July 2011: A horrific loss to the world -- and to me.

NeoNietzsche, my teacher, my husband, my heart, died of a heart attack earlier this month.

I will leave his blog in place until .... I don't when. If I think of it, I will come and publish the comments to the blog. He did not believe there was hope in 'teaching' -- sheep do not become wolves merely because they understand the situation. I wish you lone and pack wolves out there a life filled with such love and safety as you can find. (He always read the blog's stats about his commenters' locations with pleasure, and was glad you came to read. "Someone from Norway came. Someone from Australia!" You pleased him, that you visited.)

I leave you a bit of wisdom that Neo sent me once: as a description of himself -- and of me -- it is accurate.

Freidrich Nietzsche wrote:
Brave, unconcerned, mocking, violent -- thus wisdom wants us:
she is a woman and always loves only a warrior.
There is little of man here: therefore their women strive to be mannish.
For only he who is man enough will release the woman in woman.

He was a man such as I could not have imagined, nor dreamed up, and now I must live without him.

Avalanche (NeoNietzsche's widow)


Lately, Kunstler has been keeping a nervous eye on a particular facet of the fraud. In 'Thinking the Unthinkable' he writes:

"How bad is the situation ‘out there’ really? In my view, things are veering toward such extreme desperation that the US government might fall under the sway, by extra-electoral means, of an ambitious military officer, or a group of such, sometime in the near future. I’m not promoting a coup d’etat, you understand, but I am raising it as a realistic possibility as elected officials prove utterly unwilling to cope with a mounting crisis of capital and resources. The ‘corn-pone Hitler’ scenario is still another possibility — Glen Beck and Sarah Palin vying for the hearts and minds of the morons who want ‘to keep gubmint out of Medicare!’ — but I suspect that there is a growing cadre of concerned officers around the Pentagon who will not brook that fucking nonsense for a Crystal City minute and, what’s more, would be very impatient to begin correcting the many fiascos currently blowing the nation apart from within. Remember, today’s US military elite is battle-hardened after eight years of war in Asia. No doubt they love their country, as Julius Caesar and Napoleon Bonaparte loved theirs. It may pain them to stand by and watch it dissolve like a castle made of sugar in a winter gale."



[Dr. Greg Johnson:]

One short, controlled burst about the military: The US military is a bigger engine of miscegenation than Hollywood. Again, I don’t think we will find any solutions in the military.


This is not the correct way to think about future developments.

Amidst coming global catastrophe, mid-century at the latest, whatever is left of the military will inevitably assume command of the situation - for good or ill. Satan is on his way to collect his due for WWII, after a century of party-time for the conniving and back-stabbing Anglo-Americans. Indeed, the ghost of Hua Guofeng whispers to us his cautionary tale, from the shadows around us into which we do not see.

Thus it is important for military personnel, above all others, to have been exposed to a brutally forthright explanation of the roots of the catastrophe. The Big Tent propaganda effort, to sneak as many goyim under the White-wing canvas, detracts from that vital project by sliding over differences in ideological perspectives (to the extent that they are even recognized amidst a lack of clarity as to the nature of reality). [Harken, Christers, Populists, and Colonists.]

Unfortunately, and for the present, the White-wing basically dwells in the late Eighteenth Century, in terms of its ideological sophistication, and grasp of political economy. One despairs of illuminating even this element, in the mass, as to the Foundations of the 21st.

Therefore, the military strategy is our only hope for survival. This is the time, in the evolution of the culture, when the Republic is long past, in other than pretense. So, if you reckon the military approach to be a false hope, you might as well close the door, on your way out, as you get back to your little life, as it is for now.

[Wikitopian, in italics:]

This isn’t the first time that your thirst for transcendence in this desert of modernity has led you to look at some jackasses in costumes and see a mirage of martial valor.


A repeat offender, no less, am I.

Just like your uncle Fred, you’re keen to philosophize with a hammer but incapable of offering a coherent vision for a future direction.

I recognize and have explained a high-altitude ballistic trajectory of events. You merely presume that they can be deflected - somehow. You thus fail to grasp that one cannot “offer a coherent vision for a future direction”. The “future” was launched, long ago. Read your own Book as to forebodings of an eventual Apocalypse. Evidently you do not recognize all the eschatology of the Zeitgeist as symptomatic of self-recognition.

[And you shouldn't embarrass yourself with remarks about Fred, whereof you do not know. Please apply yourself to the study of the essay, "Become Superhuman," of February, 2009 (quickly accessed through the "Blog Archive" that Robert Campbell prompted me to enable) for a remarkable display of prescience and programmatic recommendation on the part of HPD Nietzsche.]

You speak of your having mastered the science of political economy and your years of careful research. But I don’t see anything.

This speaks to an unfortunate lack of aptitude and application to the task, on your part. I well recall someone’s principled refusal to read Nietzsche having been exposed in this very venue.

Your blog is dandy, but it’s not a substitute for a coherent exposition of your vision.

The early Posts are a reasonably coherent exposition. And it’s not a “vision” - it’s a characterization of the case.

I would love to be proven wrong, but all I see is falconry and tearing down.

That is the function of analysis.


The irony of the human dilemma in regard to politico-economic culture, and comprehension thereof, is that the heights of moral conscientiousness involve recognition of the severe limits upon the proper application of moral precepts.

Moral universalism, for example, is fatuous - when the possibilities for its consistent, complete, and definitive formulation and application are examined.

And I do not have to prove this - for it is the burden, of anyone who disputes this, to produce that complete and coherent body of law (which exists only in pretense, at the present, in regard to any polity of consequence).

Not to understand this basic aspect of the human dilemma is to remain an obnoxious and impertinent juvenile, at best, and a threat to the maintenance of any ordered existence on the planet, in the extremity.

As I have said elsewhere, this is not a world of sin-and-salvation, it is a world of actions-have-consequences. It is not a theater wherein good-and-evil are played out, it is a mundane arena of the merely good-and-bad. Much of what is declared “evil” is a dealing with the world as it is known to the intellectually adult - the “virtue” of the morally pretentious, rather, is that of the woman, the child, and the fanatic.



I realized that my prior framing of political phenomena in terms of form-of-government (as is the foundation of orthodox PolySci) was a gross error interfering with the proper, comprehensive conceptualization of events, past and present - and is thus a powerful weapon in the maintenance of goyische ignorance of how the politico-economic world works.

[Mark I.:]

I came to a similar realization sometime ago. It has something to do with the fact that political-economic systems (and with them the Oligarchies/Elites which you have stressed of late) arise organically, or at least they did until the parliamentary regimes of the 19th cent in Europe. It creates, among other things, the misconception that we commoners have more influence over larger affairs than did our ancestors in ages past. Perhaps you could expand upon the point?


The history of the period of emergence you mention reveals that the irony and beauty of the adoption of "democratic" pageantry and pretense, rather, was that the post-revolutionary Permanent Secret Governments à la manière du Parvenu were thus never in jeopardy of an old-fashioned inter-regnum or of a popular revolution, for having disappeared from the sight of the childish masses (infants have to reach a certain age before they can realize that an object moved behind a screen does not disappear in other than immediate visual terms). It is telling, however, that invulnerability to a coup by an alternative elite was not enhanced by this technique (hint, hint, nudge, nudge, wink, wink) - and in fact it could be said to have been greatly reduced.

[Mark I.:]

Another misconception which arises from the materialist view is that history then seems to lead inevitably to both parliamentary systems and "cosmopolitan" civilization, not to mention secular humanism (latter-day nihilism). So the supposedly "atheistic" and "rational" system of thought is in fact some other form of messianism.


It is certainly a form of egalitarian utopianism - derived, however, not from the mere pretense of rationality and atheism that is involved, but rather from the falsification and ignorance of pertinent social sciences and the adoption of a savagely-defended secular faith. The slavish dualist elements thereof are all too familiar in the diabolization of those who have recognized the "apparent world" of actuality for its racial differences and irreconcilable conflicts and who have acted accordingly in that light. And one notes that our End-of-History boy, Francis F., never bothered to explain the formula according to which the "liberal democracies" are constructed so as to have eschatologically resolved the "internal contradictions" characteristic of any regime that is truly "liberal".


In donning that uniform and taking to the streets, NN showed more courage and dedication than most people here ever will.


For me, this blog is far more an exercise in courage and dedication.

For when I took to the streets, no courage on my part was involved - in the sense of overcoming one's fear of violence. I've always been prepared for it, and always considered myself a threat to others, physically and intellectually, rather than they a threat to me. I will, however, accept the imputation of courage on behalf of those of my comrades who *were* afraid and who *weren't* prepared, and who nevertheless did what needed doing for the awakening to come.

But now that forty years of dedicated study are a part of me, and I am responsible for others than myself, I do not hold my life and health so lightly. Yet those who intelligently address the issues with which this blog is concerned *are* engaged in a display of courage and dedication, in my judgment of the hazards that lurk and the investment of work. So, ironically, I consider myself worthy of that assessment by virtue of *this* exposure of hard-core truth, rather than by virtue of the exploits of my youth.


If you fail to see how an intentional community — a self-sustaining, racially conscious folk community — benefits our Cause, then I’m not sure any argument I can make will convince you. I think its merits are obvious. (Robert Campbell)

As are its de-merits, when viewed in larger perspective.

Most obviously, the “self-sustaining” aspect must be qualified, in that while such a community may be independent in its requirement for raw materials and foodstuffs, its protection from foreign invasion and domestic suppression is provided by an overwhelmingly larger and provisionally indulgent surrounding community with formal armed forces. (Though peasant visionaries hereabouts will have adopted pleasing misconceptions au courant as to the passing (”collapse”) of all foreign ambition for liberating North America from its present cultural regime, thus allowing Arcadia to survive in their minds as a day-dreamer’s aspiration for yet another (fatuous) colonial refuge. And “Red Dawn” fantasists will confidently declare themselves ready to bring to bear their trusty AK’s and whatnot to repel any number of Redcoats, foreign or domestic - should the peasant visionaries have miscalculated in their expectation of a perpetually indulgent and aggression-free environment.)

Without a spiritual goal at the forefront of the social consciousness, man’s ideologies inevitable descend into arrogance and self-destruction. The first step to conquering the world is conquering thy self!

“Conquering the world”? In what sense?

Our masters seem to be Jewish, not sub-continental (the former having had no more time than the latter toward achieving that global objective). So you must mean the “inward” world - in which case “conquering thyself” is tantamount to “conquering the world”. For *actual* world conquest/liberation, and resistance thereto, necessarily involve those nasty ideologies, with their arrogance and organic cyclicality.

But let us grant that those who have the inward discipline to douse themselves with flammable liquid and set themselves alight without evident sensation of pain, or to stop their own hearts from beating in autonomic activity, have truly mastered themselves. They have no need to conquer the world or even defend themselves against it. What matter if wife and child (should one have compromised oneself to that extent) are violated and killed or captured as slaves by intruders? One is well-composed and has a superior perspective on such developments, and one is thus undisturbed in one’s equanimity, by such events.

[Lesser India as an alternative to Greater Judea - an idea whose time has come?]


But multiculturalists consider themselves superior to ALL CULTURES!

And this is of the essence of the power and attraction of “moral” deliberations:

A priceless feeling of personal worth transcending that of all others (and some others are held to be less than worthless, depending upon how one constructs one’s morality) - and purchased, initially, at the price of lots of hot air.

Such a *Deal* - *who* could resist?

So, *step right up*, Ladies and Gentlemen!

We have two - yes, TWO - lovely varieties of moral superiority to appeal to that little slave lurking in your soul!

Over here, we have on display your traditional brand of spiritual afflatus: Yeshua’s Sayings, with a bonus addendum authored by Saul of the Thirty-Nine Stripes.

And for those of a more contemporary taste in ethical fatuities, we have pseudo-Christian, quasi-Communist, egalitarian utopianist Liberalism!

(Do I see a flush of warmth in many a face in the crowd at the mention of this latter delight, simulating the sensation of a bracing intoxicant as it slides down that inward canal - soothing that tremulous little girl inside? I think I do!)

So don’t be shy, Ladies and Gentlemen! Step right up and make your choice! It’s all free for you and won’t be paid for until your precious children wake up one day, staring the Devil in the eye, with old El Diablo demanding payment for the fatuous indulgences enjoyed by their parents.

["It is here and nowhere else that one must make a start to comprehend what Zarathustra wants: this type of man that he conceives, conceives reality as it is: it is strong enough for it —, it is not estranged or removed from it, it is reality itself and exemplifies all that is terrible and questionable in it, only in that way can man attain greatness ..." (Ecce Homo, "Why I Am a Destiny," 5)]



Our time window would seem to be generally between the mid-19th to the mid-20th centuries perhaps, the era where there were densely populated democracies but before the alleged Jewish Oligarchy had been established world-wide. What is your estimate of when the Oligarchy would have achieved its nation-dominating strength?


According to Disraeli’s remarks, we may take the “democracies” of your “window” to have been merely cosmetically so - just as is the case today. Fundamental policy was not subject to popular review.

Only the Weimar Republic, naively imposed by the Allied Powers in a fit of idealism, was an authentic vehicle for the expression of the will of the masses, allowing thus the extraordinary regime of “Adolf Legalite’ ” and the National Socialists. “Fascism” *elsewhere* had to be established by irregular means (the “March on Rome” that Hitler himself tried to imitate).

As to reckoning *when* the boast of the Protocols had been realized is, again, to wish to examine the contents of the black box.


Do you believe there have been other secret Oligarchies in the past as well? For example, do you think that Masons worked behind the scenes in early America or after the Civil War (before the Jews arrived)? (The recent film, “Sherlock Holmes”, which shows a secret organization similar to the Masons managing late 19th Century England from behind the scenes). My intuition tells me you would say that the hated National Bank was part of such an organization.


Cults and Secret Societies have long existed and some may have been influential. I do not believe, however, that any of these have constituted a nation- or cultural-wide oligarchy. The problem is that cults and secret societies are artificial “conspiracies” of otherwise unattached individuals. Oligarchies are *natural* phenomena derived from tribal and national affiliations. The latter are thus much stronger in their cohesiveness - the essential quality of the ruling stratum of a society - a stratum that, as I strongly emphasize, *cannot* be guided altogether by legal formalities and artifices, and so must rely upon a natural, *implicit* agreement as to the policies and agendas to be pursued. Hence there can be no other identity to the present regime than that of Jewry, following the passing of the WASP.

And the principle, mentioned above, is illustrated by this and other examples.

The WASP oligarchy was weak and easily displaced because it was, in part, the coming together, artificially, of otherwise unattached plutocrats who happened to be largely of common ethnic origin but not of long-established natural community nor of a transcendent agenda for governance of a rapidly evolving society seriously strained by class antagonisms. In further illustration, the modern regimes of the USSR and NS Germany had to make do with oligarchies merely aborning in the KGB (Andropov) and the SS (Himmler), thus having to be firmly disciplined by the active pursuit of ideological goals as the “glue” holding a regime together. Hannah Arendt, in one of her few valid appreciations of Totalitarianism, recognized this element in ideologically-based “movements” - in that they must constantly *move* in order to maintain themselves.

And this is why the Russian and Chinese regimes have not retained the rigid police-states of the past. They must evolve toward a globally catastrophic attempt at the immantization of the eschaton, as we have seen them doing, or they will devolve into civil war, as has *not* happened and as would confirm a *genuine* “collapse” of Communism in either of these regimes.


I think the explanatory value of a “hidden hand” theory makes it attractive, because it allows an individual to conceptualize and comprehend what is otherwise an incredibly complex system that otherwise defies one’s ability to really grasp or predict it.


The essence of the administrative challenge - to which oligarchy, hidden or otherwise, is the answer - is not one of complexity, however.

It is one of the exclusivity - as with “Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem,” - of coherence and completeness ("all coherent formulations of number theory are incomplete").

Likewise, and pretenses to the contrary, there has not been, and there cannot be, a complete and coherent formulation of law such as will be adhered to under the constraint of *universal* attendance to “Rightly Understood Interest”. Thus the necessity for authoritative oligarchy to deal with societal conflicts that cannot be satisfactorily addressed by formalities - and as it is in the rightly-understood *particularist* interest of an organized minority to exploit an unorganzed majority.

Also, it must be mentioned that an essential part of the governance of settled populations is the service provided by theologues (priests) and ideologues (”intellectuals”) in the mis-guidance of dominated populations as to their “Rightly Understood Interests” - since, as said, there is no formula for its achievement, in law or in adherence thereto.

One should note that the Marxist concepts of “false consciousness” and "opiate of the masses" are instructive in this regard.




I see what you are saying about the long term goal of rigorous Marxism.

However, I think the “withering away of the State” is something Marxists always conceptualize as being carried out by future generations of Marxists.

I doubt very much that Chinese Marxists will have the clear eyed fanaticism to carry such a scheme out to its final stages.

Even with the madmen of the Bolsheviks, only the Jew Trotsky actually wanted to move in a meaningful way toward the destruction of all Western Political Entities.

And guess what? His foreign policy ideas along these lines were shot down, so to speak (!), by Joseph Stalin.

What reason is there to think that a Chinese Trotsky won’t have his foreign policy ideas shot down by a Chinese Stalin?


It has already happened.

Just as Trotsky was followed by Stalin, then followed by Khruschev,

So Mao was followed by Deng, and now Mao is being revived.

And apostolic Christianity, failing to deliver the promised Advent, was replaced by institutional Catholic Christianity, which was rejected by puritanical Protestantism, in a return to the roots of the faith.

See the pattern?


What [Maurice] Samuel is saying [in *You Gentiles*] is not that the Jews are deliberate destroyers, or want to be. He is saying that we inadvertently destroy Gentile society, which is nothing but pageantry and spectacle, because we demand a seriousness, a reality and a morality from life that is far greater than gentiles can ever provide and so among the gentiles we are forever trying to create moral structures that, as gentiles are not able to bear them, break under the weight of them. (Doreen Ellen Bell-Dotan, Tzfat, Israel)

Unlike the righteous Jews of ancient Israel, who well withstood the rigors of righteousness as Zealots, Sicarii, messianists of various other stripe, Pharisees, Saduccees, et al., and thus are recognizable as shining examples of the possibilities for such society that the Gentiles perversely refuse to emulate?

It would seem, rather, that the Gentiles must remain skeptical of this thesis - since “reality,” to judge by all historical example, including the aforementioned, evidently cannot accommodate “a seriousness, a reality, and a morality from life that is far greater than gentiles can ever provide,” - and since the destructive effect of that inevitable and predictable failure to bear up looks suspiciously like the after-effect of deliberate subversion hiding behind a sanctimonious pretense and pretext. Beyond that consideration, the Gentiles have this perverse tendency to note that the proclamations of the Talmud do not lend themselves to the notion that moral solicitousness for the welfare of other than Jewry is involved in Jewish moral motivation.

And what sanctimonious hypocrisy is not involved in the Jewish pattern of Nazi-racist-in-his-own-(apartheid/chosen-of-the-one-God-who-gave-this-land-to-me) country and Commie subversive in yours? [Even the nominally "Capitalist" Jewish elite purchased the Bolshevik overthrow of the Kerensky regime!]

And finally, deliberate or not, the santimonious Jewish agenda simulates a termite-like effect on the political and cultural structure involved - whether it's a Jewish entity or that of others. So, what’s a righteous Gentile to do with the Jew - or the Jew with himself, in the light of the *real* reality that is evident from investigation thereof rather than from the emetic moral pretense and nonsense?


“Good summary up to this point - but my sense of the “ultimate design” involves global anarchy rather than empire. Though it is evident that a *non-sectarian* expectation of one-world-government is held by the goyische paladins involved.” (NN)

Well, it would have saved us some time and trouble if you had provided this summary at the beginning, but for some reason you appear to enjoy seeing people bump their head and stub their toe in the dark before finding the light switch and figuring out what you believe.

I was puzzled by this remark, now supposedly to be taken tongue-in-cheek, but which reflection suggested to me was significant of the popular confusion of government form with government agenda.

So it appears that, in speculating as to the *organization* of the black-box guidance of Greater Judea, we were, for you, thus characterizing its *agenda*.

Which means that if I say the organization is oligarchic, for *you* the point and agenda of the organization, to the extent that there *is* such organization, is simply to *be* an oligarchy.

Thus, if I freshly introduce discussion of the (ultimately anarchistic) *agenda* of the organization, I have “found the light switch,” in your terms, and finally made up my mind with a characterization of its *organizational* form.

Now I think I understand your remark. So let me explain why the distinction between organization and agenda, means and ends, form and function, is vitally important under our present regime:

Maurice Samuel long ago instructed us that Jewry demands a “God World”.

Thus, as Oligarchs, they are not content just to be normal oligarchs in an imperfect world. They seek to perfect it (thus wrecking it) by means of Communism or Zionism or a combination of both.

So, young Andrew, your mission - should you decide to accept it - is to stop the tikkun olam fanatics, wherever they are to be found - before they can manage to deceive every goy, such as yourself, as to the simultaneity of the organizational form and functional agenda of governments - and so facilitate the perfecting of us all - to the point of a miserable death that we do not deserve.


Then why would China destroy the West?

“Aw shut up, silly woman, said that reptile with a grin - you knew darn well I was a snake before you took me in!” (”The Snake”)

It’s The Scorpion and the Frog.

It’s the meaning, purpose, and unifying principle of a Marxist regime.

In this song and story, the West is the bourgeois vehicle and obstacle to the eschaton, the stateless final society promised by the ideology - the millenium, in Christian fancy - the Spartacist rampage, in Nietzschean expectation.

It seems to me you’re saying that while the Judeo-Communists are smart enough to see that if China destroys the West it will lead to its own collapse, the Chinese themselves lack this degree of foresight.

To the contrary. The Chinese, as do the Russians, understand that their ultimate goal is global statelessness. Thus the “collapse” of any State, having served its purposes, is a victory, in Marxist terms. The Russian Communists, in shedding the Soviet pseudo-empire in behalf of strategic deception, are even farther along than are the Chinese. For Mao was premature in dismantling China, before it had a chance to compromise the West, and the “technocrats” under Deng had to retrieve the situation and make up time, toward achievement of the global objective.

Also, understand that the “liberalism,” of both the modern Left and Right, in the West, is quasi-anarchist - in the libertarian disposition of the Right and in the anti-establishment sentiment of the Left. Thus the orientation and appeal of Communism, properly understood as crypto-anarchism, is not surprising, and is supposedly an ideological cousin, descended from Enlightenment thought.

But Marxist Communism *is not* properly recognized by adherents of these bourgeois concessions to reality, because, despite sharing with radicals some of the same liberationist sentiments, the moderates are confused as to this convergence by the radical fatuity and brutality in the antithetical (police-statist/megacidal) structure and governance of radical regimes.

Nevertheless, Marx *is* explicit in the promise he makes. But that promise is *unrealizable* amidst the intractable limitations on the administration of human society. And the tragic results of the attempts to overcome those limitations make the Communist goal *unrecognizable* amidst the inhumanity of the means to which the radicals must resort in establishing, maintaining, and advancing the regimes needed toward achieving the promised world-wide liberation.

[P.S. - As reported in the Red Column, to the right, a revival of "Maoism" - the true faith of Chinese Marxism - is underway (and is significant of the superficiality of the technocracy, the only intended function of which is to disarm and disable the West and, derivatively, all ordered existence on the planet).]


There are good arguments to support the belief that the Israel Lobby is very influential in the United States, or that to-day’s American Jews are disproportionately liberal, but when one starts suggesting that Jews collectively are the historical enemy (or at least one of the main enemies) of Western society, and thus deserve to be removed, one is plunging into lunatic territory, and displaying a degree of petty chauvinism that is more befitting of an African (or a latter day Kraut) than a civilized Anglo-Saxon.

Jews aren’t the problem. The problem is ideological. And the ideology has infected American Jews and Gentiles alike, though in different proportions. And that ideology is liberal democracy.

And is one of the tenets of “liberal democracy” the Reverse Discrimination policy?

Use of troops to enforce busing of students for racial integration?

Institutional suppression of scientific investigation and information regarding racial differences such as promote the necessity for AA/RD toward achieving, rather, a radical egalitarian regime to be imposed only upon those not of the means to escape to elite enclaves?

Or the resultant homogenization and atomization of society, simulating the desideratum of an alien elite seeking to secure itself against nativist resistance?

This is certainly not “liberal” in the classic sense of political, rather than socio-economic and racial/sexual equality, as you maintain was its origin. But you have it that the classic became the modern out of an internal evolutionary logic that has yet to be explained as logical and other than the product of promotion by illiberal parties.

The question, then, is why should have the spirit of freedom, paramount in the political egalitarianism of classical liberalism, have devolved into the quest for uniformity. It is because classic libertarian liberalism has “internal contradictions,” the consequences of which are societally unendurable, leading thus to government regulation of commerce, i.e., bureaucratic socialism. And Communist Jewry explicitly adopted the tactic of passing as “Socialist” for the sake of forwarding their crypto-anarchist, quasi-messianic Communist agenda, world-wide. And they have subverted the Western world under that cloak and on that otherwise-legitimate pretext, which is resisted by those who fail to distinguish meliorist bureaucratic surgical socialism from Communist police-statist terrorism and butchery and who then are vulnerable to the exploitation of the errors of their own ideological position. Thus have the masters of the present dispensation long played off the two erroneous ideological positions and representative parties (egalitarian utopian socialism/Democrats vs. laissez-faire free-enterprise capitalism/Republicans), to the advantage of their own crypto-anarchist Communist agenda, misunderstood and mis-labeled first as "socialism" or "welfarism" or "affirmative action" and now more agreeably as “liberal democracy" - predictably with none of these agendas realized in terms of the justice and fairness inclusive of all parties that was thought to be their charge. The recent capture of the Republican Party by Kosher-con elements has interrupted and climaxed this victorious campaign of duplicity and corruption by placing Republican-cloaked Judeo-fascism on a popular basis to complement the century-long Judeo-Communism behind the Democratic Party.


WE are following them like imprinted ducklings. And why? Because they’ve actually become our elite. They’re not uniquely evil. They’re not particularly special. They’re a managerial elite. If they hadn’t stumbled onto the biggest wide open opportunity in human history, we would be under the thrall of some other alien managerial elite.

The aristocrats became decadent without their wars. The Catholic priests lost their faith. The Freemasons entertained universalist ideals that left them open to infiltration and subversion. The Protestant “leadership” are totally at the mercy of the congregation which is totally at the mercy of the choke-point institutions. It’s important to be Jew-wise, to vividly and directly reject their self-appointed role in our society. But the only actual solution, the only path which will yield any fruit for our people, is to raise up an indigenous elite and then direct our loyalty toward it.

Our people are mal-indoctrinated and drowning in universalist fantasies. The Anglo world needs a racial/ideological revolution in thought, in the worst way, yet only seems to ever come up with more self-defeating delusions and shadow boxing. We need a racial-political revolution, and instead beget ‘tea parties’ and feel good flag-waving. What kind of make-believe fool’s paradise do these people inhabit? When simple street-Negroes exhibit racial moxie in spades, and even know about the Protocols, what’s to be said about the enslaved mindset of our deracinated people? How can our people be so cluster-fornicated stupid??

The answer, I believe, lies in the fact that the world’s Anglos have been ideologically Judaized for centuries, and most of them are essentially clueless about it. Many are even pugnaciously “proud” about their willful ignorance of most vital interests. Our people’s philosophical, spiritual, and political immaturity is astounding; huge segments of the White Anglo population think and act like juveniles in adult bodies. Our people's mindset and behavior is nauseating, to say nothing of being flat-out cowardly.

Something needs to be done, and in a hell of a hurry. Most of the posters at this blog are the most savvy, race-wise and literate Whites that I am aware of, and I salute you all. Most posters here seem to be very able to separate the real McCoy from the decoy, in a Jew-Yawk minute. Yes, Wiki, we need to build that indigenous, elite, White vanguard, and support it loyally and faithfully. We need to be the organized will of the people.



Maybe you should reflect back upon your roots, and admit that the Superman myth has been a miserable substitute for sound moral behavior. The line that separates the animal from the human is MORALITY. If you deny that axiom, the corruption within your nature will condemn those who seek a virtuous struggle. Neitzche’s way has been tried. and it came up wanting.


1) The man that Zarathustra wants is a man of *master* morality, the code of all durably civilized existence. The "sound moral behavior" which you tout has been anything but.

2) Animals have their own "morality" which well suits them. You are a mere bigot in this regard.

3) I adhere to the "customs of war" among those of culture held in common. Otherwise, a "virtuous struggle" is for females resisting rape.

4) Nietzsche's way is that of healthy human civilization before the pathogenic emergence of Judaism and its heresies.



The Abyss:

1) God is Dead

2) Justice is transient

3) Utopia is a graveyard

4) The world of men is governed by lies and violence

5) It is left to men of violence to create and maintain order in the midst of this truth


How can such a creature as man who is governed by lies and violence created from within himself create and maintain order and maintain truth. In your world truth at the most is relative, so how does one know truth.


The man of violence as a victorious warrior and soldier is inclined to the eventual ordered exploitation of that which he conquers, should he choose to maintain an occupation. He does not have to *lie* about his world in the sense of *inverting* its reality, as do those he has conquered and made powerless otherwise, for he can see the world for what it is with certain *enhancements*, since it basically suits him by virtue of his victory. *This* has been the genesis and course of all human high culture and civilization of which we have knowledge prior to the Jewish intrusion. In "my world" truth is not relative - values are relative. My "good-and-bad" is that of master morality, not the "good-and-evil" of slavish morality.



I have been reading your posts and pondering on them.

I almost feel that I should offer you an apology. To say something like

"I'm sorry I haven't been a ravaging beast today.

I'm sorry that I have not plundered any cities or raped any women.

I'm sorry that I haven't been a Viking and slaughtered and enslaved any of my own people.

I had my puppy on my lap and to be frank, I kinda love the little fella. Sorry for engaging in weak emotions!

I'll try and do better (or worse) tomorrow! I'll try and be more of beast."


Make sure you do, punk!

Any more slacking off on the beastliness and the puppy gets one in the back of the neck, see!


Arabs aren’t especially good at fighting, even relying on kidnapped White children (Janissaries) to augment their military prowess. I assert that Whites, more than any other population, excel at leadership and military pursuits. The problem for us, in a nutshell, is that Jews, Mandarins, and Brahmins are superior at management, having been both genetically and culturally adapted over millennia to excel at managing grain surpluses, trade networks, and the logistical issues therein.

We’re more innovative and imaginative, but lack the patience and attentiveness of the existing managerial castes. Relative to them, we as a people suffer from attention-deficit disorder and this vulnerability is exploited time and again. Jews who excelled at reading Talmudic discourse and patiently applying usury need to merely make things too boring and byzantine for the gentile and he hands over his civilization without a fight.


Moreover, this idea [no god, no purpose] is a poisonous one. It robs us of the will to take action. It leads us on a path to despair and apathy. It’s destructive and cheapens our life. It’s a dud. ("Andrew" @ OD)

I have a sense that this is a bourgeois difficulty.

Lower-class males have no problem forming gangs, arming themselves, and pursuing various aggressive activities that replicate the pre-historic behavior of mankind in small kinship groups.

Whatever superstitions arose/arise in these prehistoric minds were/are epiphenomenal, in that the motivation to exploit one’s environment was/is not dependent upon philosophical notions.

As it was then, so it is today - kill something to eat and fuck something so you can go to sleep. No need to worry about “the will to take action”.

Nietzsche had something constructive to say on the point:

[BGE] 257. EVERY elevation of the type “man,” has hitherto been the work of an aristocratic society and so it will always be–a society believing in a long scale of gradations of rank and differences of worth among human beings, and requiring slavery in some form or other. Without the PATHOS OF DISTANCE, such as grows out of the incarnated difference of classes, out of the constant out-looking and down-looking of the ruling caste on subordinates and instruments, and out of their equally constant practice of obeying and commanding, of keeping down and keeping at a distance–that other more mysterious pathos could never have arisen, the longing for an ever new widening of distance within the soul itself, the formation of ever higher, rarer, further, more extended, more comprehensive states, in short, just the elevation of the type “man,” the continued “self-surmounting of man,” to use a moral formula in a supermoral sense. To be sure, one must not resign oneself to any humanitarian illusions about the history of the origin of an aristocratic society (that is to say, of the preliminary condition for the elevation of the type “man”): the truth is hard. Let us acknowledge unprejudicedly how every higher civilization hitherto has ORIGINATED! Men with a still natural nature, barbarians in every terrible sense of the word, men of prey, still in possession of unbroken strength of will and desire for power, threw themselves upon weaker, more moral, more peaceful races (perhaps trading or cattle-rearing communities), or upon old mellow civilizations in which the final vital force was flickering out in brilliant fireworks of wit and depravity. At the commencement, the noble caste was always the barbarian caste: their superiority did not consist first of all in their physical, but in their psychical power–they were more COMPLETE men (which at every point also implies the same as “more complete beasts”).

[And Kasimir Petrenko seconds the notion:]

“I have a sense that this is a bourgeois problem.” - NN

It is. The ‘man of conscience’ has replaced the ‘man of instinct’ and our vitality is now far below what it once was. With that we find ourselves in the present predicament. Forced to search for some ‘moral justification’ for our own survival, where our distant ancestors knew what to do without asking any question.


The exchange with this liberetardian [Eric Dondero] shows just how worthless and hypocritical that ideology is. According to most libertarians, the ties that bind humanity are a desire for the free flow of goods, services, cheap trinkets, and even people across national borders. No great nation of civilization was every built on these principles and outside of the Western world you could probably count the number of adherents to libertarianism with both hands.

Libertarianism is anti-nation state and anti-race. Libtards often scoff at social Darwinism yet embrace it as it applies to the cutthroat marketplace. Ludwig Von Mises and Murray Rothbard are its two Jewish godfathers and if I had to guess libertarianism was probably devised as just another ideology which to distract and divide non-Jews.
("Mr. Dithers" @ OD)

I [NN] second the balance of your remarks, speaking to the issue of the origins of “terrorism”. But I believe that a mistaken imputation of motive is involved in the origins of Libertarianism/Objectivism/Austrian School Economics, as you would have it. These philosophical orientations rather appeal to those who feel themselves both cosmopolitan (Jew and North American Gentile alike) and inclined to the rational, science-inspired analysis of societal ethics and policy.

The classic gentile experience on this continent has been that of the perpetual elastic frontier in land and in evolving technology that have made laissez-faire/free-enterprise politico-economic policy a historically distinctive success in this singular demographic/geographic context. We North American gentiles remain, in part, the cultural heirs of that colonial success, abstractly formulated now as philosophical libertarianism - a worldview that idealistically encapsulates one’s personal absorption of the ethics and responsibilities of middle-class life, however removed from the unadvertised realities of the non-libertarian Realpolitik of the world above that class.

Deracinated from birth as we are, and taught, implicitly, the superior social status and employability of a culturally neutral persona, we naturally join the Jew in a cosmopolitan perspective, where we are not natively visceral racists (bigots) and have to reason ourselves out our youthful idealism and into a realistic confrontation with racial and class realities. There is thus no “hypocrisy” (though there are fundamental intellectual faults) in the majority experience of, and passage through, the various schools of individualist philosophy. So I caution against the misapprehension of the motives of opponents and potential converts.


I don’t think everyone here [at OD] is a “colonial agrarian Populist.” In any case, what would you have the misanthropists and elitists do instead? I’m interested to hear from a "master-class" intellect. (Mark IJsseldijk)

For those who have assimilated the points about the inevitability, in our present context, of oligarchic mastery, it follows that the armed forces and the intelligentsia (archetypically, the nobility and the priesthood) must be aligned with any cause that would be sovereign.

This alignment cannot be achieved through participation in the beauty pageant spectacles that simulate the process of popular sovereignty. Quantity no longer counts, as “uh” has pointed out. Only the quality of a case, built from rational first principles and not dismissible as the mere rationalization of bigotry, has any chance of being persuasive of the pillars of state, presently at the command of an unelected elite.

But I will admit that, presently, there is little-to-no chance of that development, even according to my recommended tactic (subvert what is left, if anything, of an un-multi-culted military and what little there may be of an honest and independent Left). And we face the handicap of an average IQ in the “native” population of 100, where a people that can govern itself needs a 115 verbal/social IQ, as had the upper-class syntheses of the Classical culture and as do the Jewish Masters of the Lie today. We are to them as Negroes are to us and as Germanic barbarians and Christian fanatics were to what was left of the original Roman upper-class Etruscan/Italic cultural synthesis, long ago.

Our further misfortune as to our prospects is reflected in the present survival of the aforesaid Christian fanatics amongst the White-wing and the general stockyard population. Several examples thereof have been "Paraded" in the column to the right, illustrating not only their intellectual and temperamental deficiencies as "'Tards" but as indicative of the class warfare and cultural struggle with which any nativist cause must deal.

So, unless the dim and declasse elements on the White-wing acknowledge their betters as such - for the sake of spreading an un-bigoted perspective of critical interest to all persons on the continent - and their betters are thus encouraged in the instruction of their subordinates to that end - castles in the sandbox will continue to be erected here and kicked over, endlessly, to the amusement and relief of mortal enemies.

[Mark I. responds:] One problem is that pro-whites do not wish to acknowledge caste. Many, not all, of them see it, as do liberals, as a construct or throwback rather than as a biological reality. I see it as self-evident that there is a caste of intellect and a caste of warriors, and equally self-evident that these castes are vastly outnumbered by the common caste. But this is not the case in the wider pro-white world, many have bought into the humanism which posits that any man is as good as the next. The pro-white cause itself thus poisoned by liberalism. Sometimes I think the bulk of pro-whites are not different from the “liberte, egalite, fraternite” crowd.

Thus the journalistic cultivation of reaction to the “unfairness” of it all in whites who have “rights” merely reinforces the (unrealistic) shared liberal premises of any such implicit controversy. Just as “denying” the Holocaust, in an attempt directed at denying victim status to international Jewry, implicitly concedes the victimological argument that “victims” have (nonsensical) transcendent moral claims on all others. The result: more proto-anarchistic liberal fatuity endorsed and the maintenance of the present general ideological regime.

[And "Stronza" speaks to the quality of our aforementioned "Germanic barbarian" ancestors:] Last I heard, the packs of Germanic tribes ultimately did pretty good for themselves.

By getting in bed with the Whore of Babylon and catching an itch that had to be scratched by International Jewry when the Universal Church became a hag. Saxon-slaughtering, Canossa, Investiture Controversy, Crusading, Reformation, Regicide, Bolshevism, Holocaustomania etc., - all symptomatic of the cultural psycho-pathology of regimes that cannot sustain themselves with their own intellect and so have to suffer acquiescence in the agendas of transnational/supranational entities in order to make up the difference.


Antiochus Epiphanes:

I find it ironic, that he uses the figure Zarathustra, because many have thought that Zarathustra was the one who brought dualism to the west -- by it serving as dualist antecedent to dualist Christianity.


And Nietzsche explains, in Ecce Homo, that he used the figure of Z. precisely in order to have he, who brought forth the dualist destructiveness, imaginatively responsible for undoing it.

Was FN trying to resuscitate aristocratic morality? That is what I got from the beginning of Genealogy of Morals, but not from the end.

At the end of the critical "First Essay" thereof, he calls for the revival of the "ancient fire" - the regard for the "supreme rights of the few".

His admiration of the will-to-power entailed in transvaluation-- his grudging admiration for the Jew tribe and its collective will to power-- those are some of the memorable things I got from Genealogy of Morals.

I think you are confusing GM with earlier works, particularly BGE.

Can we honestly say that there aren't times when we too don't admire, in spite of ourselves, and our enmity over our own destruction at their hands, in spite of all that, admire the determination, the collective resolve, the flexibility and the evident power of the Jew?

I'm too much of the warrior caste to admire the Regime of the Lie, but I often reflect upon how cleverly Jewry has devised rationales, for the pursuit of their own ends, that are fanatically affirmed by both the Weenies and the Morons that are most of what is left of the Goyim. Zum Beispiel, the Hollywood History of the Second World War has something for everyone - the Morons still think that our shores were defended from Axis invasion, and the Weenies have the Hoax with which to justify the war, even where they know enough about the episode to realize that FDR lied a blue streak with regard to Axis geo-political objectives.

Back to rejecting the slavish morality entailed in "good and evil." How can you unring a bell? Like going back to paganism. How is that really possible? How do you undo a synthesis, and go back to the thesis, as if the antithesis never came up? You can't. What you have to do is essentially take the synthesis as thesis, and counterpoint a new antithesis -- and see if a new synthesis emerges. I think this is what is suggested in the expression "beyond" good and evil. But do we ever get there in his writing? Are we there now?

Can the prey ever become the predator? The peasant an aristocrat? Nietzsche hoped, in BGE, to cultivate (to "fish" for) those who could be transformed into pre-moderns, into gentilshomme. To a certain extent I "over-came" myself through a combination of education and natural predisposition - most importantly through an understanding, which Nietzsche intuited, that the ends of men cannot be reconciled as is the present-day utopianist pretence. The Kingdom of God and the Utopia of Man are intrinsically unrealizable, not because men are sinners or are evil, but because it is an intractable aspect of the administration of human affairs and in the nature of organic existence.

Same thing with the God is dead business. God is dead: "we have killed him." Clearly, he's talking about a perception of God, not the objective existence or non-existence of God. The whole conversation, Zarathustra going about in the night with a lantern -- like the Greek philosopher looking for an honest man -- is Zarathustra talking about US - not really about God. People who regard FN as atheist, are missing the boat, if you ask me. Not atheist, nor theist. He's not concerned with God or gods, but with men, and the overman.

"It is here and nowhere else that one must make a start to comprehend what Zarathustra wants: this type of man that he conceives, conceives reality as it is, being strong enough to do so; this type is not estranged or removed from reality but is reality itself and exemplifies all that is terrible and questionable in it—only in that way can man attain greatness."

This is the over-man, the aristocrat - he who can assess the world objectively, as does the "Bird of Prey" contemplating the "Lamb," because he rules by violence, by good-and-bad, rather than by the Lie, as does the priest, as does the Jew. The under-man, the Lamb, the prey, understandably sees the predator, the aristocrat, as of the blackest EVIL - hence the diabolization of Hitler, the paranoia manifest in witch and show trials, the megalomaniacal "choseness" of the Jews, which characterize a culture dominated or manipulated by an alien, internationalist priesthood competing with a native regime by cultivating the lower elements. This began, of course, when Nehemiah and Ezra, backed by the Persian army, imposed a Zoroastrian and racist regime upon the Hebrews/Jews who survived Assyrian dispersion - and continued as The Church fought with Kings and Emperors for control of the West (see especially the bizarre episode of primitive superstition-wielding at Canossa) - and plagues us today as Jewry leaves the underside of no ideological rock unoccupied.

Crikey, where the hell have you been the past three years? I'm hanging it up. You take over now.

You make the same sense of Nietzsche that Evola does in *Calvalcare le Tigre*. That's the way I would like to see him too, but my doubts persist. Maybe I'll crack the books over Turkey day and see if I can hold up my critical notions of Fred with some text.

The only thing in particular I would respond to in your comments is that my conceptions of warrior-ethics don't exclude deception as a method. Honesty and integrity are virtues, but I'm not some damn hoplite who can only lock shields and march forward. Flexibility and the principled and disciplined use of strategem or cunning are arrows in my quiver just like any other.

I think you would exclude the fundamental falsification of reality.

From BGE 259:

"On no point, however, is the ordinary consciousness of Europeans more unwilling to be corrected than on this matter; people now rave everywhere, even under the guise of science, about coming conditions of society in which 'the exploiting character' is to be absent:-- that sounds to my ears as if they promised to invent a mode of life which should refrain from all organic functions. 'Exploitation' does not belong to a depraved, or imperfect and primitive society: it belongs to the nature of the living being as a primary organic function; it is a consequence of the intrinsic Will to Power, which is precisely the Will to Life.--Granting that as a theory this is a novelty--as a reality it is the fundamental fact of all history: let us be so far honest towards ourselves!"

And I think you would decline encouragement of belief that indulgence in fatuities will be redeemed by God (Masada, Muenster, Waco) - History (Bolshevism, Anarchism, Cargo cultism) - or Science (Progress ideology, Whiggery, Egalitarianism).

From GM, 1st Essay:

"With the French Revolution, Judea once again triumphed over the classical ideal, and this time in an even more profound and decisive sense: the last political noblesse in Europe, that of the French seventeenth and eighteenth century, collapsed beneath the popular instincts of ressentiment—greater rejoicing, more uproarious enthusiasm had never been heard on earth! To be sure, in the midst of it there occurred the most tremendous, the most unexpected thing: the ideal of antiquity itself stepped incarnate and in unheard-of splendor before the eyes and conscience of mankind—and once again, in opposition to the mendacious slogan of ressentiment, 'supreme rights of the majority,' in opposition to the will to the lowering, the abasement, the leveling and the decline and twilight of mankind, there sounder stronger, simpler, and more insistently than ever the terrible and rapturous counterslogan 'supreme rights of the few'! Like a last signpost to the other path, Napoleon appeared, the most isolated and late-born man there has ever been, and in him the problem of the noble ideal as such made flesh—one might well ponder what kind of problem it is: Napoleon, this synthesis of the inhuman and superhuman.

"Was that the end of it? Had that greatest of all conflicts of ideals been placed ad acta [Disposed of] for all time? Or only adjourned, indefinitely adjourned?

"Must the ancient fire not some day flare up much more terribly, after much longer preparation? More: must one not desire it with all one's might? even will it? even promote it?"


Alex Linder:

I read Nietzsche because he's funny.


I read Nietzsche because he recovered the lost understanding of the proper moral essence (the truthfulness and honor of men who rule by violence) of aristocratic culture - a priceless contribution to the comprehension of ourselves as Aryans and to a perspective on the Regime of the Lie that has engulfed us.


...there is an etiology and a point of infection, and that, for the moment, although the infection is far advanced, it can still be successfully treated: the pathogens — liberal utopians, corrupt careerists, ethnic radicals — are known and localized,... (Alex Kurtagic)

I wish that I could acquiesce in this cheerful assessment and prospect.

Unfortunately for our remnant of relatively healthy cells in the global body politic, "liberalism," in numerous variants of the ideology of the historic "middle class"/"bourgeoisie," is shot through and across the entire political spectrum - Classical Liberalism/Libertarianism at the Radical Right extreme, and Marxist/Gramscian/Frankfurt "Enlightenment"-style modern Liberalism on the Left. All of it coming full circle and meeting in state-withering Anarchism, the slave and criminal's delight. As Nietzsche pointed out: it's all the same - it's all Beatitudinal Christianity in various guises - it's all slave morality. And the right-wing version spreads around the world like a cancerous tumor that the radical left-wing wants, ultimately, to irradiate with nuclear weapons.

Thus, no cause for optimism here. Slaves are understandably incapable of anything but the urgent desire for "freedom," "liberty," and "equality" - the latter delusion variously formulated from end to end of the spectrum. From Libertarian quasi-anarchism to Marxist crypto-anarchism.

Where this slavish premise is implicit in a journalistic appeal to predominantly middle-class readers - who are regaled with accounts of enormities that threaten their self-concerned, individualistic lives (to which they merely wish to return after restoration to the (unrealizable) status quo ante of some prior, more or less remote, period) - there is no hope, in consequence, for any but a future circumstance that is, or invites immediate repetition of, the present declension.

So - how to make masters out of slaves? Masters with which one cannot dispense, in one variety or another - the Jew and/or the German, priest and/or noble - since liberalism, of whatever variety, leads (in the inescapable logic and history of political-economy) to a "restoration" of mastery - mastery presently held exclusively by the Master of the Lie, in the absence of the Master of Violence, for whose forthright leadership the Master of Money does not stand in without indispensable support from, and eventual displacement by, the alien international Liar.

Perhaps one cannot achieve this miraculous transformation in this latter-day world, as is my own prognosis after many years of tolerantly investigating the various feces-flinging monkey houses on the so-called Right. In any case, until the mind-set of such representative occupants is abandoned amidst personal catastrophe and our cause offers an explicit remedy that nevertheless affronts the premises of the previous philosophy of the victims, the alternative constant journalistic discussion of newsworthy enormities merely retards the reader by reinforcing the bourgeois-liberal tsk-tsking mind-set of the "unfairness" or "hypocrisy" of the events and a mere desire to medicate the "localized" infection and thus to be allowed to return to business as usual.

The suspicion is aroused, indeed, that this is the foolish intention of the purveyors of such journalism - they likewise of the middle class who have found the present dispensation one which they could more or less comfortably accommodate all life long - but for the presence of repellent minorities, whose absence they would not long enjoy, for failure to understand that their own politico-economic and cultural premises are complicit in the difficulty (as evidenced in the repeated rhetorical reference, even amongst ourselves in public, to none but the cultural (artistic/scientific) achievements of the race, as if we pathetically beg to be preserved by our masters as an endangered species and that we are otherwise defenseless for lack of political inspiration from the pertinent past).

But, again, you will say, there are none but the middle class here, in quantity. It is we and they, you will say, to whom we must speak - on our and on their terms. I say, rather, that on their and on your terms, one's cause is self-defeating, as is evidenced by its evolution from supremacism to separatism to secessionism - running away to a self-imposed outdoor concentration camp that will greatly facilitate the extermination of what's left of the "race" in its own pitiful Vilcabamban "Reich".

So I suggest, even at the risk of isolation from the larger community, an as-yet untried public discussion/debate amongst ourselves of these perhaps very disagreeable fundamentals (as opened for discussion here at "superhuman") - the evident intellectual prestige of which might eventually make an impression on elements of the prestige-conscious and increasingly disillusioned universalist Left, without whom a cause cannot advance under present circumstances.


And in this world inescapably governed by lies and violence, as explained below, elite Jewry now governs with the lies that both the Weenied Left (Frankfurt School anti-fascism) and the 'tarded Right (Hollywood History anti-fascism) are quite pleased to hear.

Long gone are the days when a King (Alexander or Caesar) and his host combined both the intellect and aptitude for domination and the manhood for personal combat, in campaigning for conquest and gain unrationalized by such ideological nonsense and fantasy.

For the past century, rather, our contemptible neighborhood sissy nerds (Weenies) have been raised to piously but unwittingly front for the Elders - in comfortable official positions remote from conflict - and our jocks and morons ('tards) have been ceremoniously marched off to heroically do the cowards' bidding in battle - believing it's for the Weenie meliorists' One-World Nanny-State Utopia, on the one hand, or for the 'tarded militarists' Apple-Pie America Uber All those who deplorably are not yet Americanized, on the other.

But in fact it's all been for the sake of crypto-anarchist Judeo-Communism - or for megalomaniacal Judeo-Fascism - in any campaign that was seen through to a nominal "victory".


(Briefly explained:)

To become superhuman according to the fashion of Herr Professor Doktor Nietzsche - as an alternative to Weenie-hood or 'tardation - is to rise above hoi polloi/the goyim/the masses/the lower orders (however one might refer to common humanity) through education in, and adherence to, fundamental political and epistemological realities - rather than in and to ideologically and theologically-based delusions ("Real Worlds," as HPDN would have disparagingly referred to them after the manner of his dispute with Kantian and Platonic notions):

"Zarathustra, the first psychologist of the good, is — consequently — a friend of the evil. When a décadent type of man ascended to the rank of the highest type, this could only happen at the expense of its counter-type, the type of man that is strong and sure of life. When the herd animal is irradiated by the glory of the purest virtue, the exceptional man must have been devalued into evil. When mendaciousness at any price monopolizes the word 'truth' for its perspective, the really truthful man is bound to be branded with the worst names. Zarathustra leaves no doubt at this point: he says that it was his insight precisely into the good, the 'best,' that made him shudder at man in general; that it was from this aversion that he grew wings 'to soar off into distant futures,' — he does not conceal the fact that his type of man, a relatively superhuman type, is superhuman precisely in its relation to the good — that the good and the just would call his overman devil ...


You highest men whom my eyes have seen, this is my doubt about you and my secret laughter: I guess that you would call my overman — devil!

What is great is so alien to your souls that the overman would be terrifying to you in his goodness ...


"It is here and nowhere else that one must make a start to comprehend what Zarathustra wants: this type of man that he conceives, conceives reality as it is: it is strong enough for it —, it is not estranged or removed from it, it is reality itself and exemplifies all that is terrible and questionable in it, only in that way can man attain greatness ..." (Ecce Homo, "Why I Am a Destiny," 5)

Sadly, if Professor Nietzsche were alive now to witness the riotous intellectual pre-school that is the Greater Judea of the modern day, his only realistic immediate hope for the juvenile pseudo-sophisticate Leftists and the puerile patriotarded Rightists, so much in evidence today, would be for their preliminary elevation to so little as mere imbecility, in displacement of their present philosophical idiocy.

(In terms of background:)

Overmen/Uebermenschen refers to the historic warrior nobility/aristocracy of all politically-advanced cultures, who, by virtue of their having predatorily conquered and stratified settled societies at the foundation of their regimes, formed the basis for "every elevation of the type 'man'," according to the account given by Nietzsche. These masters of violence, in a world whose lower, slavish orders were and are inescapably governed by none other than the lies of priests and the violence of nobles, need not resort to the theological and ideological illusions employed by the former and may thus adopt the clear-eyed grasp of the world that Nietzsche's "Bird of Prey" has with regard to the tremulous, "good" (tasting) "lamb" that reciprocates with a hysterical view of the hungering raptor as the blackest of "evil". Thus the master and his "master morality" are "Beyond Good and Evil" and so avoid the destructive, apocalyptic distortions of reality that are required of "slave morality" in all its forms (principally in the eschatological expectations of an escape to "freedom" and "liberation" from oppression and repression in an immanent (Christian) Kingdom of God or an egalitarian (Liberal/Socialist/Pacifist/Anarchist/Communist) Utopia of Man to come).

It was Nietzsche's hope to educationally cultivate a new master-class of "Gentilshomme," following the disastrous passing of the historic noble masters after two millennia of Jewish-inspired promotion of subversive (Christian and proto-Communist) slave morality, in the contest that Nietzsche styled as "Rome versus Judea":

"Let’s bring this to a conclusion. The two opposing values 'good and bad,' 'good and evil' have fought a fearful battle on earth for thousands of years. And if it’s true that the second value has for a long time had the upper hand, even now there’s still no lack of places where the battle goes on without a final decision. We could even say that in the intervening time the battle has been constantly drawn to greater heights and in the process to constantly greater depths and has become constantly more spiritual, so that nowadays there is perhaps no more decisive mark of a 'higher nature,' a more spiritual nature, than that it is split in that sense and is truly still a battleground for those opposites. The symbol of this battle, written in a script which has remained legible through all human history up to the present, is called 'Rome Against Judea, Judea Against Rome.' To this point there has been no greater event than this war, this posing of a question, this contradiction between deadly enemies. Rome felt that the Jew was like something contrary to nature itself, its monstrous polar opposite, as it were. In Rome the Jew was considered 'guilty of hatred against the entire human race.' And that view was correct, to the extent that we are right to link the health and the future of the human race to the unconditional rule of aristocratic values, the Roman values. By contrast, how did the Jews feel about Rome? We can guess that from a thousand signs, but it is sufficient to treat ourselves again to the Apocalypse of John, that wildest of all written outbursts which vengeance has on its conscience. (Incidentally, we must not underestimate the deep consistency of the Christian instinct, when it ascribed this very book of hate to the name of the disciple of love, the same man to whom it attributed that enthusiastic amorous gospel —: there is some truth to this, no matter how much literary counterfeiting may have been necessary for this purpose). The Romans were indeed strong and noble men, stronger and nobler than any people who had lived on earth up until then or even than any people who had ever been dreamed up. Everything they left as remains, every inscription, is delightful, provided that we can guess what is doing the writing there. By contrast, the Jews were par excellence that priestly people of ressentiment, who possessed an unparalleled genius for popular morality. Just compare people with related talents — say, the Chinese or the Germans — with the Jews, in order to understand what is ranked first and what is ranked fifth. Which of them has proved victorious for the time being, Rome or Judea? Surely there’s not the slightest doubt. Just think of who it is people bow down to today in Rome itself as the personification of all the highest values — and not only in Rome, but in almost half the earth, all the places where people have become merely tame or want to become tame — in front of three Jews, as we know, and one Jewess (in front of Jesus of Nazareth, the fisherman Peter, the carpet maker Paul, and the mother of the first-mentioned Jesus, named Mary). This is very remarkable: without doubt Rome has been conquered. It is true that in the Renaissance there was an incredibly brilliant reawakening of the classical ideal, the noble way of evaluating everything. Rome itself behaved like someone who had woken up from a coma induced by the pressure of the new Jewish Rome built over it, which looked like an ecumenical synagogue and was called “the church.” But Judea immediately triumphed again, thanks to that basically vulgar (German and English) movement of ressentiment, which we call the Reformation, together with what had to follow as a result, the re-establishment of the church — as well as the re-establishment of the old grave-like tranquillity of classical Rome. In what is an even more decisive and deeper sense than that, Judea once again was victorious over the classical ideal at the time of the French Revolution. The last political nobility which there was in Europe, in seventeenth and eighteenth century France, broke apart under the instincts of popular ressentiment — never on earth has there been heard a greater rejoicing, a noisier enthusiasm! It’s true that in the midst of all this the most dreadful and most unexpected events took place: the old ideal itself stepped physically and with unheard of splendour before the eyes and the conscience of humanity — and once again stronger, simpler, and more urgently than ever rang out, in opposition to the old mendacious slogan of ressentiment, 'supreme rights of the majority,' in opposition to the will for a low condition, for abasement, for equality, for the decline and extinguishing of mankind — in opposition to all that rang out a fearsome and delightful counter-slogan 'supreme rights of the few'! Like a last signpost to a different road, Napoleon appeared, the most singular and late-born man there ever was, and in him the problem of the inherently noble ideal was made flesh — we should consider well what a problem that is: Napoleon, this synthesis of the inhuman and the superhuman. . . .

" — Did that end it? Was that greatest of all opposition of ideals thus set aside for all time? Or was it merely postponed, postponed indefinitely? . . . Some day, after a much longer preparation, will an even more fearful blaze from the ancient fire not have to take place? More than that: wouldn’t this be exactly what we should hope for with all our strength? Even will it? Even demand it? Anyone who, like my readers, begins to reflect on these points, to think further, will have difficulty coming to a quick conclusion — reason enough for me to come to a conclusion myself, provided that it has been sufficiently clear for a long time what I want, precisely what I want with that dangerous slogan which is written on the body of my last book: 'Beyond Good and Evil' . . . At least this does not mean 'Beyond Good and Bad.' —" (Genealogy I 16,17)

His "readers," his "Gentlemen," his "Free Spirits," his "good Europeans," were to be the men who would "become who they are," who would "revive the ancient fire," and who were to be the paladins of a class of talented tyrants to eventually emerge from the European political scene, as the mass of the population became further debased by democratic modernity:

"Whether that which now distinguishes the European be called 'civilization' or 'humanization' or 'progress'; whether one calls it simply, without implying any praise or blame, the democratic movement in Europe: behind all the moral and political foregrounds indicated by such formulas a great physiological process is taking place and gathering greater and ever greater impetus — the process of the assimilation of all Europeans, their growing detachment from the conditions under which races dependent on climate and class originate, their increasing independence of any definite milieu which, through making the same demands for centuries, would like to inscribe itself on soul and body — that is to say, the slow emergence of an essentially supra-national and nomadic type of man which, physiologically speaking, possesses as its typical distinction a maximum of the art and power of adaptation. This process of the becoming European, the tempo of which can be retarded by great relapses but which will perhaps precisely through them gain in vehemence and depth — the still-raging storm and stress of 'national feeling' belongs here, likewise the anarchism now emerging —: this process will probably lead to results which its naive propagators and panegyrists, the apostles of 'modern ideas,' would be least inclined to anticipate. The same novel conditions which will on average create a leveling and mediocritizing of man — a useful, industrious, highly serviceable and able herd-animal man — are adapted in the highest degree to giving rise to exceptional men of the most dangerous and enticing quality. For while that power of adaptation which continually tries out changing conditions and begins a new labor with every new generation, almost with every new decade, cannot make possible the powerfulness of the type; while the total impression produced by such future Europeans will probably be that of multifarious, garrulous, weak-willed and highly employable workers who need a master, a commander, as they need their daily bread; while, therefore, the democratization of Europe will lead to the production of a type prepared for slavery in the subtlest sense: in individual and exceptional cases the strong man will be found to turn out stronger and richer than has perhaps ever happened before — thanks to the unprejudiced nature of his schooling, thanks to the tremendous multiplicity of practice, art and mask. What I mean to say is that the democratization of Europe is at the same time an involuntary arrangement for the breeding of tyrants — in every sense of that word, including the most spiritual.

"I hear with pleasure that our sun is moving rapidly in the direction of the constellation of Hercules: and I hope that men on the earth will in this matter emulate the sun. And we at their head, we good Europeans! —" (BGE, "Peoples and Fatherlands," 242-3)

These were to be the so-regarded "evil" men - rising above the contemptible, sanctimonious, inverted, liberationist perspectives of lesser persons. These were to be the men whom Nietzsche's fictional Zarathustra would want for the rectification of the historic Zarathustra's error in introducing the delusional moral dualism of slave morality: "Good and Evil":

"I have not been asked, as I should have been asked, what the name of Zarathustra means in my mouth, the mouth of the first immoralist: for what constitutes the tremendous historical uniqueness of that Persian is just the opposite of this. Zarathustra was the first to consider the fight of good and evil the very wheel in the machinery of things, — the transposition of morality into the metaphysical, as a force, cause, and end in itself, is his work. But this question itself is at bottom its own answer. Zarathustra created this most calamitous error, morality; consequently, he must also be the first to recognize it. Not only has he more experience in this matter, for a longer time, than any other thinker — after all, the whole of history is the refutation by experiment of the principle of the so-called 'moral world order' —: what is more important is that Zarathustra is more truthful than any other thinker. His doctrine and his alone posits truthfulness as the highest virtue — this means the opposite of the cowardice of 'idealists' who flee from reality, Zarathustra has more intestinal fortitude than all other thinkers taken together. To speak the truth and to shoot well with arrows, that is Persian virtue. — Am I understood? ... The self-overcoming of morality out of truthfulness, the self-overcoming of the moralist into his opposite — into me — that is what the name of Zarathustra means in my mouth." (Ecce Homo, "Why I Am a Destiny," 3)

Nietzsche's "Superman" was thus neither the cartoon character that stupid and ignorant Greater Judean goyim would imagine nor the proposed product of Darwinian eugenic measures. Superhumanity was to be the re-attainment of a manhood that had virtually disappeared with the passing of ancient Classical culture, wherein many men still combined the virtues of unsentimental, clear-eyed, ideology-free intellect with regard to politics and the courage and appetite for personally taking up arms for (moralistically) unrationalized imperial conquest, as was the resort and destiny of all healthy High Cultures. As Nietzsche presciently saw the prospects:

"[The strength to will is strongest] of all and most astonishing in that huge empire-in-between, where Europe as it were flows back into Asia, in Russia. There the strength to will has for long been stored up and kept in reserve, there the will is waiting menacingly — uncertain whether it is a will to deny or a will to affirm — in readiness to discharge itself, to borrow one of the physicists’ favorite words. It may need not only wars in India and Asian involvements to relieve Europe of the greatest danger facing it, but also internal eruptions, the explosion of the empire into small fragments, and above all the introduction of the parliamentary imbecility, including the obligation upon everyone to read his newspaper at breakfast. I do not say this, because I desire it: the reverse would be more after my heart I mean such an increase in the Russian threat that Europe would have to resolve to become equally threatening, namely to acquire a single will by means of a new caste dominating all Europe, a protracted terrible will of its own which could set its objectives thousands of years ahead — so that the long-drawn-out comedy of its petty states and the divided will of its dynasties and democracies should finally come to an end. The time for petty politics is past: the very next century will bring with it the struggle for mastery over the whole earth — the compulsion to grand politics." BGE, "We Scholars," 208)


The identification of Judeo-European slave morality (referred to as "Christianity") with morality per se was so universal in Nietzsche's day, that one could, to a general audience, write sensibly of its rejection only as amorality or immorality, as seemingly Nietzsche had to do despite his implicit endorsement of master morality, regarding which little could be said.

For the rules by which the masters, the nobility, live have mostly to due with honor and etiquette, personal and familial - and may be codified in a reasonably consistent and complete corpus of prescriptions and proscriptions. There tends to be little debate among such a class of people as to the dictates of honor and proper behavior in any given situation.

But the most important rules by which the common folk live, when they are torn away from tribal roots, have mostly to do with property, personal and public - and cannot be codified in a complete and consistent corpus of rules and regulations. Thus, where there is not the pretense of the existence of such a corpus, the debate is perpetual as to how to organize and govern society beyond the tribal level, since there are no answers to the ancient questions as to "who guards the guardians" or how to arrange perpetually collusion-free commerce and special-interest-free policy without so contrarily burdening commerce and society with corruptible and inefficient bureaucracy and internal security as to be societally non-competitive in international commerce and war-making capability.

For example:

The term “rightly understood interest” is used, in the discussion of the logic of political economy, to characterize an aspect of the behavior of homo oeconomicus, the hypothetical rational actor or entity engaged in commercial or “market” activity. The following illustration of its meaning will show it to be a rather obvious concept — though it nevertheless can be seen to have devastating implications:

If, for example, several individuals periodically derive a minimal level of nutrition from a “pie” created for them by one or several of their number, from materials supplied by others of the same, the “raw” interest, so-to-speak, of each of them might well be to take the whole pie for himself. As there is only one pie at a time and multiple individuals to be satisfied, the raw interest of all cannot be realized at once in this regard. If any one or few of them deprive or deceive others in regard to a share of the pie, violence may ensue with possible damage to pie creation. If the creators of the pie are not suitably rewarded, pie production may diminish or cease — likewise with the supply of materials and the persons responsible therefor. The group is confronted with a multi-dimensional challenge in trying to develop a formula (Laissez-faire?/Command economy?/Mixed economy?/Socialism?/Corporatism?/Syndicalism?/Anarchism?/Social Credit?/Marxism?/Leninism?/Stalinism?/Maoism?/Fascism?/National Socialism?/etc.) for dividing the pie to at least the minimal satisfaction of all, while deterring misbehavior and motivating pie production. If such a formula is successfully achieved and basically adhered to, it may be said to serve the “rightly understood,” as opposed to the elementary “raw” interest, of each of the participant individuals.

This is all rather commonsensical and obvious, but, again, this reality has devastating consequences, when we “scale-up” this challenge to encompass the requirements for satisfaction of millions or billions of individuals. On this scale it is literally impossible, as suggested by the multiplicity of alternatives and lack of officlal clarity as to principles, to develop a formula for attending to the rightly understood interests of this number of advanced organisms confronting inescapably scarce resources. If prevarication does not serve to pacify the victims of inevitable deficiency, violence and death will be the frequent alternatives. Thus is humankind governed, according to the Iron Law of Oligarchy - whereby the rightly understood interest of an organized minority is, rather, in exploiting a disorganized majority - by none other than lies and violence, priests and warriors, as the record of human experience so richly reveals. Utopian hopes, measures toward a “New World Order,” even durable national stability, are thus without foundation, excluded by the logic and experience of political economy, at least until Jesus brings the Second Advent to town or the day those “mysterious material forces of production” finally turn up.


As said, a formula for meeting these challenges does not exist in other than public pretense (for example and especially as to the existence of "human rights," the suitability of the moral Decalogue in this capacity, and the academic notion of a Platonic or etheric realm of legal principle). And this pretense and difficulty are particularly in evidence where indefinable considerations of equality/justice/fairness/freedom/liberty must be accommodated, as in the fatuous, but much exploited, impression that a coherent concept of universal, international "justice" exists such that "victims" of political or military events may be said to have "moral authority" and "rights" to "reparations" and that "guilt" must be imposed upon the so-called "criminals" involved. And yet another pernicious illusion prevails where public propaganda and popular ignorance sustain the idea that form-of-government ("democracy" versus "dictatorship") is a matter of morality rather than a matter of mere utility.

Nevertheless, the fate of polities depends vitally upon the successful management of these irresolvable problems. To fail to manage the unmanageable is to instigate class war and to inspire international war, the latter often resorted to by polities ancient and modern in order to palliate the former development. But this is all in order in Nietzsche's broad analysis of the nature of life - for life is exploitation - the feeding of one organism upon another. The exploitation of one class by another, and the subjugation of one people by another, is all according to the organic nature of society and its will to power and cannot be rectified by resort to intrinsically defective
legal/ethical/moral dictates and enforcement:

"Consequently, only with the setting up of the law is there a 'just' and 'unjust' (and not, as Dühring will have it, from the time of the injurious action). To talk of just and unjust in themselves has no sense whatsoever; it’s obvious that in themselves harming, oppressing, exploiting, destroying cannot be 'unjust,' inasmuch as life essentially works that way, that is, in its basic functions it harms, oppresses, exploits, and destroys, and cannot be conceived at all without this character. We have to acknowledge something even more disturbing: the fact that from the highest biological standpoint, conditions of justice must always be only exceptional conditions, partial restrictions on the basic will to live, which is set on power; they are subordinate to the total purpose of this will as individual means, that is, as means to create larger units of power. A legal system conceived of as sovereign and universal, not as a means in the struggle of power complexes, but as a means against all struggles in general, something along the lines of Dühring’s communist cliché in which each will must be considered as equal to every will, that would be a principle hostile to life, a destroyer and dissolver of human beings, an assassination attempt on the future of human beings, a sign of exhaustion, a secret path to nothingness.—" (Genealogy II 11)

Here we have the evidence of Nietzsche's rare genius in appreciating the moral dilemma with which man is instrinsically confronted in the context of any political activity. It is a supreme irony that the academic and popular impression of this quandary is so disgracefully uninformed, that moral pre-schoolers, as immediately below, may unashamedly offer the following ludicrous assessment of the seasoned philosopher for our consideration:

For example:

"In a world where liberalism and democracies are now increasingly in violent geopolitical conflict with Islâmic Fascism [a misnomer, NN], and trendy progressives despise liberal capitalism more than misogynistic Islâmic terrorists [rather, the Islamic Resistance, NN] the most surprising intellectual developments become possible. In such an ideological mix and ferment, one thing stands clear: Nietzsche's contribution, a morally infantile [emphasis mine, NN] fantasy of barbarism, will always be dangerous, destructive, and seductive to anyone whose moral maturity is no greater than his.

"Editorial Note:

"I should pay tribute to my former professor and advisor at UCLA and the University of Hawaii, Lenn Goodman (now at Vanderbilt University), who once made what I thought was the most acute observation about Nietzsche -- that he was simply not a morally mature person. I wonder if we can excuse Nietzsche because, after all, he was losing his mind. But this is not an excuse that will work for most Nietzsche enthuasiasts."


Resuming the thread of our thought (with indulgent smiles regarding such naivete) - the party of fanciful Good Intentions with which this Road to Hell is presently being paved is the meliorist liberal Left, classical and modern, which has facilitated the liberation of the "people," bourgeois and working-class, from their historic aristocratic masters. If we place the most charitable interpretation upon the motivation behind this contribution, we would say that the oppressed and exploited have thereby been relieved of such injustice, and have been granted the freedom and rights to which all are entitled by virtue of their humanity. Notions of Natural Law and Progress make self-evident the righteousness of this subversive enterprise — based, as it is believed to be, upon universal principles dictated by reason and compassion for one's fellow man. Thus, as is easily observed in the present instance, advocates of this "liberalism" find themselves to be the most compassionate, caring, concerned, and committed of us all in seeing to the welfare of humanity as a whole and of the planet upon which that humanity resides.

The problem with liberating the lower orders, however, is that the revolution means more suffering, exploitation, and death under the new masters than under the old. For example, maintaining order on a mutinous ship in the old days sometimes meant resorting to flogging miscreants even more often than did the martinet who induced the mutiny. More recently, the nascent Soviet Union had to take murderous Russian brutality and callousness to unprecedented heights (or depths) in conforming its much-reduced population of surviving peasants and workers to their lovely new Gulag-enhanced and Secret-Police-supervised "Worker's Paradise". And to date, the tally of Maoist Red Chinese domestic megacide, in pursuit of a pure Communist liberationist regime, has not even been approached in absolute numbers by any other polity.

That is the actual working-out of the brutal logic of political-economy in the history of events, as opposed to the sentimental theory and fable with which we are most familiar. The order created by centuries of aristocratic dominion is not a story of unbridled rapacity presiding over incessant misery, a'la the tales of Robin Hood and Uncle Tom's Cabin, but, in fact, of the progressive minimization of the unavoidable impositions that violent conflict make upon human society. It is when republican "citizenship" and revolutionary "comradeship" make their appearance on the scene that the suffering and killing really start - because the demands of the newly-elevated rabble multiply the demands that must be met. It was democratic Athenian imperialism, not monarchic Spartan conservatism, that provoked formation of the anti-Athenian coalition leading to the Peloponnesian War. It was the most "liberal" of the European powers, England, the World's Workshop, and not Prussian Militarist Germany, on whose empire the sun never set.

Liberalism is thus the logical and historical prelude to anarchy or despotism, by virtue of having unleashed demands, for the satisfaction of which no new formula exists in replacement of the accommodations reached in the course of centuries of aristocratic rule. Anglo-America has avoided this fate, to this date, first, by having long exploited the politico-economic virtues of global colonialism in which Laissez-faire works nicely according to theory - until a pioneering frontier closes - and by having thereafter been sold into another Faustian Pact with the Fifth-Column international theocrats of the day (elite Jewry having replaced the Church in this capacity).

This latter-day Deal with the Devil involved being rewarded in the historic short-term with manhood-affirming, mock-heroic martial "victory," and with long-awaited economic "recovery," and with transitory global pre-eminence in the aftermath of the Fifth Column's engineering of the War to Save Communism from Hitler and Tojo - plus the wide-spread off-shoring of otherwise class-warfare-producing wage-slavery and the additional extortions from global economic imperialism, as a bonus.

This comes, however, at the long-term expense of eliminating effective resistance to displacement of the native oligarchy by elite Jewry, of resistance to illegal immigration and eventual declension into Third-World decrepitude, and of preparedness for eventual attack by the irregular forces of the Asian (currently crypto-Communist Russian and Chinese Communist) revolutionary regimes, who are deceptively exploiting the ideologically-based delusions of their "objective enemy," Greater Judea (formerly "America") - the latter having been temporarily elevated beyond its place in the world (Hua Guofeng-wise) by the Fifth-Column-engineered WWII alliance with its Communist then-and-now mortal enemy, in a back-stabbing betrayal of its would-be natural and present ally, Germany.