“Suppressing a Truth of Nature Does Not Make It Go Away”: Guillaume Durocher Interviewed by Hubert Collins

Hubert Collins: You have written a lot—you have nearly 100 posts on Counter Currents alone, plus dozens more spread out across American RenaissanceThe Occidental ObserverThe Occidental Quarterly, and Radix. In as few words as possible: what motivates it?

Guillaume Durocher: I am thinking out loud, clarifying and systematizing my thoughts, sometimes encapsulating them in a succinct and evocative way. I am also trying to entice others to come down the rabbit hole . . .

Were you a voracious writer before you got involved in the dissident right? What did you write on before your primary focus became race? How did that transition take place?

I wrote about politics and economics. If you are really pursuing the truth and sticking to it, as I like to think I am doing, you’ll fall foul of some dogma sooner or later. In my case, this was the value of the nation. The nation-state is something which the authorities in Europe today openly despise. Raised as a good “end-of-history” democrat, I was appalled that European elites were shifting ever-more power from citizens to unaccountable international bureaucrats and rootless economic forces. In this respect, our leaders are going completely against the republican tradition of the Enlightenment. Rousseau and Jefferson valued sovereignty and autarky. John Jay and Henri Grégoire affirmed the importance of a cohesive national identity to social harmony and civic politics. I was greatly impressed by Raymond Aron, a liberal-conservative Jewish intellectual, who called the homogeneous nation-state “the political masterpiece,” the key to Western nations’ remarkable social organization and dynamism.

When I realized that this identity of Western nations was being almost irreversibly shattered through mass immigration, I went into something of a shock. The rest of the “awakening”—a new understanding of the most taboo topics, namely the Jews, fascism, and race—was very gradual and tortuous. Step by step the assumptions I had been brought up with, which we were all brought up with, were broken down. This was not easy. I try to remember that when I grow impatient with relations and a society still largely in the grip of political correctness.

As anyone familiar with your writing knows, you have spent quite a bit of time in both western Europe, particularly France, and the United States. Which society do you see as more degraded, more unlikely to right its ship? Why?

I’d say we are about equally awful. America tends to obesity, Europe to effeminacy. These are the two poles of postwar democracy, to which each nation gravitates, more or less.

In the short term, a successful national-populist turn, really curbing immigration, seems quite possible on both sides of the Atlantic. As to something more radical . . . we can only speculate. Western Europe is too comfortable. Eastern Europe is too disorganized. Russia may have potential. In America, secession seems like a viable option in the long run.

During the 2016 American Presidential election, you wrote of Donald Trump very positively. Since he took office, you have been fairly silent on the topic. What’s your assessment of his first year and a half in office, and your guess as to what comes next?

Trump has been a spectacular educational force. With the populist reality-TV billionaire’s success, we see that the power of ethno-national sentiment is here to stay. We also see that there is a huge tension between democracy and the enforcement of values. The ruling ideology’s assumptions about human nature were shown to be gravely mistaken. Our media-cultural elites should take advantage of this teachable moment, and while most are still under shock, a few are reappraising some of their ideas and learning. As a president, there is no question Trump is a disappointment, besides a reduction in illegal immigration and refugee admissions. The rest is perfectly dismal. But this is only a first step, the twenty-first century has barely begun.

Similarly, one of the major debates within the dissident right today, which you can see both on Twitter and at recent conferences, is whether or not our moment in the sun is about over. What’s your take?

The online subculture will always be there and continue to grow. The relevance of our message can also only continue to grow with generational change, increasing diversity, and the rise of China. We underestimated the power of the backlash which mainstream society was capable of once we were no longer under the radar. Like Solzhenitsyn, we need to be patient in the confidence that, sooner or later, the truth will reign. Jared Taylor, by the way, is an enormous inspiration in this respect.

Outside the remnants of White Nationalism 1.0, you are one of the more prominent dissident figures who writes about Adolf Hitler neutrally, and even semi-positively. Your final verdict on the man, however, remains unclear. How would you sum up your view of him?

Don’t get me started! Hitler cannot be the “incomprehensible” center of the reigning demonology. This is disastrous both from the point of view of historical truth and for the moral self-confidence of the European peoples.

Anyone who loves the European peoples and recognizes them as a genetic reality is likely to have conflicted feelings about Hitler. On the one hand, and in retrospect, an Axis victory (possibly with Britain and America staying out of the war) is objectively the only way in which the Europeans could have retained their homelands. Churchill and De Gaulle, who both claimed after the war to wish to preserve the White race, learned this to their chagrin. Furthermore, no one was more systematic than Hitler in transforming the values and institutions of his society on the basis of hereditarian realities. On the other hand, his undeniable excesses—including a disastrous doctrine of perpetual war even among fellow European ethnic groups—did much to discredit racial thinking. In this sense, Hitler was not just almost a world-historical success, he was also what is called a ‘malignant’ failure.

But we have to understand and learn from the phenomenon. Both friends and opponents can learn from the Third Reich’s successes and failures, which range from mediocre to disastrous in the area of foreign policy and imperial rule, to remarkable achievements in the areas of economics, welfare, healthcare, ecology, fertility, cultural change, and social unity. These reflect both the power and limits of ethnic solidarity and ideological zeal in a northwest European society, based upon emotional systems deeply ingrained in the human psyche. Whether people like it or not, these factors remain relevant for any social project.

The Hitler phenomenon, far from being “incomprehensible,” is an umpteenth example of the great tribal-spiritual spasm, which is a kind of desperate survival reflex of every society in crisis, a recurring feature of human history. Thomas Mann, though an opponent of Hitler, recognized him as a fellow artist. Carl Jung deemed him a kind of resurgence of Wotan in the German collective unconscious. I would say the life of Hitler was as though a Yamnaya priest-king and warlord were born in the modern age. He was the Germanic Manu and Lycurgus. Actually, his legislation was not so different from what the Israelite prophets ordained in the Old Testament. But how rare that we actually have audiovisual recordings! In the premodern era, the revered founder’s words were always distorted by the process of memorization and editing by his followers.

We need to think about the demonization of Hitler, the fact that he is the secular Satan of our times, the negative pole around which our entire moral order revolves. “The victors write the history books,” they say. Very true, but in both France and the American South, the defeated were allowed the consolation of writing positive accounts of Napoleon and the Confederacy, of defending their fathers’ sacrifice.

The demonization of Hitler, I believe, is a very important phenomenon of our Western collective psyche. The fact is that some self-interested, even “barbaric” violence and lordship have always been necessary to the development of higher life and civilization. Homer and Darwin are very clear on this. All life is made up of love and war. Differentiation implies hierarchy. We can aspire to be like the peaceful lotus flower growing in the muddy pond, but prior to that, we’d never have gotten here without the instinct of the blood-drenched tigress, securing a kill for her cubs. Without such “unfairness,” life would never have developed beyond the stage of the amoeba.

Hitler, because he recognized this reality so clearly and affirmed it as a State religion, has been made to carry the entire burden of this necessary cruelty, which runs across the entire animal kingdom and all human history. We suppress this painful reality, this unfairness, because modern man is so comfortable, squishy, and fearful. We pretend that the world can or should be a kind of giant kindergarten, as though that would have been compatible with biological and moral progress, which has enabled the level of civilization we all take for granted today. Just think of the tremendous violence which was necessary to establish the United States in North America or to destroy the Axis powers in Europe.

At a certain point, I do believe that mankind will have to openly, perhaps serenely, recognize this truth, this aspect of life. Suppressing a truth of nature does not make it go away, but on the contrary, only makes it express itself in more unpredictable, uncontrolled, and possibly destructive ways. A psychological revolution needs to be achieved in what are the unprecedentedly difficult circumstances, given how wimpish and materialist we are today. That is where one gets a little transcendental and I start talking about the spiritual life . . .

Your admiration of our Greco-Roman ancestors is quite clear. Did that respect come before or after you came to your current racial views? How intertwined do you think the two are?

This is related to your previous question. Once my liberal suppositions had been smashed and I began closely studying Hitler (which was not something I ever thought I would do), I needed to reground my values upon a solid foundation. I think it was Marcus Aurelius who said that you become like the people you spend time with. I certainly would rather become like the author of the Meditations than that of Mein Kampf.

The Ancients provide an excellent yardstick by which to judge liberal democracy, fascism, and much else. Through them, we get the hard-won wisdom which helped our people struggle and live throughout the ages, often of an inscrutable supra-rational origin. I was then simply astonished at how completely biopolitical the Greeks were: may we beget a race as beautiful and healthy and good as may be! That was simply the Hellenic assumption. Who would not want that for their children? They had a combination of virility and logic which is really unique in human history. Once one has escaped egalitarian assumptions, learning from the Ancients is not too difficult either: Plato’s Apology and Aristotle’s Politics can be happily read by anyone.

For a dissident with a French connection, you write next to nothing on the Nouvelle Droite. Why is that?

To be fair, I have written a fair bit about Dominique Venner. But you have a point. I think the answer is that I came to nationalism, like a number of younger French people, through the Soralian route.

Sam Francis admired Christopher Lasch, Gregory Hood reads CounterPunch, Paul Gottfried profits from Noam Chomsky, Chris Roberts likes Jacobin Magazine. Do you have a leftist thinker or publication you unironically gain insight from?

I grew up with the civil-libertarian, antiwar Left and they still consistently provide honest commentary in the otherwise dismal, conspiracy-theory-laden discourse of today. Julian Assange is an artist who has transcended the Left-Right divide. His life and work is highly instructive and inspiring. From another generation, I’d say the Old Right could have learned much from Gandhi.

A unique virtue of your writing is your willingness to mingle old and new: ancient wisdom with autism jokes, fascist thinkers and fashy memes. What do you say to more traditionalist conservatives who would say you should not waste your time considering Game of Thrones and video games?

Well, they are, on the whole, a waste of time. But successful preachers have always adapted their message to the particular technological and cultural realities of their time. For those on the dissident right, there is always a risk of impotent isolation amidst the general muck. We need to be in tune with our times if we want to be heard at all. In the long run, we will have quality television and video games reflecting European identity and tradition too. (I am told Kingdom Come: Deliverance comes close.)

Some of the best essays to your name are those where you look to the future and imagine the possibilities. In those, you take on a sort of stream of conscious cadence that I find very unique and rather enrapturing. [See: Ethno-Statal Speculations, Counter Currents, November 9, 2017; Victory Conditions, Radix, September 23, 2016; and An Uncertain Idea of Europe, Radix, June 30, 2016] Where did you learn that style from, is there a particular author (or maybe musician?) who you are drawing from? Or is it just a certain mindset you can get in that produces it?

I get “possessed” on occasion. A little spirit speaks through me to paint the world in meaning. I do not have a full-proof technique for summoning him, but reading Ezra Pound helps.

Can we expect a book, collection of essays or otherwise, from you any time soon? How about a regular podcast, maybe on TRS?

Two books are in the pipeline: one of my writings on France, another on the Ancients. But these take time!

When you think of “victory” what do you see?

I see a world in which Westerners engage in free and serene discussion, in which we live every day with seriousness and purpose, in which our collective soul is not at war with itself, but where we love ourselves and have the courage to see, and live by, the truth. This is just an insipid glimpse . . .

22 replies
  1. jerry
    jerry says:

    Where in the world do you get this notion of perpetual war between European peoples being a doctrine of Adolph Hitler? That is absolute nonsense. Germany was National Socialist and Mussolini was fascist and jews are communist and usury capitalist. This jewish march to world domination was what they were trying to stop which needless to say failed. This jewish domination is indeed right now in effect in every country on the planet. This domination is obtained thru their central banks and usury capitalism and communist social ideologies from the Frankfurt school.

    • The Other George
      The Other George says:

      Good point; I too was wondering how he came to this conclusion.
      Historically, Hitler’s war with European countries grew out of his desire to win back German territories lost in the aftermath of WWI (Alsace-Lorraine and the Polish corridor) and the conflict grew from there.
      Also, your comment;
      “This domination is obtained thru their central banks and usury capitalism and communist social ideologies from the Frankfurt school.” – excellent and concise summary of Jewish domination.

      • Charles Frey
        Charles Frey says:

        Alsace-Lorraine and the Polish Corridor were just land. Finance, by contrast, is [[[ their ]]] reserve land.

        While Hitler, in their mind, committed a number of sins, I believe the cardinal sin was to tell Wall Street to take a hike, that he would no longer peg his money to theirs and would use the barter system for international trade, rather than buying foreign exchange in NY, for high commissions, to pay for his imports.

        What are you going to use to back your Reichsmark with, they scoffed at him. I shall back it with the industriousness of the German people and their know-how.

        It all worked so well, even in the face of Jewish world boycotts, that that alone sufficed to seal our fate, because it could not possibly be allowed to become the economic model of the world. Jews would have to learn to work, beyond pulling the lever on the cash register, contrary to their promises by Moses.

        The rest of the casus belli bag was filled with later Bushian saw-dust like they hate us because they are jealous of our freedoms and liberty. My ass.

    • Guillaume Durocher
      Guillaume Durocher says:

      While I am open to contrary evidence – e.g. detailed accounts of his Eastern policy – I see no other way of qualifying Hitler’s attitude towards the Slavs of Poland and Russia than one of lordship and “eternal war.” Mein Kampf is already quite explicit and, according to the Table Talk, Hitler thought that regular war in the East would keep the Germans on their guard and stave off decadence. He posited a radical racial difference between Germans and Slavs – including anti-miscegenation laws – which was completely excessive given the genetic reality. Furthermore, understandably or not, his preference was for a permanently disabled France.

      That is not to say Hitler favored gratuitous and permanent war with all European peoples. Besides the Italian alliance, he sought an alliance with Great Britain and generally wished for peaceful and productive ties with America and many European nations, namely Spain, Portugal, Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria. He also regretted the decline of the white race in Asia. Hitler wished to unite the Germanic tribes, destroy Bolshevism, and create a great autarkic world-power through conquest of the East.

      There is no evidence that Hitler had any interest in conquering Britain, let alone America. It is certainly quite interesting that the-powers-that-be have felt the need to systematically lie on the latter point before, during, and ever since the war. This may betray a guilty conscience. On a final note, as Pat Buchanan has observed, Britain made peace with Germany in 1939 or 1940, it seems quite unlikely the Jews of Europe would have died in the numbers they did, the Germans’ preference was to ship them, quite alive, to Palestine or Madagascar. The fact that pointing this out is taboo – see Ken Livingstone’s troubles – is also highly interesting.

      • Paul Bustion
        Paul Bustion says:

        ‘he sought an alliance with Great Britain’ Ive never seen any evidence of that and Ive read numerous biographies of Hitler. I agree that Hitler never wanted war with Great Britain and never wanted to conquer or subjugate Great Britain in any way, nor did he want to do that to France or the USA, but theres no evidence as far as Im aware that he ever pursued an alliance with Great Britain. What he did seek was for Great Britain, France and the USA to tolerate German colonial expansion into Eastern Europe at the expense of Poland and Russia, wanting them to tolerate this is not the same thing as seeking an alliance with them.
        ‘Hitler thought that regular war in the East would keep the Germans on their guard and stave off decadence.’ That is another reason to accept Hitler was evil and to not defend him. Hitler wanting regular war in the East against Russia sounds similar to how our current leaders are fixated on invading Muslim countries, its genocidal and barbaric.

  2. Trenchant
    Trenchant says:

    I think Julien Assange can well be included in the Controlled Opposition category, which indeed transcends the left/right divide.

    • Charles Frey
      Charles Frey says:

      Assuming you are correct in your ‘ thinking ‘, what do you think he thinks of the rewards from his handlers: even hands -off handlers, in return for moving about in his sparse few square meters like a caged animal, for the foreseeable future ?

      • Trenchant
        Trenchant says:

        My thinking has lead me to believe that a guy with a troubled and mysterious past, whose attorney, Mark Stephens, worked for the Rothschild Waddeson Trust, who is a media megastar and hero, who disdains “crazy” theories about 9/11, and who releases information in a way that damages only second-order players while reinforcing the integrity of certain media and agencies, might not be reliable. Who owns the debt of Ecuador? What happens to people who present a real threat to the status quo?

        Wikileaks is as genuine as Alex Jones and the confinement story risible.

        (Sadly, Michael Colhaze and his cynical TOO article on the subject has disappeared from the archive.)

        • Charles Frey
          Charles Frey says:

          Hager’s blog, despite his silly-ass-hat, is interesting and meshes with your assertions.

          However, one can not ignore the well-reasoned and sourced counterarguments by many of the commenters, far better versed than I, to which Hager responds unconvincingly.

          Either way, the devil will take the hindmost.

          • Trenchant
            Trenchant says:

            Fair enough. I didn’t read the comments nor am I familiar with Hager, it just seemed to cover a few of the main criticisms.
            Assange gives himself away:
            “I’m constantly annoyed that people are distracted by false conspiracies such as 9/11, when all around we provide evidence of real conspiracies, for war or mass financial fraud.”

            This might be a more convincing discrediting of the organization:

          • Charles Frey
            Charles Frey says:

            Trenchant, in your Assange quote, he is really talking about the assumed/alleged perpetrators of 9/11, subordinating them to, while not differentiating them from the accepted perpetrators of mass financial frauds and conspirators of wars, usually associated by traditional function with neocons and Wall Street.

            In the end he protects no one in that quote.

            As with all others, including all of us here, he is entitled to prefer one hobby-horse over another; even in his limited space.

            Your question as to who owns Ecuador’s debt, was of leverage interest. But that would be countered by a threat from further left, if the country were to fail financially or economically. Another Fidel problem: not worth the curtailment of Assange.

          • Trenchant
            Trenchant says:

            Oh, one final reflection: I found it most interesting Wikileaks released material embarassing to the Clinton campaign in the run-up to the election, but virtually nothing damaging to Trump (where it exists in abundance). For me, that places Wikileaks on the Likudnik/Israel axis rather than that of the GOP/diaspora.

        • Trenchant
          Trenchant says:

          I’m afraid my take on that 9/11 quote differs. “False conspiracy” refers to non-official versions of the event, and he is clearly discomfited by them. The invitation is to look elsewhere for real conspiracies.

          If Assange represented anything more than an asset to the powers that be he would have long since ended up like Uwe Barschel.

  3. Tom
    Tom says:

    I’m glad that Durocher touched on the issue of secession. This issue should be pushed more strenuously such that it begin to be taken seriously. And when leftists in California bring up the issue, they should be taken seriously and encouraged to secede. As Pat Buchanan rightly says, America is now an irreconcilably divided bi-national entity. If America doesn’t split apart peacefully, it’s only a matter of time before the Left wins on the basis of demographics and then the real nightmare will begin.

  4. T
    T says:

    The victors write the history books,” they say. Very true, but in both France and the American South, the defeated were allowed the consolation of writing positive accounts of Napoleon and the Confederacy, of defending their fathers’ sacrifice.

    This ‘consolation’ in regards to the defeated South, some 153 years after the conclusion of the Civil War, is in the process of being taken away as we speak in the US with the statue removals, and the ever increasingly strident attacks against free speech at the universities and in general public life, etc. They had tried, but failed, earlier in this endeavor during the closing months of the war in 1865 thru about 1900 with the accusations regarding the Southern POW camps, ie the use of ‘cattle cars’ to transport prisoners by rail, the manufacture of leather goods (wallets) from the human skin of ‘murdered’ Union prisoners, measures such as innoculation against disease designed to preserve and protect the lives of prisoners being turned upside down and made out to be instruments of mass murder, ie they were termed ‘poisonous injections’, and the labeling of the camps such as Andersonville as ‘slaughter pens’, the 19th century term for slaughter house and in the context of the claim the equivelant of the modern term ‘death camp’. The expressed hope in 1865 had been to execute the entirety of the upper echolons of the Confederacy’s political and military leadership for ‘crimes against humanity’ on the basis of these claims. Those plans fell through and the accusations then made against the South regarding the camps are now almost universally, though not too loudly, understood to have been utterly false, preposterous, and wholly untrue.

    If there is suitability in the application of the Hegelian dialectic to modern events, ie the individualism of the United States being the thesis to the Soviet Union’s collectivists anti-thesis, their synthesis forming the global ideology of multi-culturalism, it ought not to be surprising that the US and the USSR parallel each other closely in the accusations made about a defeated foes ‘camps’, the latter’s accusations figuring prominently in regards to Germany and its camps that were maintained during WW II. Like the Soviet Union and nationalist Germany’s invasion of it in 1941 ostensibly threatening the USSR’s very existance, the United States too would experience an ostensibly existance threatening invasion by its nationalist foe, the Southern Confederacy, culminating in the titanic battle of Gettysburg in July, 1863, the South’s Stalingrad. Not surprisingly in this light, just as Germany had some small hope in an ‘Alpine Redoubt’ where the fight would be carried on in 1945, so too the Southern Confederacy had hopes of a ‘Trans-Mississippi Redoubt’ in 1865.

    Knowing that collapse in the East was imminent, they hoped against hope that a Confederate redoubt could be established in the West.

    There was nothing Governor Allen nor General Smith could do to influence the course of the war in the Trans-Mississippi. Both realized that theirs was, at best, a holding operation in the West. Knowing that collapse in the East was imminent, they hoped against hope that a Confederate redoubt could be established in the West. If President Davis could cross the Mississippi, and if French support could be obtained, a Western Confederacy might be transformed from a dream to reality. Such were the straws being grasped by Confederate military and civilian leaders early in 1865.


    • Charles Frey
      Charles Frey says:

      01 Wallets of human skin: made by Ilse Koch during her previous incarnation.

      02 Lethal injections by Mengele, with a southern drawl.

      03 Andersonville, so underequipped that it lacked barbed wire to contain its prisoners, obliging Confederates to explain to their brothers from one state away, that they absolutely must not cross the imaginary line between a certain tree and some other landmark, because they would be shot for attempted escape.

      Originating the term “deadline “.

      04 The slaughter pens in the little-known town of Auschwitz, Ga., next door to Andersonville.

      05 The contemplated elimination of the political and military leadership of the Confederacy, reflects the Soviets’ Katyn and Churchill’s wet dream of executing, out of hand, 50,000 German officer POWs.

      Which psycho catalogues these purposeful fabrications ? For later copyright recycling ! Next to be applied against Iran !

      T, you are versed in these matters and obviously motivated. I have repeatedly asked German Professors, at a number of universities, who specialize in Bismarck, to give me the exact quote by him, where he said, that ” THE MONEY POWERS OF EUROPE HAVE DECIDED, THAT THE UNITED STATES HAS BECOME LARGER THAN USEFUL AND NEEDS TO BE SPLIT UP ! ”

      Of course ‘any’ reply by them would probably be already criminalized given the obvious, necessarily inferred implications.

      In any case, I read it years ago but can’t relocate it. If his quote could be unquestionably reliably sourced, people would remember it in connection with that fratricide long after they forgot the significance of Gettysburg.

      One would have to research in original German papers, ideally at Berlin’s Humboldt University and the Prussian State Archives, close to his seat of power and birth. What a memorable re-write that would be.

      How about a simple offer, published in their school paper and posted on their bulletin board, guaranteeing a $ 1,000 covert cash payment after delivery of incontrovertible evidence; which is only half of what Irving is offering for that singular, elusive Hitler Order ?

      • T
        T says:

        Which psycho catalogues these purposeful fabrications ? For later copyright recycling!

        I think your term ‘psycho’ is entirely apt as the one’s making the fraudulent accusations come out far worse than the one’s they falsely accuse. It says something about the accusers, not very good things, as to what is going on in their minds.

        Regarding the defeated Confederacy and the accusations made regarding its camps, these claims in the US media appeared for decades after the Civil War’s conclusion, and only ceased in about 1900, roughly corresponding with the formation of the ‘special relationship’ between the US and UK. While there might well have been multiple reasons for that cessation, one could surmise that one of these might be that for purely pragmatic reasons it was decided by US elites that with fully one quarter of its [Southern] population being perpetually demonized it was creating real interference and drag with the US accomplishing its world mission of making the rest of the world just like the US, to be dominated by the US. This project would require a united (as much as possible) country and hence in part why the accusations may have stopped then. While the typical US WWII era US (or UK) soldier was as yet to be born in 1900, many of the Anglo-Saxon(ish) war time elites of both the US and UK were in the process of coming of age if not already adults then, such as Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Churchill, etc, and would have been able to recall these stories about the Southern camps in 1945. Reflective of the long term dysfunctional relationship between the Anglo-Saxon and Jewish peoples, powerful elements of the elites of the Jewish people in both the US and UK whom had come of age by 1900 would also in 1945 been able to recall those specific accusations made against the US South. In other words the accusations made against the South were well within living memory of those in power in 1945.

        Regarding the Bismark quote, I too have read it, but have not found any reliable sourcing for it.

      • T
        T says:

        Elaborating a bit on the Bismarck quote, the great difficulty in sourcing it could indicate it was apocryphal. However, if he did say it, I would tend to be in disagreement with its sentiment. The construction of the continental super-state to further the efficiency and ease of economic and political administration, of which the US with its ‘Manifest Destiny’ has been the model for the world’s other continents since its creation, has been a major long term project of the powers that be. I doubt they would want to break up their very own project in any real or long lasting sense, but would rather want to build on it till each continent has been united into a single state. The idea would then seem to be to unite all these continental super-states into a global super state, the United States of the World, which in theory is to be a ‘democratic republic’.

        The Bismarck quote and its problem of sourcing is in certain ways remindful of another quote, albeit one with far less of a chance of ever having been uttered, attributed to General Cornwallis at his surrender to Washington. The quote, readily available on the internet, is said to have appeared in a book published in 1781 entitled Legions of Satan by a person who was there. While the person who wrote the book, the supposed eye and ear witness to the quote being said, was quite a real person, the book itself can’t seem to be found anywhere. The quote was something of an intriguing warning/prophecy made to Washington by Cornwallis about the actual nature of the United States and to what the future would hold for it. But, again, very serious doubt exist as to the actual existance of the book and the purported Cornwallis quote supposedly within.

  5. traducteur
    traducteur says:

    This article is translated from the French, isn’t it? Nice translation job, my compliments. Credit should have been given to the translator.

  6. Paul Bustion
    Paul Bustion says:

    ‘Anyone who loves the European peoples and recognizes them as a genetic reality is likely to have conflicted feelings about Hitler. On the one hand, and in retrospect, an Axis victory (possibly with Britain and America staying out of the war) is objectively the only way in which the Europeans could have retained their homelands.’
    Hitler was not a White Nationalist, he was a German nationalist. He wanted to specifically preserve the German race, his only interest in other European races was as allies, he was not a pan-European nationalist or White Nationalist. Nazism and White Nationalism are incompatible ideologies, because White Nationalism seeks to unite all the European races into one race and create a racial state for all European races, which basically would abolish the uniqueness of all the European races and cultures and replace it with one universal European race and culture. Hitler regards Eastern European Slavs/Russians as genetically inferior to Germans, the Poles and Russians under German colonial rule had no civil rights, there status was lower than that of Indians in India under British colonial rule. This is despite the fact that Slavs and Russians are European so technically White. Hitler stated about the Russians: ‘It should be possible for us to control this region to the East
    with two hundred and fifty thousand men plus a cadre of good administrators. Let’s learn from the English, who, with two hundred and fifty thousand men in all, including fifty thousand soldiers, govern four hundred million Indians. This space in Russia must always be dominated by Germans. Nothing would be a worse mistake on our part than to seek to educate the masses there. It is to our interest that the people should know just enough to recognise the signs on the roads.
    At present they can’t read, and they ought to stay like that. ‘ https://archive.org/stream/HitlerTableTalk/Hitler%20TableTalk_djvu.txt Hitler was against Germans mating with Poles, who again as Europeans, are technically White. He stated: ‘It’s very important for the future that the Germans don’t mingle with the Poles, so that the new Germanic blood may not be transmitted to the Polish ruling class. Himmler is right when he says that the Polish generals who genuinely put up a serious resistance in 1939 were, so to speak, exclusively of German descent. It’s an accepted fact that it’s precisely the best elements of our race who, as they lose awareness of their origin, add themselves to the ruling class of the country that has welcomed them.’ Hitler also used distribution of contraception to the conquered Slavs as a means of reducing their birthrates. He stated: ‘I recently read an article from the pen of some Herr Doktor
    advocating the prohibition of the sale in the occupied territories
    of contraceptives. If any criminal lunatic should really try to introduce this measure I’d soon have his head off! In view of the extraordinary fertility of the local inhabitants, we should be only too pleased to encourage the women and the girls to practice the arts of contraception at ali times. Far from prohibiting the sale of contraceptives, therefore, we should do our utmost to encourage it. We should call on the Jews for help ! With their unrivalled sense of commerce, they are the very people for the job !’
    Hitler was a German Nationalist, not a White Nationalist. His policies were only aimed at the preservation of the German race, not of European races generally. Hitler had some similarities to White Nationalists in that one of the main sources of opposition to him was international Jewry, which is also one of the main sources and perhaps the main source of opposition to White Nationalism, and he wanted to keep Non-White immigrants out of Germany, that is a similarity, and he wanted to preserve traditional culture, those are all similarities but he was still not a White Nationalist.

Comments are closed.