In my recent essay “Blond hair, blue eyes: Some thoughts on the Aryan ideal,” I examined the physiology and history of the classic Nordic features.  I argued that these hallmarks of beauty have been acknowledged and respected for millennia and around the world, and thus constitute a kind of universal aesthetic standard or benchmark for humanity.  The Nordic/Aryan people furthermore have been proven to have a number of other virtues, including higher intelligence, higher moral and ethical standards, and a greater capacity for building cultures and civilizations.[1]  It was not without good reason that Plato called light-skinned people “children of the gods”; it was not without good reason that Pindar called the northerners “a sacred race.”[2]  I concluded that the White race was the most beautiful and the most virtuous on Earth, based not on my own biased opinion but on testimony over centuries, scientific research, and on commonly-held views around the world today.  Though representing only some 10 percent of humanity, Whites have good reason to be proud.  We are exceptional, by most any measure.

Whites used to be proud.  They used to speak openly and clearly about their love of their own, about their sense of pride, about their hopes and dreams for a great future for their race.  Take, for example, that wise and insightful Founding Father, Ben Franklin.  In 1751 he wrote a short essay entitled “Observations concerning the increase of mankind.”  In it, he expresses concern about the need to fill up the “empty” lands of the nascent American colony—there being very little talk of independence yet.  (This was still five years before the Seven Years’ War, a conflict that set the stage for the later American revolution.)  Franklin clearly understood the tradeoffs between native-born North European-American natural increases and the “importation” of foreigners of other ethnicities and races:

The Importation of Foreigners into a Country that has as many Inhabitants as the present Employments and Provisions for Subsistence will bear, will be, in the End, no Increase of People—unless the New Comers have more Industry and Frugality than the Natives [Whites], and then they will provide more Subsistence, and increase in the Country; but they will gradually eat the Natives out.  Nor is it necessary to bring in Foreigners to fill up any occasional Vacancy in a Country; for such Vacancy will soon be filled by natural Generation.  Who can now find the Vacancy made in Sweden, France, or other Warlike Nations, by the Plague of Heroism, 40 years ago; … or in Guinea, by 100 Years Exportation of Slaves, that has blacken’d half [of] America? …

Thus there are suppos’d to be now upwards of One Million English Souls in North-America, (tho’ ‘tis thought scarce 80,000 have been brought over Sea,) and yet perhaps there is not one the fewer in Britain, but rather many more. …  This Million doubling, suppose but once in 25 Years, will, in another Century, be more than the People of England, and the greatest Number of Englishmen will be on this Side the Water. …

And since Detachments of English from Britain, sent to America, will have their Places at Home so soon supply’d and increase so largely here; why should the Palatine Boors [i.e., Germans] be suffered to swarm into our Settlements and, by herding together, establish their Language and Manners, to the Exclusion of ours?  Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the English, become a Colony of Aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of our Anglifying them, and will never adopt our Language or Customs any more than they can acquire our Complexion?

Clearly there was no love lost here for the Germans; the mere fact of their foreign language was enough to hinder true integration.  Franklin then closes with these stunning thoughts:

Which leads me to add one Remark, that the Number of purely white People in the World is proportionably very small.  All Africa is black or tawny [i.e., light brown or yellowish]; Asia chiefly tawny; America (exclusive of the new Comers) wholly so [i.e., Native Americans].  And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians, and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who, with the English, make the principal Body of White People on the Face of the Earth.  I could wish their Numbers were increased.

And while we are, as I may call it, Scouring our Planet…why should we, in the Sight of Superior Beings, darken its People?  Why increase the Sons of Africa, by planting them in America, where we have so fair an Opportunity, by excluding all Blacks and Tawneys, of increasing the lovely White and Red [i.e. rosy-cheeked]?  But perhaps I am partial to the Complexion of my Country, for such Kind of Partiality is natural to Mankind.[3]

A truly remarkable statement by the 45-year-old Franklin, and one we are not likely to see quoted in a textbook of American history.  Given the amazing opportunity of a vast, productive, and largely open land, why, asks Franklin, would we import non-Whites?  The creators of the American colony were Whites from England, who included a healthy admixture of “Saxons” (including Frisians, Angles, and Jutes) from the very north of mainland Europe—people who shared much genetic heritage with the Nordic Scandinavians.  Why dilute the “very small” number of true Whites in the world with yet more dark-skinned races?  If only we all were “partial to the complexion of our (native) countrymen”!  Here is true pride in oneself and one’s people, something utterly lacking in present-day Whites—thanks in part to relentless bashing by Jews and other PC-liberals.  Today, Whites are becoming a minority in their native lands; “I could wish their numbers were increased”—indeed.

Back in Europe, a few brave individuals were proclaiming White virtues, including White/Aryan beauty.  As I mentioned in my previous essay, the earliest prominent advocate was probably Arthur Schopenhauer, who, in his 1851 work Parerga and Paralipomena, wrote that “The highest civilization and culture…are found exclusively among the white races… [N]ecessity is the mother of invention, because those tribes that emigrated early to the north, and there gradually became white, had to develop all their intellectual powers and perfect all the arts…”  This was followed shortly by Arthur de Gobineau’s influential work, Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races (1855), which made an explicit and extended case for the superiority of the Germanic/Aryan people.

Enter Nietzsche

By 1883, Friedrich Nietzsche had published his great work, Thus Spoke Zarathustra.  There he famously introduced the idea of the Übermensch—the overman, the super-man, the being who would succeed today’s human in the course of evolution.  “I teach you the overman.  Man is something that shall be overcome” (p. 124).[4]  And a few lines later: “The overman is the meaning of the earth.”  The precise nature of the Übermensch is never clear, unfortunately, and he is certainly never described as white or Aryan.  Nor is he a conqueror; he is, to be sure, “the lightning out of the dark cloud of man” (p. 132), but again, we are unclear of the implications.  The overman is associated with “rainbows” and “bridges” (e.g., p. 163), and thus is clearly a transitional figure, a ‘next phase’ in some sense.  But he is no world-destroyer, and is nothing to be feared.  In fact, he does not yet exist on the planet; he is still coming, still in the future.  “Never yet has there been an overman” (p. 205).  He is an aspiration, not a reality—certainly no “master race,” certainly no proto-Nazi figurehead.

Nietzsche wrote little more on the Übermensch, and in truth, little at all on race, even the White race.  Even Aryans are barely mentioned—though with two notable exceptions.  In 1887, he released his book On the Genealogy of Morals, which contains a striking analysis of the origin of contemporary Judeo-Christian morality.  Early in the book, Nietzsche makes some preliminary comments on the notions of good and evil as he contrasts the indigenous “pre-Aryan” people of Italy with the “blond, that is Aryan, conqueror race” that arrived from the north.[5]  “The Celts,” he adds, “were definitely a blond race.”  A few lines later, we find the one and only appearance in Nietzsche of the dreaded word:  “who can say whether modern democracy…does not signify in the main a tremendous counterattack—and that the conqueror- and master-race, the Aryan, is not succumbing psychologically, too?”  Here, for the only time, we find him explicitly describing the Aryan as the “conquerer- (Eroberer-) and master-race (Herren-rasse).”  Clearly, though, he is describing a historical reality; this is no prescription for the present or future.  If anything, he is implying that modern democracy has defeated any remnant of the old conquering Aryan.

Nietzsche picks up this same theme a few sections later, where he writes, rather notoriously, of the “blond beast” (blonde Bestie).  The phrase occurs three times in section 11: “One cannot fail to see at the bottom of all these noble races the beast of prey, the splendid blond beast prowling about avidly, in search of spoil and victory” (p. 40).  He then speaks of “the raging of the blond Germanic beast” in reference to German aggression over past centuries.  Finally, and most ominously: “One may be quite justified in continuing to fear the blond beast at the core of all noble races, and in being on one’s guard against it” (p. 43).  It would seem, then, that Nietzsche locates an aggressive core within the historically conquering peoples of the world—which is undoubtedly true, given their various invasions and successes.  In a European context, the successful invaders would often have been the Nordic/Aryan blonds from the north, hence the blond beast—the Viking, if you will—at the heart of the traditionally invading peoples.

Is this bad?  Is this evil?  Hardly.  First, it is simply an acknowledgement of historical reality.  Second, it suggests that something of the lion-hearted persists in the northern Europeans.  If so, what of it?  Perhaps we ought to treat them with respect, if true!

The second exception on the topic of Aryans comes in one of Nietzsche’s final works, Twilight of the Idols (1888), where he has some important words to offer on the Aryans of India vis-à-vis the supposed Aryanism of Christianity.  In India, the noble Aryans, the upper-caste Brahmins, stood in stark contrast to the lower ranks, especially to the “chandala”—the untouchables.  In India, everyone understood the order of rank, and all knew where they stood.  Christianity, by contrast, claims to raise up the lowest of the low, the untouchable chandalas, to turn even them into the “beloved of God”—and indeed, the favored of God.

For Nietzsche, this was sheer nonsense.  Even more: it was sheer Jewish nonsense.  The Jew, Paul, created his universalist church in the manufactured image of a perhaps mythical, and certainly dead, rabbi named Jesus.  As a leading chandala, Paul hated the nobles: the Romans, the Aryans.  It was Paul’s hatred of Rome that sparked the creation of the Christian religion.  As a result, Christianity is the enemy of Aryanism; it is the most anti-noble, “anti-Aryan” religion of all time:

These regulations [of the Hindu Manu] are instructive enough: here we encounter for once Aryan humanity, quite pure, quite primordial—we learn that the concept of “pure blood” is the opposite of a harmless concept.  On the other hand, it becomes clear in which people the hatred, the chandala hatred, against this “humaneness” has eternalized itself, where it has become religion, where it has become genius.  Seen in this perspective, the Gospels represent a document of prime importance; even more, the Book of Enoch.  Christianity, sprung from Jewish roots and comprehensible only as a growth on this soil, represents the counter-movement to any morality of breeding, of race, of privilege: it is the anti-Aryan religion par excellence.  Christianity—the revaluation of all Aryan values, the victory of chandala values, the gospel preached to the poor and base, the general revolt of all the downtrodden, the wretched, the failures, the less favored, against “race”: the undying chandala hatred as the religion of love.  (VII.4, pp. 504–505)

What better cover for this religion of hatred—hatred of the noble, hatred of the Aryans—than to cast it as a “religion of love”?  Paul:  that master-hater and master-deceiver of all time.[6]

Into the Twentieth Century: National Socialism

All these ideas, then, were important precursors to the emergence of Adolf Hitler and his National Socialism, which first caught the public eye in 1920.  For Hitler, Aryans were a major theme in many of his early speeches, and they were notably present in his Mein Kampf.  His critics (Jews above all) were quick to distort things, decrying the Nazi conception of an Aryan “super-race” that would take over the world, slaughtering their way to total domination.

We all know the standard line:  Hitler was allegedly obsessed with this super-breed of humans—which included Germans and most ethnicities of Northern Europe—throughout his alleged drive for world-domination.  The ‘master race’ concept was closely linked, we are told, to his program of literal mass-murder of Jews, Slavs, and other “undesirables.”  Indeed, his alleged murder of some six million Jews, many in gas chambers, was seen as proof of his master-race ideology.[7]  Furthermore, we are told that all of Hitler’s top people subscribed to the same theory and actively worked on its behalf, which formed a cornerstone of the broader National Socialist worldview.  Consequently, the entire concept of Aryanism is wrong, evil, and hateful.  Most importantly, it still lingers today in the form of so-called “White supremacy” movements, White nationalism, and the dissident right more broadly.  Therefore, it must be unconditionally opposed on all fronts.

The problem here, as usual, is that nearly all of this is wrong.  The concept of a master-race (Herrenrasse) is nearly nonexistent in the actual writings of the leading NS personnel, Hitler included.  If there was an “obsession,” it was with the German people and German nationalism.  Hitler was an ultra-nationalist, and this dictated most of what he did.  Yes, he naturally thought of the German people as the best and brightest among the nations of the world—and with good justification, given the vast cultural and scientific contributions of the Germanic people over the centuries.  Yes, he felt that a nation that was unaffected by Jewish corruption would, in effect, lead the world by example—a City upon a Hill.  But this was not an intention for world domination or world rule—unlike, say, the United States of today, which strives, at the behest of the Jewish Lobby, to be a global hegemon via its trillion-dollar military and hundreds of foreign bases.

Furthermore, the “attack” on Jews and other minorities constituted a program of ethnic cleansing, not mass murder.  Hitler and his staff wanted a Germany for the Germans, clear of other detrimental influences and conflicts that come with Jews and non-German ethnicities.  All of Hitler’s terminology in his speeches and writings indicates a need to forcibly remove Jews and others.  Goebbels, too, in his vast private diaries, only and always spoke of removal and deportation, never—until the very end—of killing.[8]  Obviously, amidst a major war, lots of Jews and other civilians did die, but none through a systematic process of industrial mass-killing.

If we proceed to cut through the nonsense, we will, first, set aside our obsession with a Nazi “master race” out to control the world.  We will then bring to light, if we are diligent, a number of interesting facts on the truth about National Socialism and the Aryan ideal.

Rosenberg in His Own Words

Let’s take a moment to examine the thinking of the so-called “leading Nazi ideologue,” Alfred Rosenberg.  Four years Hitler’s junior, Rosenberg was an early member of the NSDAP party, joining in early 1919, some eight months before Hitler himself.  Rosenberg came to the Party with Ph.D. in hand, marking him as one of the smartest and best-educated of all leading NS figures.

Throughout the 1920s, Rosenberg continued to support the emerging Party even as he continued his academic and publishing efforts.  In 1930, he published his magnum opus, The Myth of the Twentieth Century—a stunning and far-reaching book, encompassing a vast range of knowledge.[9]  He covers many aspects of what would come to be known as National Socialist ideology, and he touches in particular on the question of Aryanism and the blond, blue-eyed Aryan aesthetic.  Consider the following passage from the initial chapter of the book, which examines this aesthetic as it relates to the culture of ancient Egypt:

In predynastic Egypt, we find the Nordic boat with its swan neck and trefoil decor.  But the rowers are the later-ruling Amorites, already recognized by [Archibald] Sayce as fair-skinned and blue-eyed.  They once travelled North Africa as strictly homogeneous hunter-clans which gradually defeated the entire land.  They then migrated somewhat further, across Syria and toward the future site of Babylon.  The Berbers, among whom even today one finds light skins and blue eyes, do not go back to the Vandal invasions of the fifth century AD, but rather to the prehistoric Atlantic Nordic human wave.  The Kabyle huntsmen, for example, are to no small degree still wholly Nordic—therefore, the blond Berbers in the region of Constantinople comprise 10% of the population; at Djebel Sheshor they are even more numerous.  The ruling stratum of the ancient Egyptians reveals significantly finer features than the subject people. …

Suddenly, around 2400 BC, reliefs of men with fair skin, reddish blond hair, and blue eyes begin to appear; these are the “blond Libyans” of whom Pausanias later reports.  In the tomb paintings at Thebes, we find four races of Egypt represented: Asiatics, Negroids, Libyans, and Egyptians.  The last are depicted with reddish pigmentation; the Libyans, on the other hand, are always shown bearded, with blue eyes and white skins.  Pure Nordic types are shown on a grave of the Senye dynasty, in the woman on the pylon of Horemheb at Karnak, by the swan-boat people on the temple relief at Medinet Habu [in Egypt], and by the Tsakkarai who founded Phoenician sea travel.  Light-skinned men with golden hair are shown on the tombs at Medinet Gurob.  In the most recent excavations in 1927 in the mastabas at the pyramid of Cheops, the Princess and Queen Meresankh III (2633–2564 BC) were found depicted with blond hair.  Queen Nitocris [c. 2180 BC], legendary and surrounded by myths, is likewise always said to have been a blonde.  All these are racial memories of a prehistoric Nordic tradition in North Africa.  (pp. 22-23)

There is a lot to unpack here, but if nothing else, one gets a feeling for the immense learning of the young Alfred Rosenberg, who was only in his late 30s when he wrote this.  More to the point, he has much evidence that the divine northerners had a significant impact on southern culture as early as 3,000 BC.  This, of course, is significantly older than the Homeric and pre-Socratic Greek texts that I cited in my prior essay.  But it supports my main points:  that waves of northerners pressed down into southern regions, successfully building culture and civilization in the process.  Classical Greeks and imperial Romans were largely of Aryan stock.  Consequently, the southern peoples would have been duly impressed by the appearance of the northerners, to the point that they cast their own heroes, royals, and gods in the Aryan image.

But what about the “master race”?  Surely Rosenberg wrote extensively on that topic, did he not?  Actually, no.  Myth contains no explicit reference to the concept.  He did write in an indirect fashion about human mastery, as in this passage: “As rugged masters and warriors, the Hellenic tribes supplanted the decaying civilization of the Levantine traders, and with the labor of the subjugated races, constructed an incomparably creative culture” (2021, p. 29).[10]  In the second half of the book, he wrote:

Today the German people begin to dream Eckhart’s and Lagarde’s dreams again.  But many still lack the courage for this dream.  Alien dream-visions still often hinder their spiritual effectiveness.  For this reason, a modest attempt is undertaken here to lay down what, in the two preceding sections, was represented more analytically as our essence, as an image, insofar as this is permeated by the eternal Nordic-Germanic ideas. …  And where this must be outlined, it is done with the awareness that they could take a completely different appearance if new means of mastery over the Earth are found.  (p. 273)

But this is clearly no program of racial domination by superhumans.  Then we have a third indirect reference near the end of the book, where Rosenberg quotes a British military writer:

The Englishman, Victor Germains, was therefore right when he declared: “The world-conquering Englishman who, glittering in his virtues and terrible in his passions, rough and brave simultaneously, raises his hand and…erects a world empire as a creative master people”.  (p. 409)

Perhaps surprisingly, it is the Brits who are the self-proclaimed “master people”—not the Germans.

At the end of the war, Rosenberg was captured and hauled before that mock-trial known as the Nuremberg Tribunal, where he testified extensively in his own defense.  His personal attorney, Albert Thoma, queried him on certain key topics; Rosenberg gave thoroughly impressive and even heroic replies.  One portion of the transcript is particularly relevant here:

THOMA: Mr. President, National Socialism as a concept must be dissected into its constituent parts. … Then I should like to ask the defendant how he will answer the charge that National Socialism preached a master-race.

ROSENBERG:  I know that this problem is the main point of the indictment, and I realize that at present, in view of the number of terrible incidents, conclusions are automatically drawn about the past and the reason for the origin of the so-called racial science.  I believe, however, that it is of decisive importance in judging this problem to know exactly what we were concerned with.  I have never heard the word “master race” (Herrenrasse) as often as in this court room.  To my knowledge, I did not mention or use it at all in my writings.  I leafed through my Writings and Speeches again and did not find this word.  I spoke only once of super-humans as mentioned by Homer, and I found a quotation from a British author, who in writing about the life of Lord Kitchener, said the Englishman who had conquered the world had proved himself as a creative superman (Herrenmensch).  Then I found the word “master race” (Herrenrasse) in a writing of the American ethnologist, Madison Grant, and of the French ethnologist, Lapouge.

I would like to admit, however—and not only to admit, but to emphasize—that the word “superman” (Herrenmensch) came to my attention particularly during my activity as Minister in the East—and very unpleasantly—when used by a number of leaders of the administration in the East.  Perhaps when we come to the question of the East, I may return to this subject in detail and state what position I took in regard to these utterances which came to my attention.  In principle, however, I was convinced that ethnology was, after all, not an invention of the National Socialist movement, but a biological discovery, which was the conclusion of 400 years of European research.  The laws of heredity discovered in the 1860s, and rediscovered several decades later, enable us to gain a deeper insight into history than many other earlier theories.  Accordingly, race…  [President Lawrence interrupts, refusing to allow Rosenberg to finish his statement][11]

Obviously, Rosenberg was attempting to save his own life; but nothing he said is evidently incorrect.  As noted, his primary work includes no mention of the topic, as anyone can confirm.  Of course, there was much discussion of race and racial issues, not only by Rosenberg but also by Hitler, Goebbels, and others; but this in no sense entails an endorsement of any master-race theory.  In the end, the result seems clear:  The concept of a world-dominating master race was not a central NS idea, but rather was mostly imposed upon them by their inquisitors.

Aryan Hitler

Consider, next, the views of Hitler and Goebbels.  Let’s start with the latter.  As we know, Goebbels kept a highly detailed diary over nearly the whole of his adult life.  It was recovered after the war, and ultimately published (in German).  This massive documentation, covering 20 years, 29 volumes, and some 7,000 pages, details his intimate thoughts on every conceivable topic.  When we scan the entire document for Herrenrasse, we find just two or three passing references—one of which (August 21, 1938) refers, like Rosenberg, to the Britons; and another (December 26, 1943) which quotes Roosevelt’s stated desire to “liquidate the master race in Germany.”  Obviously Goebbels, at least, had no ‘obsession’ with the master-race concept.

In a similar vein, he had little preoccupation with the Aryan ideal.  Only very few of Goebbels’ diary entries even mention Aryans, and they are almost nonexistent in his speeches and published writings.  Below are three of the most relevant passages in the entire diary, as brief as they are:

The prophesy that the Führer made about [the Jews] for having brought on a new World War is beginning to come true in a most terrible manner.  One must not be sentimental about these things.  If we didn’t fight the Jews, they would destroy us.  It’s a life-and-death struggle between the Aryan race and the Jewish bacillus.  No other government and no other regime would have the strength to solve this question in general.  (March 27, 1942)

Eden gave a speech in the House of Commons on the Jewish problem and answered planted questions. Rothschild, the “venerable MP,” as the English press calls him, took the floor and delivered a tear-jerker bemoaning the fate of the Polish Jews.  At the end of the session, the Commons observed a minute of silence; all members of Parliament rose from their seats as a silent tribute to Jewry.  That was quite appropriate for the British House of Commons.  Parliament is really a sort of Jewish exchange.  The English, anyway, are the Jews among the Aryans.  (December 19, 1942)

So we have to realize that, in this conflict between Aryan humanity and the Jewish race, we still have to fight very hard battles because Jewry has managed, consciously or unconsciously, to bring great tribes of the Aryan race into their service. … There is therefore also no hope of returning the Jews to the circle of civilized humanity through an extraordinary punishment.  They will remain forever Jews, just as we are forever members of Aryan humanity.  …  On the basis of their very materialistic attitude, the English act similar to the Jews.  They are the Aryans that have most acquired Jewish traits.  (May 13, 1943)[12]

Out of literally thousands of daily entries, these few are all but inconsequential.  One could surmise that Goebbels, being short, club-footed, brown-hair, and brown-eyed, had little personal commitment to the Aryan ideal.

And then, what about the man himself?  Hitler indeed had much to say on the Aryans, but nothing on any ‘master race’.[13]  The same with the blue-eyed blond aesthetic, which almost passes without mention.  This is notable, given that he himself had striking blue eyes.  In an early diary entry, Goebbels recounts one of his first personal meetings with Hitler:

We’re going by car to see Hitler.  He’s just eating.  He already jumps up and stands in front of us.  Shakes my hand.  Like an old friend.  And these big, blue eyes.  Like stars.  He’s pleased to see me.  I am very happy. … Then he speaks here for another half an hour.  With wit, irony, humor, sarcasm, with seriousness, with glow, with passion.  This man has everything to be king.  (November 6, 1925)

In his important biography, historian John Toland quotes a number of people attesting to the same.  Toland writes that, according to Josef Keplinger, “[Hitler’s] own eyes…were blue” (p. 16).  A professor, von Müller, is quoted as speaking of Hitler’s “remarkable large light blue eyes” (p. 89).  Early enthusiast Kurt Lüdecke comments on his “intense, steel-blue eyes” (p. 123).  And close personal friend Helene Hanfstaengl wrote in her memoirs of Hitler’s “very blue eyes” (p. 142).[14]  Despite this virtue, Hitler apparently placed little emphasis on eye color.

Regarding hair, again, there is almost nothing of substance on the blond ideal.  In all of Mein Kampf, there is only a single mention; in volume two, Hitler writes against Jewish racial contamination of the noble German race.  He elaborates:

Look at the ravages that our people are suffering daily as a result of Jewish bastardization, and consider that this blood poisoning can only be eliminated from the national body after centuries, if ever.  Think further of how the process of racial disintegration is debasing and often even destroying the fundamental Aryan values of our German people, such that our national cultural creativeness is regressing and we run the risk, at least in our large cities, of sinking to the present level of southern Italy.  This pestilential contamination of the blood, blindly ignored by hundreds of thousands of our people, is being systematically conducted by the Jew today.  These black parasites of our nation systematically corrupt our innocent blond girls and thus destroy something irreplaceable in this world.  (vol 2, sec 10.6, p. 194)

But this is a mere passing reference to “blond girls,” and it is not repeated.  Even in his major speeches attacking the Jews, Hitler never refers to the blond-haired, blue-eyed aesthetic.  Evidently for Hitler, as for Goebbels, the physical features were simply not that important.

The ‘Aryan,’ though, makes many appearances in Hitler’s work, as in the above passage.  In Mein Kampf, Aryans are a dominant theme in the highly-important chapter 11 of volume one (“Nation and Race”), where Hitler expounds on racial mixing, race and culture, idealism, and especially the contrast with the anti-Aryan, the Jew.  The following passages are representative:

Every manifestation of human culture, every product of art, science, and technical skill that we see today, are almost exclusively the creative product of the Aryan.  This very fact fully justifies the conclusion that it was the Aryan alone who founded a superior type of humanity; therefore he represents the archetype of what we understand by the term ‘man.’  He is the Prometheus of mankind. …

If we divide mankind into three groups—founders of culture, bearers of culture, and destroyers of culture—the Aryan alone can be considered as representing the first group.  It was he who erected the foundation and walls of every great structure in human culture.  Only the shape and color of such structures can be attributed to the characteristics of the various peoples.  The Aryan furnished the great building stones and plans for the edifices of all human progress; only the execution of these plans can be attributed to the qualities of each individual race. … The real foundations are the enormous scientific and technical achievements of Europe and America; that is, of Aryan peoples.  ….

If, from today onwards, the Aryan influence on Japan ceased—if Europe and America collapsed—then Japan’s present progress in science and technology might still last for a short while.  But within a few decades, the inspiration would dry up, native Japanese character would flourish, and present civilization would become fossilized and fall back into the sleep from which it was aroused seven decades ago by Aryan culture.  Therefore, just as present Japanese development is due to Aryan influence, so in the distant past, foreign influence and spirit awakened Japanese culture of that day. …

This short sketch of the development of the culture-bearing nations gives a picture of the development and activity—and the decline—of those who are the true culture-founders on this Earth, the Aryans themselves.  (vol 1, sec 11.4, pp. 294–296)

The words are compelling, forceful, and clear.  Notable is his reference to the Japanese as being an Aryan people; clearly he draws a larger circle than simply the White, blue-eyed blonds of northern Europe.  Hitler adopts the broader, academic notion of the term—Aryans as culture-creating and noble northerners.

Our Jewish Masters

And we can hardly leave the topic of master-race theory without mentioning the oldest and most consequential of these:  the Jewish master race.  Everything is documented in the Old Testament, for all to see:  a Jewish god, Jehovah, the “creator of the universe,” who selects, among all living beings in the cosmos, a small tribe of belligerent semi-nomads as his favored.  “For you are a people holy to the Lord your God.  The Lord your God has chosen you to be a people for his own possession, out of all the peoples that are on the face of the earth” (Deut 7:6).

As a consequence, the Old Testament is replete with self-important references to the claimed Jewish mastery over others.  The Book of Exodus states, “we are distinct…from all other people that are upon the face of the earth” (33:16).  Similarly, the Hebrew tribe is “a people dwelling alone, and not reckoning itself among the nations” (Num 23:9).  In Deuteronomy (15:6), Moses tells the Jews “you shall rule over many nations”; “they shall be afraid of you” (28:10).  Then we have Genesis:  “Let peoples serve you, and nations bow down to you” (27:29); and Deuteronomy, where God promises Jews “houses full of all good things, which [they] did not fill, and cisterns hewn out, which [they] did not hew, and vineyards and olive trees, which [they] did not plant” (6:11).  Outside the Pentateuch, we can read in Isaiah:  “Foreigners shall build up your walls, and their kings shall minister to you…that men may bring you the wealth of the nations” (60:10-11); or again, “aliens shall stand and feed your flocks, foreigners shall be your plowmen and vinedressers…you shall eat the wealth of nations” (61:5-6).  If we are to criticize the concept of a master race, we can start with the Jews; no need to dwell on the Nazis.

Closing Thoughts

The moral here is that European Whites have much to be proud of.  All White Europeans have a more or less substantial genetic component of northern, Scandinavian, Aryan ‘blood’ (as they used to say), and this accounts for their broadly good looks, robust health, intelligence, morality, and ability to create civilization.  Euro-Aryans, as we might call ourselves, are distinguished from all other races and ethnicities on the planet—especially from those white-appearing people of the Middle East or Latin America, who embody a different genetic heritage and thus a different moral, intellectual, and cultural outlook.  We are different from Indo-Aryans, East Asian Aryans, and any others who have benefited from an admixture of northern genes.

This has two consequences for White Europeans.  First, it explains why our physical standard of beauty—including light skin, blond hair, and blue eyes—is nearly a universal human ideal.  Second, it ensures that peoples lacking in such qualities will be jealous, envious, and even hostile.  In the most extreme case of the Jews, it yields a kind of burning hatred and resentment, and a desire to see us “brought down” to their level, or less.  Jews know that, ultimately, it is only White Euro-Aryans who pose a real threat to their domination of much of the globe.  Ultimately, only we stand in their way.

Thus, in the end, all this comes down to a basic conflict:  the future of Whites versus the dominance of the global Jewish Lobby.  If it was true back in 2003 that, via the American superpower, that “Jews rule the world by proxy,” as Mahathir Mohamad said, then it is all the truer today, nearly two decades later.  American Jews alone own or control some $50 trillion in assets—an astounding fact.  Should the reader doubt this, consider that just the five richest Jews—Larry Ellison, Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Mark Zuckerberg, and Michael Bloomberg—collectively own more than $500 billion.  That’s half a trillion dollars, for just five individuals; we can thus imagine the combined financial might of 6 million American Jews.  Add to this the wealth of some 9 million other Jews around the world, and we get an idea of the situation.

Even so, Whites globally are not without resources.  There are around 800 million Whites in the world today, and their combined wealth and power exceed that of the Jews by a large margin.  The problem is that our power is scattered, diffused and often directed against White interests, whereas theirs is focused and directed against White interests.  Most Whites are ignorant of the Jewish Question and of the coordinated attack on their well-being.  Many Whites are vaguely aware, in some very imprecise way, of “issues” with Jews, but they are too lazy or too distracted to bother investigating the matter.  Being generally naïve and trusting—by nature—Whites have a very hard time believing that there is a hostile minority out there that is working collectively to undermine their very future.  We have a huge educational task before us.

But as the old saying goes, it will probably have to get a lot worse before it gets better.  And we can rest assured, it will get worse.  As “America” continues to disintegrate, pockets of opportunity will open up.  The same holds with the “European Union,” which is declining as we speak.  The only path forward is for sub-groups of Whites in North America and Europe to break away completely from their Jewish overlords and establish truly independent political and financial structures that are completely free of Jews and Jewish influence.  Only then will Whites be free from the constant cloud of Jewish obfuscation.  When the fog clears, and when Whites realize the price that they have paid, the response will be ferocious.

As I have argued here and in my prior essay, Whites are a beautiful, noble, intelligent, and creative race.  It is no boast to acknowledge that we are “children of the gods,” that we are a “sacred race.”  This is the message from antiquity.  In the past few centuries, though, we have failed to live up to that legacy.  We have been, frankly, an embarrassment to the gods.  We have allowed our better nature to be used against us by unscrupulous, malicious, corrupt minorities—Jews above all.  The rare exceptions, like National Socialist Germany, have shown what can be accomplished when Whites are free from the Jewish yoke.  The potential is breathtaking; we can scarcely imagine the bright future before us, should Whites regain true political autonomy.

The task is great, the climb is steep.  But we are capable of meeting the severest of challenges.  The looming crises will present many opportunities—for independence, for retribution, and for justice.  Be prepared; a better future is coming.

===================================

Thomas Dalton, PhD, has authored or edited several books and articles on politics, history, and religion, with a special focus on National Socialism in Germany.  His works include a new translation series of Mein Kampf, and the books Eternal Strangers (2020), The Jewish Hand in the World Wars (2019), and Debating the Holocaust (4^th ed, 2020).  Most recently he has edited a new edition of Rosenberg’s classic work Myth of the 20^th Century and a new book of political cartoons, Pan-Judah!.  All these are available at www.clemensandblair.com.  See also his personal website www.thomasdaltonphd.com.

[1] Obviously, this does not imply that individual non-Whites cannot be beautiful or intelligent.  Nor does it imply that Whites lacking in blue eyes or blond hair are in any way inferior.  I am speaking here of generalized racial characteristics as they are realized in large populations.  It says nothing about particular individuals.

[2] For Plato, see Republic 474d.  He was referring specifically to boys and young men, but his statement was clearly in reference to “the pale ones” in general.  For Pindar, see his ode Pythian 10, line 40.

[3] From Benjamin Franklin: Representative Selections (1936), F. Mott and C. Jorgenson, eds.; pp. 221-223.

[4] Quotations and page numbers come from the standard Kaufmann translation in The Portable Nietzsche (1954).

[5] First Essay, sec. 6.  Quoted here from Vintage Books edition (1989), pp. 30-31.

[6] For the full story, the reader is referred to Nietzsche’s Antichrist.  See also my essay “Christianity: The great Jewish hoax.”

[7] For a recent elaboration on the Jewish death toll, see my essay “The Holocaust of Six Million Jews—in World War One.”  Also of interest here is the book The First Holocaust, by Don Heddesheimer.

[8] See my book Goebbels on the Jews (2019; Castle Hill).

[9] I have published a newly-edited and translated version of this book; see here.

[10] The Myth of the 20^th Century (1930/2021, T. Dalton, ed.; Clemens & Blair).

[11] Cited from Streicher, Rosenberg, and the Jews (T. Dalton, ed.; 2020), p. 77.  In the end, Rosenberg’s defense failed.  He was hanged on 1 October 1946.

[12] For the full diaries entries as they relate to the Jewish Question, see Goebbels on the Jews (T. Dalton, ed; 2019).

[13] Even incidental references are rare.  In all of Mein Kampf, for example, there are just a handful of appearances of variations on the term.  For example:  “It required the entire bottomless falsehood of the Jews…to lay blame for the collapse [of Germany] precisely on the man [Ludendorff] who alone had shown a superhuman will (übermenschlicher Willens) and energy…”  Obviously, this is irrelevant to any Nietzschean Übermensch, let alone any ‘master race.’

[14] Adolf Hitler (Doubleday, 1976), volume one.  Incidentally, Toland also remarks in passing on Hermann Göring’s “luminous blue eyes” (p. 129).

The most important thing in the universe can’t be seen, touched, tasted, smelt or heard. No scientific instrument can detect it or measure it. Indeed, everything that science knows and understands about it could be written on the full stop at the end of this sentence. Then again, from the scientific point of view there is no reason whatsoever for it to exist. The universe could — and for billions of years seemingly did — get along perfectly well without it.

Conquering infinity

What is it? It’s consciousness, of course. Without it, you have nothing. With it, you have everything — the myriad sights, sounds, scents, sensations of human existence. All the thoughts and emotions. And the ability to transcend the material. Consider this example of simple logic: If A = B and B = C, then A = C. Such logic applies throughout space and time, although its enactment within your brain occupies a mere speck of space and blink of time. When you understand and accept the truth of that reasoning, electro-chemical activity occurs in your brain. And for present-day science, that’s all there is: electro-chemistry.

But truth and reason don’t exist in matter: they exist in consciousness. They transcend the material universe, as you can also see in an equation like 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16… = 1. It takes infinitely long for that equation to become true, but we can recognize its truth in a flash of finite time. Reason can conquer infinity and rampage throughout space and time. And all of that takes place not within matter, as science presently understands it, but within consciousness, as science patently and persistently fails to understand it.

“Reality is inside the skull”

When I say that, I’m not denying the importance of matter. Still less am I denying the existence of objective reality. There are two opposite and perhaps equal errors you can fall into about consciousness. One is the error of scientism, where you ignore the importance of consciousness. The other is the error of leftism, where you exaggerate the power of consciousness. As so often with a leftist error, one can illustrate it by quoting from Orwell:

For a moment Winston ignored the dial. He made a violent effort to raise himself into a sitting position, and merely succeeded in wrenching his body painfully.

“But how can you control matter?” he burst out. “You don’t even control the climate or the law of gravity. And there are disease, pain, death——”

O’Brien silenced him by a movement of his hand. “We control matter because we control the mind. Reality is inside the skull. You will learn by degrees, Winston. There is nothing that we could not do. Invisibility, levitation — anything. I could float off this floor like a soap bubble if I wish to. I do not wish to, because the Party does not wish it. You must get rid of those nineteenth-century ideas about the laws of Nature. We make the laws of Nature.” (Nineteen Eighty-Four, Part 3, chapter 3)

No, O’Brien is wrong. Consciousness is not all-powerful, as the error of leftism states. But I do insist that Consciousness is King. Without it, nothing matters and matter nothings, one could say. For all its power, however, it’s a crippled king. I can be certain of its existence in only one tiny place within a huge universe: myself. I can only deduce its existence in others by their behavior. But none of us can be certain of its existence in others. All of us can say: “It’s possible that I’m the only human being — the only entity in the universe — that has ever been conscious and ever will be.” That’s an absurd idea and I don’t believe it, but I can’t prove that it’s false.

Seven simple words

Nor can anyone else, because no-one can provide an objective test for consciousness. All we’ve got is the subjective test, the proof from me: “I know it exists because I’ve got it.” Some of the world’s greatest intellects (and not so-great, like Daniel Dennett) have puzzled over consciousness and tried to explain how it arises from seemingly inert matter. They’ve failed completely. All of millions of words written about the origins of consciousness, the scientific conferences centered on it and the technical journals devoted to it, have been as much use as a chocolate teapot. You can sum up most of the science and philosophy of consciousness in seven simple words: “It’s there but we don’t understand how.” Consciousness is not merely a magnum mysterium — a great mystery — but a magnissimum mysterium — a greatest mystery. Perhaps the greatest possible mystery and perhaps an insoluble one.

We shall see. In the meantime, I want to discuss a neglected aspect of consciousness: its role in politics and its relevance to White nationalism. Indeed, consciousness has always been neglected by the humans who possess it. Although it is not merely the most important aspect of human existence but literally a sine qua non of human existence, we don’t even have good words to refer to it, whatever our mother-tongue. The word “consciousness” is clumsy and imprecise, an uncomfortable and ill-sounding combination of Latin and English. It would be good to have a short, narrowly defined and purely native word for the concept. For example, we could call consciousness brainth, in acknowledgement of the undoubted and intimate connexion between consciousness and the material brain.

White brainth is distinct

And what about the experience and concept of being conscious of being conscious, or brainth of brainth? At present, “mindfulness” is the best we can do. I suggest “imbrainth” as another possibility, although “mindfulness” does have the advantage of being both easy to understand and purely English: mind-full-ness. Using pure English for brainth (as a phenomenon) would be a way of stressing or asserting that brainth is bred — that is, that consciousness is intimately connected not merely with the material brain, but with the racial nature of that material brain. White brainth, “White consciousness” in the neurological, non-political sense, is distinct from Black brainth or Jewish brainth or Chinese brainth (and, in a narrower sense, English brainth is distinct from Irish or German or French brainth). Just as consciousness is the most important thing about being human, so White brainth is most important thing about being White.

A small thought-experiment can prove the supreme importance of White brainth. Suppose that it became possible for a group of technologically skilled and racially conscious Whites to colonize a second and presently uninhabited Earth in a distant galaxy, where those Whites can build a civilization entirely and permanently free of Blacks, Jews, Muslims and other alien and harmful groups. But there is one condition on the colony: those star-spanning Whites and their descendants will be what modern philosophy calls zombies, that is, they’ll be people who look and behave normally but have no interior mental life. The White colonists will never be conscious, will never have brainth, even as they build an interstellar White civilization to surpass all White achievements on the current Earth. And the new civilization will remain for ever unknown and inaccessible to any conscious being, human or alien.

A hidden premise within leftism

Would there be any value to the existence and endeavours of that hypothetical White colony in a distant galaxy? No, none whatsoever. “Without brainth, we ain’t-th,” you could say. It is only if the colony is conscious, if the colonists have brainth, that the new White civilization could have any value. A universe without brainth, one that never contains consciousness and never impinges on consciousness, is ontologically indistinguishable from nothingness. “No brainth, no being,” as you could further say. But it’s difficult to say short things about brainth, because the topic of consciousness is both complex and elusive. When we talk about brainth, are we always talking about brains? Is every statement about consciousness translatable into a statement about brain-states and electro-chemistry? Perhaps it is, but that wouldn’t mean that any conscious experience might just as well be unconscious and remain in mindless matter. Brainth might be bound to brain, but brain and brainth are distinct in more than just the easy accessibility of brain and the elusiveness of brainth.

Nevertheless, I want to argue that the elusiveness of brainth is very politically important. For example, I think consciousness is a hidden premise in the cult of egalitarianism, which insists that all human groups are essentially equal and interchangeable: men and women, Blacks and Whites, Christians and Muslims. It’s very difficult or impossible to argue that men and women or different races are equal in quantifiable ways — by athletic prowess or civilizational achievement, for example. But consciousness isn’t quantifiable or indeed measurable in any simple way. All human beings possess it, so how can we say (leftism implicitly claims) that the consciousness of one human is superior or inferior to the consciousness of another?

Valorizing victimhood

And if human consciousness is special and, as it appears, somehow floats free of matter, how can we deny the equal potential of all human groups? Egalitarian leftism says that Newton, Beethoven and Michelangelo could just as easily have been Black or Aborigine, because how can you distinguish between one instantiation of human consciousness and another? Well, as a racist wrong-thinker, I hold that you can both distinguish and rank instantiations of consciousness, or brainths, as we might call them. Leftism denies that this is possible, at least at the beginning of its implicit reliance on consciousness as a premise of equality. But of course the egalitarianism of modern leftism is not sincere. As Orwell put it: “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” And although the apparent or alleged incommensurability of consciousness is, I would argue, a hidden premise in leftist egalitarianism, leftists contradict themselves with a later hidden premise: that some forms of consciousness are superior to others — in particular, leftist brainths are morally superior to those of non-leftists. There are brainths that are better and brainths that are worse.

When leftism “valorizes” victimhood, it is elevating the consciousness of victims over that of their oppressors. Powerless victims are in pain, which entitles them, by the alchemy of leftism, to exercise power over their oppressors. As the late, great Joseph Sobran said of one particular example of this alchemy: “Jews are powerless victims; and if you don’t respect their victimhood, they’ll destroy you.” Indeed, Britain’s late Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks explicitly stated that the cult of victimhood was Jewish in origin:

Multiculturalism promotes segregation, stifles free speech and threatens liberal democracy, Britain’s top Jewish official warned in extracts from [a recently published] book. … Jonathan Sacks, Britain’s chief rabbi, defined multiculturalism as an attempt to affirm Britain’s diverse communities and make ethnic and religious minorities more appreciated and respected. But in his book, The Home We Build Together: Recreating Society, he said the movement had run its course. “Multiculturalism has led not to integration but to segregation,” Sacks wrote in his book, an extract of which was published in the Times of London.

“Liberal democracy is in danger,” Sacks said, adding later: “The politics of freedom risks descending into the politics of fear.” Sacks said Britain’s politics had been poisoned by the rise of identity politics, as minorities and aggrieved groups jockeyed first for rights, then for special treatment. The process, he said, began with Jews, before being taken up by blacks, women and gays. He said the effect had been “inexorably divisive.” “A culture of victimhood sets group against group, each claiming that its pain, injury, oppression, humiliation is greater than that of others,” he said. In an interview with the Times, Sacks said he wanted his book to be “politically incorrect in the highest order.” (Sacks: Multiculturalism threatens democracy, The Jerusalem Post, 20th October 2007; emphasis added)

Nowadays one can add “the trans community” to the list of wailing victims who say they must wield power because they are powerless. Trannies are very good at being cry-bullies, that is, at demanding power and privilege under the guise of victimhood. Here is a transexual cry-bully arguing that, because she hurts his subjective feelings, the trans-skeptical feminist Julie Bindel should be censored and silenced:

I’m in an abusive relationship with Julie Bindel and I can’t escape. An abusive relationship in the multi-media world of the 21st Century does not need to have romantic or sexual connotations.

I come from an abusive family, I’ve worked for years with abuse survivors, I have an MA in Trauma Studies that focused on the consequences of abuse. I know what abuse looks like and feels like. It looks like this.

The cycle is familiar by now. It begins with Bindel and her enablers organising a talk that they know will have a negative impact on a minority — often that minority is trans people, as this seems to be her special interest, and I will focus on this, although her attitudes to sex work, bisexuality, mental health and Islam are equally questionable.

Her stated aim is to cast doubt on the validity of trans identities, which is appalling in itself, especially given the weight of scientific evidence and historical record that supports our identities. But her covert but equally apparent aim is even more pernicious — to whip up a storm that she can then claim to be a victim of, through which she achieves personal gain. …

Bindel says we cannot be traumatised by her, but we can and we are. I have seen it and felt it. My heart rate goes up when Bindel’s name is mentioned. My body tenses. I lose sleep. I have intrusive thoughts about the verbal abuse I’ve experienced from her friends and enablers in relation to previous events. I have internalised Bindel’s own cruel words and they continue to taunt me even in her absence. Most of all, I feel something is being forced onto me and that I am powerless and voiceless. (Julie Bindel’s transphobia is a constant source of trauma, Feminist Challenging Transphobia, 8th February 2008)

As Chief Rabbi Sacks might have said: trannies are “claiming that their pain, injury, oppression, humiliation is greater than that of others.” But Sacks was not the first to say that Jews began the cult of victimhood. Friedrich Nietzsche traced this aspect of leftism to Judaism and its offspring Christianity, which he said preaches a slave morality of resentment whereby the weak, unhealthy and inferior are elevated over the strong, fit and superior. On this Nietzschean reading, leftism seeks, like Christianity, to poison the joy and cripple the will of the superior. That is, leftism attacks the consciousness of its enemies: it wants to muddy and befoul the sparkling waters of White minds. And here we can see leftism contradicting itself, because it is implicitly acknowledging that one can distinguish between the consciousness of one human and another, of one group and another.

Guilt is golden

And that one can also say that some forms of consciousness are better than others. In typical fashion, however, leftism wants to promote thsae bad forms of consciousness and destroy the good forms. Leftism promotes hatred, resentment and envy among Blacks, for example, while promoting guilt, appeasement and a sense of worthlessness among Whites. “Guilt” is the mot juste, because it’s a characteristically White emotion, a self-blaming, an internal consciousness of wrongdoing that isn’t important in many or even all non-White cultures. That’s why anthropologists have distinguished between what they call “guilt cultures” and “shame cultures” (see Kevin MacDonald’s discussion at TOO). You could sum up the difference by saying that guilt resides in the individual, while shame relates to the collective. In other words, guilt is the pain of my self-awareness of my wrongdoing, while shame is the pain of my awareness of others’ awareness of my wrongdoing.

The distinction between guilt-cultures and shame-cultures is very important and almost certainly has genetic underpinnings. It also has very important political implications. Whites are rendered vulnerable by their propensity to feel guilt and their attachment to universalist and race-free concepts of morality. Kevin MacDonald and others have written about the fascinating phenomenon of altruistic punishment, whereby Whites are manipulated into punishing other Whites for racism, ethnocentrism and other sins against universalism. And Andrew Joyce has recently explained at the Occidental Observer how Jewish fraudsters who have preyed without conscience or pity on gentiles are able to find refuge in Israel, where no shame attaches to their crimes and they often become pillars of the community. Judaism has a communitarian shame-culture and shame doesn’t apply to crimes committed against those outside the community. The same can be said of Muslims, Gypsies and many other groups who leftist minority-worship insists are hugely valuable additions to the modern West.

Conquering the crooked king

They aren’t valuable, of course. They’re the opposite. Leftism is engaged in its usual inversion of good and bad, hailing those who are destroying the West as saviors of the West. And I think we can gain a better understanding of leftism by considering the hidden importance of consciousness in both explicit leftist calls for equality and implicit leftist reliance on hierarchy. If victims are superior to oppressors because victims feel pain, then Blacks are superior to Whites because Blacks are the greatest victims of all and Whites the supreme oppressors. It’s feelings — emotions experienced within consciousness — that make the leftist universe revolve.

And it’s feelings that justify the leftist campaign for power and revenge. I’ve said that Consciousness is King and also that consciousness is a crippled king. Well, within leftism, consciousness is a crooked king, one who calls for equality while organizing inequality. Leftism states that Whites and Blacks are entirely and absolutely equal, while acting on the premise that Blacks are entirely and absolutely superior to Whites. And it’s Black brainth, Black feelings of oppression and injustice that render Blacks so. That’s why we have to topple the crooked king of consciousness that rules leftism. Black brainth ain’t better than White brainth. And White brainth deserves its own kingdom, free of enemies and insinuators. It also deserves more attention and study. How could it not? It’s the most important thing in the universe for us Whites. Without it, we have nothing.