*Caution: politically and culturally sensitive material ahead. Controversial historical material discussed. No punches pulled, be advised.I have recently been asked to rebut or otherwise refute an article recently published on Counter Currents. It comes from some of our big brothers in the Bund, so I wouldn’t say no, even if this article isn’t the fare I would normally read. But alas alack, I forget that I take my years of experience with Nationalist thinking for granted and many such articles exist as gatekeepers to perturb the doctrinally undeveloped. So, it behoves us to revisit old ground. The working title of the article I was asked to examine is: “Did Heidegger Say The Holocaust Was Jewish ‘Self-Annihilation’?” In a word, of course, NO. Virtually never is anything simple when it comes to this sad, often discussed but rarely explored arena.
I will begin with the principle object of the article, being the perennial ‘muh Shoah.’ As after all, what discussion could be held about one with a German sounding name were it not somehow linked to the most abominable travesty of logic man has ever feverishly imagined? First of all, the article appears to be sympathetic to the mainstream account of history. As it states that Heidegger was unaware of the mass killing: Which is suitable given the likely fact that such mass killings are given to be wartime propaganda whose traction stuck because the new world order founded following 1945 has the Hollow Cost as its foundational creation myth.
One can research for themselves the improbability of the wholesale mythology of Shoah propaganda, that is not the aim of this article. Let us move to one of the following sensational claims made second-hand by the article. What follows is a condensation of the chain of logic explored by the article. Resistance to Jew is still Jewish because resistance to Christianity is powered by Christianity and at the base of Christianity is the Jew, which in Occidental thinking represents a base destructive element.
So. What? Would it be too pithy to assert that the entirety of the train is asinine? First of all, within the concourse of the article scarce are definitions pointing the reader to what either Jew or Christian is? It is obvious, no, that the Jew is a racial construct? Not so. For if one is honest, the origin of the Jew is rather inconcrete. So consider their religious works? Are they concrete? In both cases they are a representation of a historical trend of (potentially) calculated mish-mash. The Jew is a patchwork of tribal affiliations from the desert realm, the Old Testament attested to this long before the work of geneticists proved the same. Indeed, as children of Judah, the “Jews” are an all defined breed that comes late in the book they claim to own. And Christians? Christians are, according to the religious books, inheritors of a revealed truth. This revealed truth distinguishes itself from earlier Judaic thought in that it completes an incomplete thought. Say what you will of the religion, but there is a teleological aspect to Christendom which Judaism lacked. Furthermore, Judaism provides a people of the book, but Christianity allows for peoples with a book. Christianity is not a race, in a strict sense, though by the time of medieval Europe there arose the concept of the Christian Race as juxtaposed with the Moslem threat. This was a tacit nod to a binding identity among Whites via the Church, which then was a universal solvent prior to Luther sticking his anal retentive thumbs into the pudding.
So. Do Christians indeed flow from Jews? This is highly debateable, and to blanketly assume yes does a disservice to higher thought faculties. Yes, the two are related. But it can and perhaps should be noted that Christianity began as a Gentile phenomenon. And while I realise that anyone can bend scripture to their will, I should think an honest assessment of scripture, free from political baggage, shows it is an open claim. Furthermore, when one assumes this tract of thinking, they assumes a very limited scope. They tend to examine only ‘orthodox’ strains of the religion and discount the various ‘heresies’ present from the beginning. For example one can point to the early ‘Gnostic’ tendency of equating Yahweh with a demiurge, a lesser god of schizophrenic properties as contrasted with Iesvs as a new god vanquishing the old. When one considers the retained material of the canonically accepted scriptures, and then weighs also the disagreements from the present the question becomes more open.
For example, the binding virtues of Christianity are almost impossible not to cherrypick, but do speak clearly when set on an even keel. Iesvs, to say nothing of his purported divinity, nevertheless assumed a heroic role by proposing a counterinsurgent belief system which radically offended Jews. The Roman offence is generally overplayed, when one considers that Pontius Pilate who served as an archetype for the Roman state, begrudgingly handed Chrestus over to the Jews. A fact often conveniently forgotten. The allegation that Christians refused to worship the Emperor is likely a farce, in that the Romans themselves had a convoluted sense of imperial divinity which resembled more the latterday “Divine Right of Kings,” than the counter allegation made of Christians to worship a man. Contrariwise, Augustus himself would not be revered as a king or god but rather only after his death was it said he was assumed. This in itself is not unlike the Catholic practise of canonising saints.
In the Bible, Jews too are an archetype, who clearly divorced themselves from the community by rejecting Chrestus and demanding his blood be upon them, and their children. There is too the parable in which Iesvs seeks shelter from a fruit tree which yields poor fruit, he then curses the tree to wither. Another parable has Chrestus saying that a disaffected branch should be burned. These are references to a trend of Jews being compared to a branch or a tree which do indeed reach back into the OT. As it were, the covenant was severed. Thus, Christianity is predicated on a distinguishment of Gentile from Jew, in a roundabout sense. True. The first shall be last, and the last first seems contradicted by ‘in the kingdom of God there are neither Jew nor Gentile, slave nor free,’ but when one considers that the ‘kingdom’ is spiritual it should be obvious that it is not of this earth, and therefore beholden to another set of rules. Ergo the perennial distinction between Jews and the other. But really, at the end of the day, little is won by arguing scriptures.
So neverminding the lack of elucidation upon the respective natures of Judaism and Christianity, there is another sensational claim which flows from the first, equally asinine. Because resistance to Judaism is Jewish, National-Socialism is therefore Jewish. Here is the idea that by NS lambasting ‘anything they don’t like’ as Jewish they themselves exhibit a peculiarly Jewish trait.
Is this true? Was everything the NS didn’t like Jewish? No. Patently not. Granted, we have the benefit of hindsight and the ability to know and digest the difficult to deconstruct history of the Third Reich, but one is left with a feeling of blasé oversimplification here. It smacks of the more modern argument of ‘anyone who resists the homosexual assault on society is themselves probably secretly gay,’ a blatantly empty logical assumption. As if you cannot criticise a thing without embodying it!! We know that the National Socialist regime held a special hatred for race traitors which seemed to go above and beyond whatever animus is reserved for Jews. There was of course the reminder that a blonde haired and blue eyed specimen could end up being a coward and traitor. There was also the Slavic question, which warrants discussion. The National Socialist regime was concerned with establishing a natural hierarchy, and, naturally, placed Germany central to this nucleus and preferred to be surrounded with Germanic peoples and related specimens, everything else was ranked outside this circle. Now, that is a basic definition and can certainly be argued – as anything can be. But I digress.
The Germans wanted the rights for self-definition, which is understandable given their political climate following shady deals made in a train a few decades prior. The Allies wanted to impose an identity, not merely on Germany, but also the world. It pains me to say it, but following the Monroe Doctrine (at least) America had been a sidearm of modernity. Now, America here is meant in reference to the American Federal Government. A similar case can be made for the British Empire where growing dissatisfaction with multiculturalism led to a popular support of the fascist Oswald Mosley who might well have secured peace with Germany had Churchill and his goons not shut him down. IF, and it is a big if, Germany is to be considered modernist it can only be so in the vein that she wanted to define for herself what her modernity should entail, free from North Atlantic imposition. This cannot be begrudged her. Nor can it anyone who wishes to escape from the hammer of ZOG, not Oswald and his Blackshirts or Enoch Powell and the rest, not Axis Sally and Lucky Lindy, nor even Tokyo Rose. Alas alack, let us digress to the counterpoints at hand.
These points I found to be the most egregious. But the other claim which warrants investigation is that the Second European Civil War (WWII) was a case of Jewish Self-Annihilation. First there is the question of Heidegger’s usage, he assumes Jews as perennial modernists, sources of ambiguity and cultural entropy. Ah but of course, in this assuming modernity the Jews are no different than Americans or Germans. Thus, to criticise the Jew is to ignore the flaws in oneself. Therefore the war was a self-destruction of modernism. But was it, really? We shall address that soon. But first, let us disambiguate the criticism of Jews is Jewish statement.
What Heidegger is saying is not wrong, from a certain point of view. Anyone is capable of losing themselves in a culture of critique. So to obsess over the Jewish Question does pose a risk to your health. You can become Talmudic, vain and insensate in your quest. Nietzsche: when you look into the abyss, it looks back. What is distasteful is the thought that because there is a risk of becoming the monster you are fighting, that you should not fight the good fight. This smacks to me of the modern argument of NAXALT, on one hand, and the self-defeating ‘two wrongs don’t make a right’ that every American schoolboy had been bullied into accepting defeat with as a child.
Nevertheless. Even if we follow Heidegger’s logic, there is still a compunction. It refuses to acknowledge the other side of the gambol. Could the European Civil War not have also been a war for self-definition? Following Weimar Republik, the German state was in shambles. Their proud and variegated traditions were spat on and cursed by scholarly elites, prospectors and bankster elites. Really, the story never changes and Germany isn’t special. There is a reason Jews have been asked with varying degrees of insistence to remove themselves from 109 countries over the convergence of national histories into the world’s. National Socialism arose as a way to work with the elements that had been capitalised upon by the German peoples throughout history and tie them to something more ancient.
Elsewhere it is implied that Heidegger ultimately rejects National Socialism along with Nietzscheanism on the grounds that they too were inevitably modernist. His solution was to return to the Greeklings for inspiration. A fine thought, but this ignores the possibility of men of European extraction returning to their own individual folkways. This is part of what NS tried to allow for. There were many mansions in that father’s house. Many choices, many ways of doing things. For truly, Heidegger’s assertion that Neo-Hellenism was outside Judaism and therefore Christianity as being free from modernity is flawed because the impression of Greek thought upon Romans and thereby on virtually all European Nation States sense is inescapable. And the Greeks themselves were no perfect specimens, if we are to be honest. They suffered from many impediments as every culture has sense. What allowed them to stand out was the alacrity with which they dealt with them, at least until the time of Alexander the Miscegenator and the penultimate decline that would follow until the climax wherein the Greeks lost their Folksoul to the Turks and assorted muds in the Crusades.
Be that as it may. My predominate issue with material like this is that it is deconstructive and critical but neither constructive nor complimentary. This critique I must level at both the subject author, the Italian whose name escapes me, and also Greg Johnson who inhabits an awkward periphery of our broader “movement.” For the purposes of brothers in the Männerbund, or other such similarly insular groups concerned with this is a problem because continual moral distraction is an element of weakness. We requite positive goals, positive applications. That is, to borrow from the bizarre realm of paraphilic studies we must enact additive rather than subtractive fetishes where is concerned our movement. There is no end of critique, there is no end of moralistic imperialism of a sectarian nature. There is no end of crooked finger pointing, “thou shalt nots,” but few “thou shalts.”
So. In the marvellously unlikely event Mr. Johnson or Fra Cesare ever read this, rather than tell me what is wrong, peradventure to tell me what is being done right and how we might proceed. Always we should concern ourselves with advancement. There is too little concern with this in the movement, and that must change.
Of course, a Männerbund is a positive application. Even unvarnished as such burgeoning principles might be, they are of infinite more utility than a mere detraction. We have a direction, and we have a trajectory. It is neither complete nor even near so, and this too is an advantage for like the yearling birch we can still twist in the wind and are not so rigid that we snap. And like the fasces, a forest will grow around us in time and then when our rigidity and consolidation comes it shall be our strength. But I think for now enough has been said of this.
At the end of the day, if I can impose any viewpoint at all it is this: in my parts we have a saying, “you’re beating a dead horse.” In this case, the Hollow Cost is a mule. A drug mule. And if Christianity was ever the opiate of the masses, than the Hollow Cost is fentanyl. And like George Foreman, if I read about the Hollow Cost enough, I too can’t breathe. The relevance of the Shoah is relevant only because it is a cudgel with which we are beaten, and the proper response should eventually become “I don’t care anymore.” Like Pontius Pilate I would ask, “am I a Jew?” or another notable Pilateism is “what is truth?” But really, am I a Jew that I should care about the endless platitudes injected into the IV keeping the bloated corpse of the Hollow Cost alive? I am not. Maybe you are, and you certainly may be if you’ve read this far, but I shall assume you are not. Holocaustianity will build nothing but a guilt trip, anger and frustration for whom it concerns. So, become unconcerned, instead build a future despite the thing, and not even in spite of it.
There is the possibility of a new world, without the endless, tired whining of the Holocoaster Riders. I for one look forward to a day, dare I say that I have a dream, where White children can play with other White children and not have their day ruined by this useless trivia. Trivia which is more often than not purposefully contrite and weaponised to erode the citizenry into submission before the modernism the host article would not define. Rise above and, as Nietzsche would say, transvaluate the morals this debauched illusion has affixed to you. Do this by letting the dead horse lie, preferably in Poland where it belongs, and instead do the work of identifying your people, what binds you, what moves you, and cultivate that momentum. Godspeed.
Strength and Honour.