Biocentric Political Thought in the Third Reich: A Review of Johann Chapoutot’s The Law of Blood

The Law of Blood
Johann Chapoutot
La loi du sang: Penser et agir en nazi
Paris: Gallimard, 2014
(English translation by Miranda Richmond Mouillot
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2018, in press)

“I mean, say what you want about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it’s an ethos.” — Walter Sobchak

In today’s culture, any nationalist activist, or really anyone who is politically incorrect, is liable to be labeled a “Nazi” and compared to Adolf Hitler. This is so even when the comparison is patently absurd and the person in question is obviously not a “Nazi”: whether the conservative French patriot Jean-Marie Le Pen, the anti-Zionist mixed-race Franco-Cameroonian Dieudonné M’bala M’bala, or indeed the populist civic nationalist Donald Trump. Comparisons to fascism are also de rigueur whenever the Western politico-media Establishment wishes to demonize a foreign leader who refuses to kneel, such as Slobodan Milošević or Vladimir Putin.

The reason such individuals are called “Nazis” and compared to Hitler is typically not because of any formal ideological similarities — none of those above have ever championed a totalitarian dictatorship or any kind of systematic racial or anti-Semitic politics — but for more emotional, civil-religious reasons.[1] In the current culture, “Nazi” or “Hitler” is simply the meanest name one can call someone (hence the phenomenon of Godwin’s law) — the designated term for anyone violating the orthodoxies of political correctness. Political correctness, in turn, has steadily shifted leftwards and radicalized over the years. This means that, today, if people adopt the opinions of prominent anti-Nazis like Charles de Gaulle or Winston Churchill (who were both racialist proud of their White identity and moderately Judeo-critical), they will, however absurdly, be sure to be called “Nazis.”

However, eventually a reaction sets in. Nationalists and free-thinkers will tend to become curious: what did Hitler and the National Socialists actually think? Am I, the so-called Nazi heretic, really like them? Were they — the designated worst evil of human history —  really that bad? These questions — as writers such as Irmin Vinson and Greg Johnson have noted —  are irrelevant to the legitimacy of ethnic Europeans’ right to live and prosper in their own homelands.[2] Furthermore, and quite obviously for anyone who examines the topic, the fact is that there are innumerable differences between historical German National Socialism and contemporary European nationalisms and White advocacy.

Nonetheless, National Socialism remains a historically and politically important subject, the genesis and downfall of which remains crucial to understanding the development of Western civilization in the twenty-first century. We can then salute the French historian Johann Chapoutot who in his La loi du sang: Penser et agir en nazi has provided a formidable intellectual history of official thought in the Third Reich.[3] Chapoutot, who had previously written a somewhat less fair-minded but still useful book on National Socialist Germany’s infatuation with Greco-Roman civilization,[4] can be credited for showing why and how so many Germans found National Socialism to be both intellectually and emotionally compelling.

The merit of Chapoutot’s work lies in not limiting his study to Adolf Hitler and the top National Socialists, who really were just the tip of the iceberg in terms of intellectual history. Chapoutot has examined the works of the innumerable upper-middle level practitioners, philosophers, political scientists, lawyers, doctors, scientists, and others who thought and debated in the Third Reich. Chapoutot emphasizes that National Socialist Germany’s intelligentsia produced material which, far from being mere verbose propaganda, must be taken seriously intellectually. Strikingly, this work was utterly sincere: “the conviction of these authors cannot be doubted” (522). He has gone through a “colossal” body of sources, including “1,200 books and articles, 50 or so films” (25–26).

The basic gist of the National Socialist narrative was the following: with the decline of Christianity and the limitations of a materialistic Enlightenment, Europe in general and Germany in particular were affected by a growing sense of nihilism. The National Socialists proposed a total reformation of society around biocentric norms. This was based on the revolutionary insights of Darwin (which Hitler himself compared to the Copernican revolution), which revealed the natural evolutionary forces which had shaped all life, including all human life.

Chapoutot’s account is in significant accord with Kevin MacDonald’s description of National Socialism as a self-conscious group evolutionary strategy (GES) designed to further the interests a genetically-defined German people:[5]

All these manuals, treatises, pamphlets, doctrinal articles, brochures, films, etc., answer however in one way or another a common tacit or explicit question: what must be done to prevent the death of Germany? What norms should be followed so that German life grows and multiplies, and so that the Germanic race can project itself into a certain, distant, or even infinite future? (27)

By this criteria, German thinkers came to the horrified conclusion that the values of the past — namely of Christianity and of bourgeois modernization — both tending towards individualist-egalitarianism — were utterly maladaptive for the German people as a whole (“counter-selection” is a favorite term). These officials offered “a very profound Kulturkritik” of the past and a future-oriented, long-term project to reestablish society on firm foundations through a cultural and normative revolution (29).

Judges, doctors, policemen, teachers, and policymakers in general were invited to recenter their work — not on vestigial religious superstition or vague humanistic sentiments, nor on the abstract and ultimately arbitrary legal formalism of liberalism — but on biological realities. In particular, this meant making the German people, as a genetically-defined entity which would outlive the individual and was a prerequisite for culture, the be-all-end-all of all thought and activity. The Third Reich then had an entire class of intellectuals, in numerous fields and organizations, thinking, researching, and debating on the implications of heredity for public policy:

Having passed through the Academy, generally ennobled with the doctorate, many other authors of our corpus were high civil servants, an intellectual and practical elite who powerfully served Nazi political projects, and who established and legitimized them by using law, biology, and history. Werner Best, a doctor in law and a high official in the SD [Sicherheitsdienst, the SS’s intelligence agency], was no doubt the archetype, of one who did not content himself with doing, but who, always, explained, in numerous articles, how and why he acted. (26)[6]

These intellectuals did not feel themselves to be immoral opportunists in the service of the Third Reich, but were indeed proud of their contribution to a fundamental ideological and sociopolitical revolution.

There was considerable debate among these intellectuals, such as on the role of Christianity, the origins of Prussian virtues, the place of Charlemagne, Luther, or Kant in German history, foreign policy and imperialism, and the implications of Nordicism. A number of themes recur. The National Socialists considered their approach to be holistic, life-centered, scientific, particularistic, “consequential,” and sacred. The National Socialists emphasized, with absolute sincerity, the morality and quasi-religiosity of their approach. This justified ruthless killings in defense of Germany and the targeting of groups deemed undesirable. The latter was done, not out of sadism, as so many “Hollywood Nazi” portrayals falsely suggest, but as an emotionally-difficult task to be accomplished with a stoic sense of duty. The National Socialists observed that in Nature, violence is absolutely fundamental to the survival and development of life, and they sought to be in harmony with this cosmic reality. I propose that the National Socialist revolution must be understood not only as a nationalist phenomenon, but also a civil-religious one.

Chapoutot summarizes National Socialist ethics:

The life of the race was therefore the principle and the end of an openly particularistic and holistic normativity: one must act for the Germanic-Nordic race alone (or for the German people) and not for humanity — which is a dangerous and subversive chimera; one must act for the community, and not for one’s sole personal interest. These simple principles allow one to answer the questions posed by modernity. (23)

Hitler and the National Socialists attributed great idealism, cultural fertility, and state-building power to the Nordic race (but not superior intelligence). This was explained by the idea that northern Europeans’ Ice Age ancestors had been selected by a harsh, low-population environment for traits such as physical strength and social morality. Karl Astel — the rector of the University of Jena and a prominent eugenicist and anti-smoking activist — argued that during the Ice Age: “He who abandoned his companions, he who lied and tricked them, he was abandoned, and rightly so, when he himself needed his comrades, and he disappeared” (73). Historically, Nordicism was justified by observing that northwestern Europeans (more-or-less corresponding to nations within the famous Hajnal Line) and their descendants had contributed a massively disproportionate amount to Western civilization’s dynamism and innovations since the fall of the Roman Empire.

The excesses of German and Nordic ethnic-genetic particularism are probably the single most important cause for the fall of the Third Reich. Hitler took German identity and the existence of a north-south cline within Europe as essentially justifying the subjugation of Eastern European humanity as a whole as expendable inferiors, rather than as potential allies. In contrast, Western Europeans were treated much more gently. Fellow Germanic nations were sought out as allies.  Hitler was throughout his life a somewhat naïve Anglophile and dreamed of an alliance with the British Empire. Danes, Norwegians, Dutch, and Belgians were to be made fellow-citizens of a “Greater Germanic Reich of the German Nation.”[7] Indeed, by the end of the war, the Waffen-SS had recruited non-Germanic soldiers to the extent that it began to resemble a genuine European Army. The Germans failed, however, to make any serious efforts (i.e., by giving them a stake in the New Order) to enlist Poles and Russians, despite them being similarly anti-Semitic and anti-communist. It seems that Hitler’s disgust with multicultural Vienna and the Austro-Hungarian Empire made him opposed to any kind of Polish or Russian nation-statehood, considered to be unacceptable potential threats to Germany and/or to the Reich’s unity.[8] This reflected a monstrously misguided and self-defeating form of racialist thinking which failed to recognize the genetic closeness among Europeans. This was all the more tragic for Europe in that Hitler was quite cognizant of our continent’s smallness in the world. Far-sighted observers like Lothrop Stoddard had already identified the beginnings of the relative demographic decline of European humanity worldwide due to the rise of far, far more genetically-distant Asians and Africans.[9] I will write in the future on the reasoning, sometimes quite astute, behind Hitler’s tragically misguided European policy and his attitude towards the White race.

All this having been said, I would emphasize that political thought in the Third Reich, while contestable, is far more graspable and less “kooky” (“pseudoscientific”) than Allied propaganda or Hollywood-type narratives suggest. This is clear as soon as one clarifies a few terms which have, through a fairly conscious propaganda effort, acquired extremely negative connotations. The “Aryans” correspond to the virile pagan conquerors, now referred to by the no doubt intentionally clunky term “Proto-Indo-Europeans,” who gave Europe the majority of her languages and a considerable percentage of her genes (indeed, concerning India, mainstream historians still happily use the term “Aryan” to refer to the conquerors of the Sub-Continent). The term “Nordic” can be understood to mean northwest Europeans and was deemed a valid concept at the time by men as diverse Charles de Gaulle and John F. Kennedy.[10] The Germans tended to conflate Nordics and Aryans together, whereas recent genetic evidence suggests Europeans are descended from three distinct founder populations: Ice Age hunter-gatherers (particularly in northeast Europe), Indo-European conquerors (or Aryans), and Old European farmers (particularly in southeast Europe).

The Third Reich furthermore founded its action on a particular interpretation of history which, while often idealized and mythologized, was also partly based on facts. Many German intellectuals had long believed that the ancient Greeks and Romans had declined through miscegenation and dysgenics, and were generally intoxicated by reports of the blondness of Alexander the Great and the early Roman Emperors.[11] Furthermore, they observed that, after the fall of the Roman Empire, the historical fact was that the wandering Germanic tribes had founded the bulk of the great nations and/or monarchies of Europe including not just the German Reich but Frankish Gaul, Lombardian Italy, Visigothic Spain, Anglo-Saxon Britain, and Kievan Rus.[12] Furthermore, Germanic settlers had indeed proved a factor for civilization and commerce in Eastern Europe in areas such as Transylvania and the Baltic countries. The National Socialists were haunted by the belief that all these conquests and achievements had been made vain by miscegenation.

Chapoutot’s book gives us a sense that National Socialist Germany had within it, not just an intellectual subculture, but an entire intellectual universe of not only racial politics, but indeed biopolitics, borne by one of the most culturally advanced nations in the world. This intellectual subculture within Western civilization was completely smashed and effectively outlawed after 1945. Many of these intellectuals were driven by despair to commit suicide. Similar racialist subcultures, though typically not enjoying this level of state support, gradually declined in the United States, France, and other Western countries, in the wake of egalitarian liberal-communist consensus imposed by the victors of World War II.

Originally posted November 24

[1] Éric Zemmour, “The Rise of the Shoah as the Official Religion of the French Republic,” The Occidental Observer, May 12, 2015.

[2] Irmin Vinson, Some Thoughts on Hitler and Other Essays (San Francisco: Counter-Currents, 2012). Greg Johnson, New Rights vs. Old Right (San Francisco: Counter-Currents, 2013).

[3] The book will apparently be published in English in April 2018 as The Law of Blood: Thinking as Acting as a Nazi (Harvard University Press).

[4] Available in English: Johann, Chapoutot, Greeks, Romans, Germans: How the Nazis Usurped Europe’s Classical Past (Oakland, California: University of California Press: 2016). First published in French: Johann Chapoutot, Le national-socialisme et l’Antiquité (Presses Universitaires de France, 2008).

[5] Kevin MacDonald, Separation and Its Discontents: Towards an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1998; Bloomington, IN: 1st books, 2004), chapter 5: “National Socialism as an Anti-Jewish Group Evolutionary Strategy,” pp. 161–212

[6] Other examples of these scholarly officials and warriors include:

  • Lothar Stengel von Rutkowski: “Eugenics specialist, for a time a lecturer at the University of Jena, he was also a poet and thinker, bard of the Germanic race, but also a practitioner appointed to the medical services of the Waffen-SS during the war” (37).
  • “In charge of ‘studies on the enemy’ (Gegnerforschung) within the RSHA [Reich Main Security Office], Franz-Alfred Six, university professor and SS lieutenant-colonel” notably published in 1942 the seventeenth-century texts of the treaties of Münster and Osnabrück, which had finalized Germany’s political division (361).

[7] A grandiose title which sounds less redundant in German: Großgermanisches Reich Deutscher Nation.

[8] On which see Brigitte Hamann’s excellent Hitler’s Vienna: A Portrait of the Tyrant as a Young Man (London: Tauris, 2010).

I would note in passing that Hitler’s reluctance to allow a Polish or Russian nation-state was in some respects quite rational: these would feed Europe’s unstable, war-prone balance of power system between states or, if integrated within a “Greater Reich,” would lead to the same problems that plague all multi-ethnic/-cultural states, from Canada to Yugoslavia. I note an irony however: multinational polities are typically most problematic precisely to the extent a society is democratic, because then journalists and politicians are free to stoke and appeal to ethnocentric sentiment. In contrast, multinational states can often thrive for a considerable time, so long as they remain confident autocracies, as one could see in communist Yugoslavia or in Singapore today. Perhaps a “Greater European Reich” including Slavic nations could have succeeded, though this went completely against Hitler’s own petty-German, aesthetic, and perfectionist sensibilities.

[9] Lothrop Stoddard, The Rising Tide of Color Against White World-Supremacy (1920).

[10] See Guillaume Durocher, “Nordicism Today,” Counter-Currents, March 2, 2016. I was shocked to learn that upon assuming power in Allied-occupied France in June 1945, one of De Gaulle’s first actions was to order the institution of a more “Nordic” immigration policy, partly inspired by the example of the United States:

In terms of ethnicity, it is appropriate to limit the arrival of Mediterraneans and Orientals who have for half a century profoundly changed the composition of the French population. Without going so far as the United States in using a rigid system of quotas, it is desirable that the priority be given to Nordic naturalizations (Belgians, Luxembourgers, Swiss, Dutch, Danish, Germans). One could consider a proportion of 50% for this element. [Quoted in Alain Drouard, “La création de l’INED,” Population, n. 6, 1992, 1458.]

For Kennedy, see the reports on the future president’s diaries, e.g.: Tony Paterson, “A Berliner in 1963 — but did former US president John F Kennedy once admire Adolf Hitler?,” The Independent, May 23, 2013.

[11] Some historical sources also suggest Genghis Khan was red-haired and gray-eyed, a fact to be borne in mind for Hitler and Heinrich Himmler’s otherwise incomprehensible belief that the Mongol was part-Aryan.

[12] On the enormous role of the Germanic Franks in founding Europe as we know it, see: Robert Bartlett, The Making of Europe: Conquest, Colonization, and Cultural Change, 950 — 1350 (London: Penguin, 1994).

155 replies
  1. Lancashire Lad
    Lancashire Lad says:

    This is interesting. The problem is that 1.200 books sounds a lot, but in a highly literate country of 80 millions, it leaves a lot of room for selection. Also, there was similar eugenicist literature in other languages and countries. The result sounds to me rather like Rauschning’s Revolution of Destruction of the 1930s, which exaggerates the differences between Germany and other nations and was in effect a war book. The footnoted truth may not be the whole truth, in other words.

  2. Stogumber
    Stogumber says:

    As a German I think that M. Durocher is too defeatist. I would stress the point that so much “Nazi intellectuals” survived and wrote important books after the war. And it is quite interesting to see in which way they modified their ideas – sometimes, but not always under public pressure. Even if pressure was a motive, pressure could (and can) be quite helpful: it enforces intellectuals to leave mere speculations aside and concentrate on the fundamental aspects of their theories and how to make them plausibe for people who don’t share these basic ideas anyway. In a lot of cases, “Nazi intellectual” literature indeed improved after the war.

  3. Charlie
    Charlie says:

    It surprises me that more don’t fend off the label by simply stating that the National Socialist Party a.k.a Nazis were Socialists, a leftist ideology. So is the accusation that you’re behaving like a leftist?

  4. Bruno Chapski
    Bruno Chapski says:

    Many geographical places in today’s Germany have no meaning in the German language. AH even altered numerous Slavic place names.

    We can only imagine how’s the world would be today if it were not for Europeans killing one another. I have argued that there is every possibility that without Eurocide II, in all probability, Germany would have been the most powerful state on the planet.

    Hitler was an absolute disaster for EuroMan. As for his intellectual capacity, when there was no hope of winning, after the end of 1943, he constantly affirmed that there should be no retreat. As a person with no education he constantly over turned demands of generals in the field.

    Moreover, he was a gambler. If London and Paris had acted in 1938 it would’ve been the end of him and the saving of tens of millions of Europeans. During the Sept. 1939 conflict with Warsaw few German troops were in the West. Had they attacked Eurocide II would not have lasted six years. No need to speak about his declaring war on the US and/or the production possibilities the the world against that with Berlin’s realm. Continued German military production was due to 8 million Slavic slave laborers and that speaks for itself.

    Further, the 1944 Warsaw Uprising against a civilian population that sought it’s own rule, when German troops had no chance of stopping advancing Soviets… after escaping from nearly a 2,000 mile eastern Slavic front speaks volumes. Over 200,00 civilians killed for what! And the revenge, after the devastation of places such as Byelorussia. Brother against brother, Crazy!

    In 1945, AH making Berliners fight millions of Russians implies the slaughter of countless thousands who had no chance of victory (and could have had future children). Eurocide II was not only unnecessary, it might have laid the foundation for the demise of EuroMan.

    I have been part of both E. Berlin and Warsaw and can understand why often post Eurocide II US officials had difficulty trying to decide if a person was a German or Pole and who could migrate to America. BTW no country had as many citizens who could understand the German language as did the Poland of that era. Also, hundreds of thousands of Silesians (Polonians) fought in the Wehrmacht.

    This article had lots of valid points. hats off to the author.

    • Charlie
      Charlie says:

      Yes but had Hitler been stopped there would be No Holyhoax fairytales to tell today’s brainwashed snowflakes. There would be no Christmas Holyhoax movies from Hollyweird to weep to as sad violins scratched out a pathetic tune. Moreover you would not feel guilt and shame and avert your eyes towards your feet as one of The Chosenites appeared within your field of vision.

    • Carolyn Yeager
      Carolyn Yeager says:

      Bruno Chapski is the least qualified person to write about Adolf Hitler because he is so consumed with hate and Polish chauvinism. I know you, Bruno, from way back and note you’re still spouting the same distorted opinions.

      No nation, no ‘people’ was more responsible for getting “Eurocide II” underway than Poland. They were used by the British and Americans for this purpose, and went along willingly looking forward to their ‘reward.’

      “If London and Paris had acted in 1938 it would’ve been the end of him [AH] and the saving of tens of millions of Europeans.”
      But that wasn’t London’s or Paris’ purpose – to save lives of Europeans. And I like the way you always use the word Euro and Euroman—you need Poles to be part of a European mass because as Poles they are non-essential and unimportant. Only Germany gave them status as their Eastern neighbor, shielding the fatherland somewhat from Soviet Russia. You don’t mention why London and Paris didn’t come to Poland’s aid when it was attacked in Sept. ’39 … as Poland expected.

      “8 million Slavic slave laborers “…”?!!
      “AH making Berliners fight millions of Russians” who were only going to respectfully liberate them, yes?! Who is crazy?

      To top it off – “Germans and Poles can’t even be told apart” – and Poles understand the German language better than Germans! Silesians were Poles!! Is that why they voted 95% in 1918-19 to remain a part of Germany, and were thereafter so persecuted by the Polish interwar government? Oh, great history you’re presenting, Bruno.

      Does Charlie know that Bruno is a holohoaxer?

      • RoyAlbrecht
        RoyAlbrecht says:


        I love the certitude in your writing style and the way you always back it up with reasons and sources.
        Moreover, you have a knack for singling out the flaws in peoples’ inaccuracies with the precision of a surgeon.

        I see Poles here everyday.

        They willingly work for the Jew hoteliers from construction to servicing for wages that undercut the indigenous market norm.
        They are largely insular, avaricious, uncouth, mean spirited, and cliquish.
        The only redeeming personality factor I can find in them is that, especially when they are plastered to the gills, they can be quite hospitable and respectful !
        That being said…, they are still preferable to Islamics or Africans by a country mile in that Poles can be very hard workers, generally are not condescending, and they too do not take crap from the largely hostile and cunning Islamics.

        • Carolyn Yeager
          Carolyn Yeager says:

          Roy, thank you for your nice words. I can’t quite imagine Poles in Iceland, but I guess they are everywhere there are some jobs to be had. Islamics and Africans are even more strange to imagine there.
          As long as Poles are given work to do that suits them they are fine. It’s when they get ‘ideas’ beyond their abilities; think they ‘deserve’ so much, etc. that they get in trouble, and cause trouble for everyone else. Thanks for describing your experience with them. I appreciate it.

      • Franklin Ryckaert
        Franklin Ryckaert says:

        “…“8 million Slavic slave laborers “…”?!!

        “…The Nazi Germans abducted approximately 12 million people from almost twenty European countries; about two thirds came from Central Europe and Eastern Europe.[1] Many workers died as a result of their living conditions – mistreatment, malnutrition, and torture were the main causes of death…”

        Source : Wikipedia, Forced Labour under German Rule during World War II.

        • Carolyn Yeager
          Carolyn Yeager says:

          FR – The moderator has said comments delving into the “minutia of WWII” are not appropriate here. But I guess that only applies to me, not to anyone else, especially you.
          If I answered you, I would be in jeopardy of getting another lecture in place of my comment being published.

  5. Rerevisionist
    Rerevisionist says:

    I’m amazed how fixed in Jewish ruts are the thoughts, or at least reflexes, of pretty much everyone here. Let me put the view that Jews acted as local groups, in some cases indistinguishable from the locals, and linked together or ‘networked’ by long-established routes, and also by modern technical links. The links were and are kept very secret. For example the ‘Enigma’ decoding and the Bletchley Park listeners were not revealed at all until I think the 1970s. (((US))) secrecy with regard to Pearl Harbor still applies today. Jews must have high-tech communication systems, spying, and the rest, on a scale probably impossible to imagine.
    . . . . Jews in the 1930s may have information on their acts to end the First World War in mysterious circumstances, to direct money from recession-torn countries to Germany, and – in particular – their, Jewish, decisions to direct weapons and factories and industry to the USSR. It is obvious, today, that Jewish control of propaganda in the USA has enabled all the political parties, all the money, 9/11, frauds such as the holohoax, and endless wars to be controlled by Jews. In the 1930s Jews had similar powers in the USA, the UK, France, the USSR, and (I think) China. They had contempt for their local goyim, and also in every case goy collaborators and traitors. Think of the BBC for example, in those days supporting Stalin. And with people on the ground, it must have been easy enough to tap into local attitudes, assess, and change opinions on a colossal scale, and generate hatreds of the type Jews appear to love.
    . . . . . I’d suggest much of WW2 was simply scripted and staged. For example, Germany was a small country and had to be built up: the invasion of France was suspiciously rapid and easy, taking place after French Jews declared war, just as Churchill was piloted by his Jews into declaring war. The NSDAP was probably just another secretly Jewish outfit; genuine German patriots were taken out in the Night of the Long Knives, and Hitler was emphasised – and still is by the commenters here – rather than the activities of tens of thousands of Jews. The German airforce was arranged, I’d guess intentionally, to be unable to reach Moscow. The invasion of Russia by Germany was no doubt arranged to maximise white deaths, a Jewish desideratum. Check for yourself the anomalous events; there are many. I suppose people get a thrill thinking of their own countries’ heroic deeds, forgetting that in every case genuine nationals were paralleled by secret Jewish networkers, doing things they believed were in their interests, and collectively more powerful than all the other countries put together.
    . . . . . I’ve put some of this in my site where the ‘master race’ of course is Jews. It is very incomplete and inevitably speculative. And it’s irritating that people posing as academics and thinkers who might make some effort of their own, don’t.
    . . . . . If there are any serious people here, email my site with comments, if you like. Finally, allow me to repeat something of critical importance: there are no Jewish archives, there probably never will be, and Jews are abnormally willing to reveal nothing. Much serious methodology therefore has to be on the lines of Hercule Poirot, on an infinitely enlarged scale. Jews and their collaborators will lie, confuse, destroy, and timewaste, as usual. Please don’t blame me for that.

Comments are closed.