish extraction served in the Wehrmacht.
Heredity and race are crucial elements in someone’s political and social behavior. But a person possessing the highest qualities of his race — but without a culture that preserves and enhances his race — turns into a biological unit with a meaningless life. Culture must always come as the final veneer on a person’s racial make-up. Even among Third Reich scholars the most frequent word was not Rasse (race), but rather the word Ausbildung, which denotes character building (often wrongly translated into English as ‘education’). High IQ and other positive racial characteristics can in no way substitute for strong will and moral integrity. These traits are influenced genetically and they differ between the races. But there are strong cultural influences on these traits as well. The phenomenon whereby so many Whites have accepted the death of their culture and the surrender of lands they have held for centuries is the product of a pathological culture, not pathological genes.
It still remains a great mystery why the great White race, once capable of great deeds and daring adventure from Cape Verde to Patagonia and from the Arctic Circle to New Zealand, is now more and more inclined to a domesticated life with no risks, always ready to meekly accept its own cultural and political eclipse as a moral imperative. Must it wait for the real interracial warfare in order to retrieve its ingroup identity?