Christoph Steding: The struggle of the Reich against the decadent West, Part 2

Go to Part 1.

It should be noted that Steding is opposed even to the culture of the Holy Roman Empire, which he considers as a mere “European cultural community” in which the Germans occupied a position hardly suited to their central location. It could perform “cultural tasks” because it was a very loose structure whose individual parts were always in a state of disintegration.” Indeed, the desire among ideologues to bring about a revival of the Holy Roman Empire is itself only a Romantic sentiment that is repeated in the similar yearning for a return to “the Germany of poets and thinkers who are emphatically understood as political fools.”

In this unreal world of Romanticism fake psychological theories proliferated to ease the increasing malaise felt by the European peoples. Thus:

Psychological theories and psychotherapies were again not coincidentally developed in Switzerland or in the Netherlands easily falling prey to all eastern and western spiritual wisdoms and were greedily seized on by the interim Reich. In these theories it was always a matter of apparently clearing paths to reality to men living in an unreal existence, deracinated, but highly cultivated — thus, also interesting — men of a chaotic age hostile to the Reich — even though their secret effort therein was always to obstruct this path to the facts themselves. Hence the unceasing raisonnement[1] that is so striking in the dialectical theologians, in Kierkegaard, and which they intentionally do not ever want to allow to stop, just as professional psychologists may never allow their analyses to stop.

More alarming is the quick mastery of this decaying society by the Jews, who now stepped in to take over the German intelligentsia:

Now it becomes understandable also why in the interim Reich a certain sort of Jews could become the trustees of German “culture,” to such an extent that at that time German “culture” seemed almost identical to Jewish “culture.” For, quite uncommon opportunities had to appear to the Jews as the eternally distant — because eternally wandering — foreigners, aliens, always living only for themselves and as the members of a very ancient people, when, among the German people always born only for the Reich — that is, for intensified reality in general — there occurred the distancing from their own task, that self-alienation which, through German thoroughness, led to an alienation from all reality, that is, also solidity. Significantly, Burckhardt or Bachofen or Nietzsche or Kierkegaard had very competent admirers and interpreters among Jews such as those of the George Circle[2] or those of ]Ludwig] Klages or Karl Jaspers, who belonged to or stood intellectually close to it.

This cultural ambiance created by the Jews was essentially an interpretational one psychologically related to the stock-exchange world of financial relations and networks:

It did not fail to happen that the German culture in this period — when it was delivered to the men of the border zones distant from the Reich essentially, and indeed from the “mere” reality of normal daily life, and to the Jews always standing only at the peripheries — became essentially unoriginal, to speak literarily, and realized itself especially as an “interpretational culture” speaking roundabout all things. It becomes clear, further, how to this interpretational culture — even Burckhardt, Huizinga and Georg Brandes or Kierkegaard are only interpreters — corresponded, in the economic field, to the bank and stock-exchange culture where everything was resolved in relations, thus in fictions, where once again special opportunities appeared to the Jews as those never, or seldom, standing within but rather always in relative positions.

Einstein’s theory of relativity was a similar expression of the same psychological peculiarity of the Jews within the realm of physics. More dangerous are the psychoanalysis and historical materialism of the Jews Freud and Marx. The Marxist ideology is characterized by an abstractness and distance from reality that reduces all society and politics to the dictates of a literary work, Das Kapital. The predilection of the Jews for Bolshevism is indeed due to the innate utopian quality of their thought:

Once again, it is not accidental that precisely the Jews are especially predestined for Marxist Bolshevism and represent the major percentage of the theoreticians of this modern movement. As a consequence of the age of their nation they live a “distant” and withdrawn, almost unreal literary, existence when one compares them to the young nations of Europe to which the German especially belongs. … It is therefore no wonder why this bourgeois-Bolshevist “culture” sees its real goal in the destruction of all substantial forms in favor of a universal “cultural synthesis,” in reality, thus, of a cultural porridge.

The Jewish bourgeois intelligentsia exploited the Germans

either as active pioneers of Bolshevism, as especially in Russia, or also in the Reich, as spokesmen of controlled democracy and of solely mercantile stock-exchange capitalism.


it hates to a quite extraordinary degree every genuine reality and every genuine sense of reality as it was developed always most strikingly among the peasant population who, accordingly, have to undergo a special manipulation by the Bolshevist intelligentsia living off numerical speculations and the grotesque world of machines.

Indeed, the Judaized bourgeois world tends to proliferate in artificial urban settings rather than in natural rural ones so that the products of the new German intelligentsia resemble in general hothouse horticultural ones. Further, the marked feminine character of cultural history is shared by the Jews too as a people:[3]

Cultural history is therefore obvious and evident to many Jews – the exceptions here confirm the rule – because among Jewish men too a quite striking feminine character predominates.

*   *   *

In his focus on the Prussian ethos as a virile political foundation, Steding, like Carl Schmitt in his 1919 work, Politische Romantik, was totally opposed to all political “Romanticism,” which both authors considered as an aestheticizing of politics that has dangerously eroded the genuine political instinct of the Germans.[4] The essentially apolitical worldview that resulted from liberal doctrines is manifest in the spirit of Geneva (where the League of Nations had its headquarters from November 1920) as well as in the Marxism that radically intensified the political nihilism of liberal ideologies.

Schmitt’s and Steding’s rejection of Romanticism as a movement that is purely aesthetic and devoid of political impetus is noteworthy, since many of the thinkers associated with the National Socialist movement, like Alfred Baeumler and Ludwig Klages, drew on German Romantic literature for their inspiration. Steding, on the other hand, points out the opposition to the political concerns of the Reich that are contained in Klages’ psychological experiments as well as in his support of Bachofen’s disquisitions on matriarchal mysteries. Similarly, Nietzsche too is criticized by Steding for his “Dionysiac” rhapsodies which undermined the “Apollonian” orientation of the Reich. It is not surprising to Steding that Nietzsche[5] became a staunch critic of Bismarck’s Reich as well as a champion of the lighter French culture against what Nietzsche considered to be the essential lack of any vibrant “culture” — in the Western European sense — within the German Reich.

Though Heidegger was at one time a teacher of Steding’s, he disagreed sharply with the latter’s denunciation of Nietzsche.[6] This is true also of Alfred Baeumler, who had in his 1931 work Nietzsche, der Philosoph und der Politiker characterised Nietzsche as a herald of National Socialism. A sharp denunciation of Steding’s exposure of Nietzsche’s anti-Reich sentimentality appeared in a review in Alfred Rosenberg’s Nationalsozialistische Monatshefte (September 1939) by Heinrich Härtle[7] in which the author described Steding’s view of Nietzsche as “enemy of the Reich” as a “heresy.” Walter Frank, however, defended Steding as a hero of the Third Reich by appending a refutation of Steding’s critics in the second edition of the book that he published in 1940.

It barely needs mentioning that Steding’s Prussianism entails a belief in the political superiority of the North Germanic race. Steding admits that the recent emergence of non-Nordic racial elements, such as the eastern Baltic,[8] into the forefront of European affairs may have produced incidental felicitous examples of lyricism and Romantic mysticism but “in the establishment of the architectonic organization of our Central European world [they have had] as little a share as Dostoevsky had in the construction of the Tsarist Empire.” Steding also believed that, unlike the urbanized populations of the “cultural” centers of Basel, Amsterdam, etc., the peasant population of North Germany did not feel that they were different from their fellows in neighbouring countries like Holland or the Scandinavian countries, and this commonalty should serve as the foundation of the new European Reich. Thus Steding differs from Langbehn, who in his work Rembrandt als Erzieher had glorified the Northwestern Germanic peoples as the most culturally developed. Rather, Steding reveals that only the North Germanic peoples of Germany itself could correct the alarming degeneration of the North Germanic peoples in the outlying countries that had become neutral with regard to the German Reich and even hostile to it.

It is not surprising then that, in spite of Alfred Rosenberg’s aversion to Steding’s work, it found a very favourable acceptance in the SS circles headed by Heinrich Himmler and Reinhard Heydrich which considered the work a “philosophy of history in the grand style.”[9]

*    *   *

In this context, we must pause to compare Steding’s focus on the North Germans as quintessential “political animals” with Nietzsche’s ravings in Zur Genealogie der Moral (1887) about “the magnificent blond beast avidly prowling round for spoil and victory,” for they are superficially similar in setting aside the conquering North German peoples from other more “cultured” ones. However, Steding’s North Germans are more gifted in state-formation than the merely adventurous Nietzschean “beasts.” Indeed, Nietzsche’s depiction of the ancient Germans is diametrically opposed to that of Steding’s state-conscious Germans:

they enjoy freedom from every social constraint, in the wilderness they compensate for the tension which is caused by being closed in and fenced in by the peace of the community for so long, they return to the innocent conscience of the wild beast, as exultant monsters, who perhaps go away having committed a hideous succession of murder, arson, rape and torture, in a mood of bravado and spiritual equilibrium as though they had simply played a student’s prank, convinced that poets will now have something to sing about and celebrate for quite some time.[10]

Steding’s North Germans are closer to Spengler’s Prussians in his 1919 essay, Preußentum und Sozialismus (Prussianism and Socialism), which contrasted Prussian socialism with the socialism of the English, which Spengler considered as a form of Viking-like individualism that has encouraged the colonial rapacity of the British Empire and the mercantile ruthlessness of its leaders. The Norman conquest of England had put an end to the Anglo-Saxon way of life and introduced the “piracy principle” whereby “the barons exploited the land apportioned to them, and were in turn exploited by the duke.”[11] The modern English and American trade companies are enchained to the same motives of profiteering. The Prussian form of socialism, on the other hand, is based entirely on the notion of the primacy of the state, which is indeed the ideal of the Teutonic knight, diametrically opposed to the roving plunder of the Viking:

The Teutonic knights that settled and colonised the eastern borderlands of Germany in the Middle Ages had a genuine feeling for the authority of the state in economic matters, and later Prussians have inherited that feeling. The individual is informed of his economic obligations by Destiny, by God, by the state, or by his own talent . . . Rights and privileges of producing and consuming goods are equally distributed. The aim is not ever greater wealth of the individual or for every individual, but rather the flourishing of the totality.[12]

Another precursor of Steding’s North German-oriented ideology was Julius Langbehn, whose Rembrandt als Erzieher was an early contribution to what was later termed the Conservative Revolutionary movement. The political successes of Prussia at the time of the unification of Germany in 1871 threatened to engulf Germany with its militarism, industrialization, and rationalist tendencies in science and art. Marxists responded to this threat with essentially economic projects based on the principle of “class struggle.” Idealists on the other hand proposed a cultural revolution through the renewal of German culture itself. Langbehn’s work sought to combat the evils of democratic culture at the turn of the century — established by parvenu cosmopolitan elites that promoted foreign, especially French artistic fashions — with a return to the natural aristocratic ethos of the strongest element in the German population, the North Germans. According to Langbehn only a reversion of Germany to its North German character could effectively neutralize the materialistic scientific spirit that had begun to disintegrate its culture at the end of the nineteenth century.

The increasing sterility of modern science can be countered only by a regeneration of the psychological sources of creativity within the German character. These sources are located by Langbehn — quite unlike Steding in this regard — in the German’s sense of individuality and his developed personality. The modern Germans should learn from the best individuals and personalities of their historic past, and to facilitate this exercise, Langbehn chooses the Lower German painter Rembrandt as the symbolic exemplar of the quintessential German spirit. Rembrandt was indeed not classical but mysterious in his connection to the Dutch soil and peasantry as well as to the natural aristocratic ethos of the Lower Germans.

Quite unlike Steding, Langbehn considers the Dutch as the embodiment of the spirit of freedom that was expressed most strikingly in their war of independence against the Spanish Hapsburgs in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. Langbehn significantly maintains that a truly conservative nation, that is, a nation that is strongly rooted in its traditions, is “liberal” or devoted to freedom, whereas a liberally disposed people, on the other hand, need the discipline of conservatism. Other Lower German sources of the psychological quickening of the German spirit are Denmark/Sweden and England.

Steding takes care in his work to attack Langbehn for maintaining that individualism is essential to cultural development and “style.” We have seen that Steding refutes Langbehn’s argument by pointing out the selfless quality of monumental architecture such as was developed in the great empires of Egypt and Rome. Langbehn is incapable too of appreciating the superb architectonic of the Prussian army as itself a cultural product. Thus, while Langbehn may have yearned in his work for a “secret Kaiser” who would be an ideal ruler molding the life of the nation, the reality was the unfortunate transformation of the actual German Kaiser into a Hollandized cultural artefact.

Within National Socialist circles, Carl Schmitt was particularly pleased with Steding’s work and wrote a long review of it in 1939.[13] Like Steding, Schmitt had, already in the 1920s, denounced the “Helvetization” of Germany through the League of Nations and he now considered Steding’s work, marked by what he called “philosophischen Tiefen” (philosophical profundities), a “grosse Waffenschmiede” (great arsenal) in the fight against Liberalism and Communism. Already in 1931, in his work Der Hüter der Verfassung (The Guardian of the Constitution), Schmitt had introduced the notion of the “stato agnostico of the neutral powers. This agnosticism deprives the state of its executive aura and transforms it into a mechanical product of technology. Like Steding, Schmitt valued the Prussian state above Western European democracies and his review of Steding’s work repeats his analyses and arguments in his 1934 work Staatsgefüge und Zusammenbruch des zweiten ReichesDer Sieg des Bürgers über den Soldaten (State Structure and Collapse of the Second Reich: The Victory of the Citizen over the Soldier) to highlight the corrupting action of the Liberal constitutionalism introduced into the Prussian state that resulted in the defeat of 1918 and the establishment of the Socialist republic of Weimar.

Steding’s view of the importance of the German Reich as an organizing force on the continent coincided with Schmitt’s own theories of “Grossraum (great space).” Schmitt defended Hitler’s expansionist goals against the ostentatious pacifism and anti-militarism of the League of Nations in his Die Wendung zum diskrimierenden Kriegsbegriff (The Turn to a Discriminating Concept of War) (1938). At the same time, the turn in his writings around this time from the geopolitical concepts of the “state” and the “great space” to that of the “Reich” reflects his reading of Steding’s congenial work. It is not surprising that he referred to the book among his friends as “the only intelligent book from the National Socialist circle.”[14]

*    *   *

Although the disease that Western European culture inflicted on the German Reich was acute, Steding believed that it should be considered a God-given opportunity for the regeneration of the Reich and the European continent. The diagnosis of the disease that Steding offers in his work is itself a requirement for the healing that must be undertaken by individuals, societies and nations within Europe so that they no longer languish in the dying past but assert their will-to-live to produce the vital culture of a politically grounded Reich. We have seen that Steding’s vision of a Reich is one that is informed not only by the political aptitude of the North Germans but also by its strict avoidance of the feminisation and romanticism characteristic of liberal culture. Steding believed that Germany was to be the center of any future European Reich not only because it is the central land in Europe, but because Bismarck and Hitler had shown that it was possible for the political realism required for empire-building to triumph over the decadent aesthetic culture of a Western Europe that obstructed the restoration of Europe as a political power.

[1] reasoning, argumentation.

[2] The intellectual and artistic circle of the poet Stefan George.

[3] This characteristic had been pointed out already by the Jewish writer Otto Weininger in his Geschlecht und Charakter (1903).

[4] Schmitt and Steding thus refute the thesis of the Jewish cultural critic associated with the Frankfurt School, Walter Benjamin, who maintained in his 1935 work Das Kunstwerk im Zeitalter seiner technischen Reproduzierbarkeit that Fascism represented an aestheticisation of politics, or an introduction of aesthetics into politics that subjugated the proletarians through mass rituals and war so as to distract them from their real economic needs. Benjamin’s criticism — directed primarily at the modern technological reproductions of art as well as at the Italian Futurist glorification of arms and war – does not appreciate the anti-aesthetic stance of champions of the German Reich like Schmitt and Steding. Since the latter sought to combat the self-destructive tendencies of all culture that is not informed by the political vision of a Reich, Benjamin.” critique is more applicable to a Jewish capitalist society like the United States than to Fascist Italy or Germany.

[5] Nietzsche held the Chair of Classical Philology at the University of Basel for ten years from 1869.

[6] See Nicolas Tertulian, “Scènes de la vie philosophique sous le IIIe Reich” in Y.C. Zarka (ed.), Carl Schmitt ou le mythe du politique, Paris: PUF, 2009, pp.121-160.

[7] Härtle published a book on Nietzsche in 1938 called Nietzsche und der Nationalsozialismus.

[8] Steding’s aversion to the Baltic peoples may be one reason why Alfred Rosenberg, a Baltic German, was opposed to Steding and his work.

[9] See Helmut Heiber, Walter Frank und sein Reichsinstitut für die Geschichte des neuen Deutschlands, Stuttgart, 1966, p.525.

[10] F. Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morality, tr. C. Diethe, Cambridge: CUP, 2006, p.23.

[11] Oswald Spengler, “Prussianism and Socialism,” in Selected Essays, Chicago, IL: Henry Regnery Co., 1967, p.62.

[12] Ibid., p. 62.

[13]Neutralität und Neutralisierungen. Zu Christoph Steding, Das Reich und die Krankheit der europäischen Kultur,” in Deutsche Rechtswissenschaft, IV, 2, April 1939, pp. 97-118, reprinted in C. Schmitt, Positionen und Begriffe im Kampf mit Weimar — Genf — Versailles, 1923—1939 (1940).

[14] Quoted in Armin Mohler, “Christoph Stedings Kampf gegen die Neutralisierung des Reiches,” Staatsbriefen, 6 (1990), pp.21-25.

17 replies
  1. Rae West
    Rae West says:

    All this reminds me of the way many Americans talk about the founding of the USA, a fantasy construction of supposed freedom-loving tough individualists, deeply religious Christians, true democracy-lovers, and what have you. Never ever discussing Jewish penetration and control, or their banking and weaponry.

  2. Michael Fury
    Michael Fury says:

    …Marxist esoterica

    From decadents the Reich had silenced

    Emerged and were suddenly ensconced

    In the academy. His psychologists,

    Critics, philosophers, apologists

    For every perversion of tradition

    And natural order took their mission

    Seriously, and from their campus

    They sent forth without compass

    A great wave of students intent

    On drowning the stricken Occident

    In chaos they learned to call progress.

    Marcuse gave them license to regress

    To beastial sex and mock the family,

    The cradle of self, as anomaly.

    His anthropologists professed the races

    Have no meaningful differences

    And so to prefer one’s own kin and kind

    Was evidence of a backward mind.

  3. Strange World
    Strange World says:


    “Do not trust any statistics you did not fake your-
    self”: Majority of Germans love US more than vi-
    ce versa. At least that’s what US “think tank” Pew
    claims in cooperation with the “German” Körber
    foundation (capital 345 million euros in 2018).

    “The group’s international expansion began in 1948,
    when Eric M. Warburg, who had been living in exile,
    helped Körber establish contact with American ci-
    garette manufacturers.” No further questions.

    I am also of the opinion that America has contri-
    buted much more to German than Germany to
    American cultural enrichment, as the “CSD” (in
    Wuppertal) once again very impressively proves:

    These “visitors” introduce themselves:

    “Hi, I’m Nina, I’m 19 years old and I’m
    from Wuppertal here and I’m a lesbian.”

    “I’m Feder (feather), I’m actually 17
    years old, but I’m also a fox on the side
    and in that I’m four months old at the
    moment and my pronouns are they/she.”

    “I’m Josephine Marie, here from Wuppertal,
    35 years old, I’m a woman with a trans back-
    ground and I live my life as colorful as possible.”

    “I am Milow, I go with all pronouns and I am
    13 [sic!] years old.” “I’m Felix, the alpha of a
    pack, and I’m a daddy for a year and a half.”

    “I have five names, I use Gabriel, Luca, Buck,
    Mats and V.” (Her/His Friend: “I’m Sidney.”)

    Today’s music tip: One-Hit-Wonder Marshall/
    Hain 1978, announced by “Showmaster” Ilja:

    “Ilja Richter was born to parents Georg and
    Eva Richter. Georg was a Communist, who na-
    med Ilja after the Russian journalist Ilya Ehren-
    burg, and Eva was a Jew who survived the Third
    Reich under a fake Aryan identity. Georg spent
    nine and a half years in the penitentiary and
    concentration camp during the Third Reich.”
    Ms. Hain has lived in America for a
    long time, is now called Grindstaff,
    and writes fantasy novels for children.
    (Sound failures in the first 4 minutes.)

    “What did Nietzsche want?” explained by a
    gentleman with a Jewish-looking nose, who
    allows his daughter interviewing him to ad-
    dress him as “Jochen.” (switch on Engl. subs)

    However, one must give Mr. Kirchhoff credit for the
    fact that, as he argues repeatedly and comprehensib-
    ly in other of his videos, he considers the Jew Einstein
    to be a “talented fraud of disastrous proportions.”

    This American death metal enthusiast
    has an amazing knowledge of German
    literature compared to his compatriots.

  4. Joe
    Joe says:

    “The predilection of the Jews for Bolshevism is indeed due to the innate utopian quality of their thought.”

    Utopian?! Bolshevism is dystopian at the very least. In fact, it is the most deadly form of governance ever devised by mankind. It is the system of slave owners – and that’s what the jews have always been.

    • Pierre de Craon
      Pierre de Craon says:

      The author, Mr. Jacob, was using “utopian” in the still widely understood sense that virtually everyone thought of as its fundamental sense till perhaps seventy-five years ago. As you may know, the term was coined by Thomas More—the gent who lost his head to Henry VIII over the king’s marriageability to the Boleyn girl—as the title of a political satire about a “perfect” society existing somewhere in the New World on an island called Utopia. The word is derived from the Greek for “nowhere.”

      The seeming perfection of Utopian society, however, was meant to be understood as delusional and specious. Only a reader with a profound misunderstanding of human nature could imagine that Utopia, any place like it, or the mind-set of its residents was desirable, even possible, to emulate. Since human societies have unfortunately never lacked for people whose minds work in strange and frequently wicked ways (Jews, yes, but many others, too), “utopianism” quickly became a term in philosophy and other forms of learned discourse to characterize the visions and aims of misguided and misanthropic individuals and social movements.

      When the word broke out of the academy and found a new home in common speech, it lost a good deal of its intended pejorative signification. Nevertheless, the pejorative still lingers, as the author’s use here indicates.

  5. Strange World
    Strange World says:

    OT (PS)

    Here is the video (with the announce-
    ment by Jew “Ilja”) in a better quality.

    The follow-up single was not at all suitable for re-
    lease and accordingly promptly proved to be a flop.

    Their track “Jokes” had more hit potential,
    but was foolishly not released as a single.

    Kit and Julian perform their only super
    hit with unfailing recognition value on
    German television after almost 40 years
    with boomers clapping to the rhythm.

    Kit’s first Solo album (1981), listenable but mediocre

    Her last unsuccessful attempt in 1983
    with trivial-sounding mainstream Ame-
    rican-style pop (produced in Jew York).

    As I have read, she has even compo-
    sed for Austrian “full beard tranny”
    “Conchita Wurst” in the meantime.

    “Danny” (1978)
    Sounds almost like Beverly Craven 14 years later.
    Only one title is good, all the average and trivial
    rest can be practically completely thrown in the
    trash. Back then women were still real women
    and emphasized their femininity and attachment.

    But that doesn’t matter at all, because Be-
    verly can still afford a presentable tiny house
    with a small plot of land from the proceeds.

    In the meantime, the poor one had breast cancer.
    Perhaps an expression of the fact that even modest
    prosperity does not always make one wishfully happy.

  6. Howard Reesej
    Howard Reesej says:

    Why exactly are many Jewish neocons followers of Carl Schmitt? Kristol and others often talk about rhe decadence of the West, as Schmitt did, and clearly center themselves around expantionist and militarist policies for Israel.

  7. Carolyn Yeager
    Carolyn Yeager says:

    Well, all I could get out of these two articles is that Alfred Rosenberg was opposed to Steding’s conceptions and stated beliefs, and I agree with Rosenberg. A.R. didn’t die in 1937 as did Steding, but lived through the war, remained a faithful National Socialist to the end and was unjustly murdered at Nuremberg along with the other innocent Reich leaders. His only mild criticism of Adolf Hitler was caused by the Lies told by the Allied powers after the war, in the confines of their prison cells. Rosenberg was not the only one who was partially deceived because of his total isolation after he were arrested, unable to see or hear any news whatsoever from the outside.

    • James J. O'Meara
      James J. O'Meara says:

      “Well, all I could get out of these two articles is that Alfred Rosenberg was opposed to Steding’s conceptions and stated beliefs, and I agree with Rosenberg.”

      Indeed. I’d like to be in the room when he explains Nietzsche’s decadence to the Fuhrer.

      The tldr is: All so-called “Kultur” going back to and including the Holy Roman Empire is decadent and depraved, fit only for women and weaklings. True Kultur is represented by the “the superb architectonic of the Prussian army…itself.”

      The Prussian Socialism podcast has been trying to promote German culture as an antidote to Anglo Saxon Jewry but apparently they’re wrong, and the Anglo “stereotype” of the brutal, militaristic Hun is correct.

      If this Steding guy were alive today he’d have a neckbeard and use the term “Akshully…” a lot. For all his ranting about the beauty of marching morons (a foible he shares with Nietzsche), anyone who thinks, like Evola or Richard Weaver, that the root of our problems lies back beyond the Middle Ages and requires the complete extirpation of everything since, is politically useless and a distraction.

    • Liosnagcat
      Liosnagcat says:

      These articles serve as an on-ramp to those acquiring an understanding of the National Socialist movement in the context of the full-sweep of European history, while providing edifying analysis for the true believers. Those of us already well-versed in these concepts might be patient with the newcomers and welcoming to those with a firm enough grasp to write on the topic. Only through such activity will the word spread.

      The inside baseball of Rosenberg’s reservations about Steding’s writings is a bit beyond the scope of this article,which, it seems, was mentioned tangentially only out of a need by the author to honestly portray Steding’s writing as not unconditionally embraced by proponents on the National Socialist philosophy.

  8. Peter
    Peter says:

    I have never heard Jewish Neocons refer to Carl Schmitt as their their ideological leader, or a leader of them in any way. When referring to Schmitt defending “Hitler’s expansionist goals” you first have to define what those goals were, as opposed to what British, Americans and others call “expansionist” when referring to Germany. To Germany’s enemies “German expansionism” meant Germany taking back anything that had been stolen from Germany in 1919, like the Memelland, Danzig, the “Polish Corrifor” including Posen, the lands stolen from Austria that made 3.5 million Austrians (Germans) citizens of the newly invented country called Czechoslovakia. They wanted the millions of Germans and their lands put under foreign occupation to remain that way. In fact Germany’s so called “expansionist” goals were quite limited. Germany did not even ask for Alsace-Lorraine (populated by ethnic Germans) or the South Tyrol (taken by Italy) to be returned. It does not mean endorsing an attack on the Soviet Union, which Germany’s enemies often claim was done to claim vast territory of the USSR for itself. They ignore Hitler’s speech on the day of the attack which laid out the reason for the attack, which prominent historians (including a Russian) agree with, that it was a pre-emptive attack on the USSR that had amassed a huge number of troops close to Germany and a Soviet attack was imminent, as in about two weeks.

    The “allies” prefer to refer to something Hitler apparently said or wrote 20 years earlier, discussing taking Russian lands for itself. As if the British and Americans never had any expansionist goals. The US is the most expansionist country in history. It has surrounded Russia with hostile countries, kicked off a war in Ukraine defending Ukraine’s “right” to declare Russia its enemy by joining NATO and at the same time has a array of puppet allies in Asia to help with a war on China.

  9. Strange World
    Strange World says:

    “Love it, Change it, or Leave it!”

    If you cannot or will not accept it, try to
    change it. If you do not succeed, turn
    your back on the circumstances and
    conditions. Where should we white pe-
    ople still “flee” to, turn our backs on
    Mother Earth? Isn’t it the Jews who
    know no connection to Mother Earth?

    The flaw in the thought: We can certainly
    determine our personal destiny, but not the
    overall context in which all of our destinies
    are embedded. “We cannot determine the
    wind, but we can direct the sails.” A society
    consisting of only conscious and self-deter-
    mined individuals is an illusion. There will
    always be a certain all-inhibiting and infil-
    trating power which prevents this individu-
    alization process in order to distill from it its
    only possibility for continuance, we know it.

  10. Strange World
    Strange World says:

    A few intelligent minds of ours would
    have to creep into the inner circle of
    Judentum and ask them, “What do
    you think can still stand in our way?”
    They certainly won’t say “Nothing!”

    So what is needed here is not general
    defensive chatter about which the Jews
    can only rub their hands in glee, but
    highly intelligent solution psychology!
    Only one of us can mean everything!

    The Aquarius-energy of tovarishch Arkhipov
    once saved our world of Jew-invented nukes.

    The right key to the safe, which we try to break
    open by force in vain, the numerical code, is on-
    ly decisive – at the right place at the right time!

  11. John
    John says:

    We talk & we talk, we write & we write, however, what matters is what is happening on the ground.
    Rishi Sunak will be the first prime minister of Britain who is non-British. Congratulations to the British People on their self-induced replacement.
    When a person or a people are determined to commit suicide there is little that can be done.
    Let Nature take its course.

Comments are closed.