To begin with, the term “Urning” I use here is an old word for “Uranian”, meaning “homosexual” first used by the homosexual activist Karl Heinrich Ulrichs in 1865. (pg. 9)
Now, we shall begin with a speech I’ve recently read by Reichsführer of the Schutzstaffel (SS), Heinrich Himmler, on February 18th, 1937 in Bad Tölz to the SS group leaders, translated by Dr. Hermann Hitzinger (2018). In this speech, he describes very clearly the direct cause of a nation’s disintegration and how it rots it from the inside out. He begins describing the statistics of Germany’s homosexual and deceased male populations as the following:
“According to the latest census, we probably have between 67 and 68 million people in Germany. This means, counting very roughly, about 34 million men.
Therefore, there are approximately 20 million sexually capable men (that is, men over the age of 16 years old). The estimated number may be off by a million, but that does not matter.
If we assume a number of one to two million homosexuals, it is clear that between seven and ten percent of men in Germany are homosexual.
If this remains the case, it means that our people will be destroyed by this plague. A people cannot endure in the long run if the balance and equilibrium between the sexes is disrupted in this manner . . .
Although the number of women has remained constant, we already have around two million too few men. This is the number who died in the war [First World War] . . .
Together with the two million war dead, this means that there are around four million men missing from the sex-capable male population – something that can only lead to catastrophe.” (pg. 2)
A footnote below clarifies that
“if . . . the registered members of homosexual clubs in 1933 (four million) is taken at face value, then that calculates out at a homosexuality rate of 6.12 percent, based on the 1933 population.” (pg.1)
Himmler argues that
“. . . all things which happen in the sexual sphere are not the private affair of the individual, but impinge upon the life and death of the nation and mean either world power, or division like in Switzerland.” (pg. 2)
This here quite blows the libertarian view of “to each their own” right out of the water and exposes the actual original error of homosexuality! It is far easier to turn a blind eye to things that are difficult than to acknowledge that difficulty and move to take on that very challenge, even if it means losing one’s own low-IQ audience! Maintaining that stagnant atmosphere is, quite frankly, not the will to power, and only serves to lead the traveler astray into lazy poppy fields.
He explains further that not only does this obviously affect a nation’s ability to propagate, to thrive, to survive even genetically, but also that when a homosexual enters a position of power, he destroys that whole system. It is fully normal and expected that a man should reach a position of power by his own merit, for he then proves that he is indeed worthy of such a position. Machiavelli also expresses this same point by dissertating the rise of a Prince who achieves his Princedom based on merit versus by fortune. The Prince who endures the great effort to claim his dominion takes longer than the fortunate Prince, but his foundation proves to be far superior and formidable.
Likewise, Himmler essentially says the same thing only by comparing who a man is most likely to hire as a typist, asking his audience if they would honestly hire an ugly 50-year-old man who types 300 syllables per minute, or the pretty, young 20-year-old woman who only types 150 syllables per minute. Though stenographers are not critical for the functioning of a state, he reveals the clear sexual dynamic here, and thus uses this example to explain the actions of a homosexual in power, whereby he states that,
“. . . if the principle not to pick purely based on merit, but on a male-to-female erotic principle, is replaced by a male-to-male erotic principle, then the destruction of the state begins.” (pg. 4)
Needless to say, Himmler has quite the strong detestation for homosexuals, and I would comfortably compare it to Machiavelli’s dislike for mercenaries or Bacon’s for midwits. He describes them as each one always having the same personality: cowardly, weak, a pathological liar (where only a Jesuit with his religious piety is a greater liar), dishonest, mentally-ill, and the first to rat out all of his friends to save his own self. ‘Tis quite the contradiction there as homosexuals are so very expressive of love between each other, yet they lack that honest respect for each other, for it is more about fulfilling the starving, daemonic self with disingenuous lust to fill a very dark, bottomless subconscious void! But it takes a strong willpower to admit your own actual, real weaknesses, for the more you wish to not approach a certain subject, the more that subject pronounces your weakness.
Furthermore, the homosexual, he states,
“. . . will not make a choice based on the facts that a candidate may be the best lawyer, has received a good score, has practical experience in the legal field, and who is of good racial quality and ideologically sound. No, Councilor ‘X’ will not take the best qualified employee, but rather seeks out one who is a homosexual . . .
The councilor therefore might seek out the employee who is least well suited to the work, and who is ideologically out of order. He does not ask about the candidate’s performance, but instead recommends him to the director of the ministry for an appointment, praising the candidate and justifying his recommendation in detail.
The candidate is therefore not hired as a matter of course, for it will never occur to the director of the ministry to ask for greater details, and to examine the hiring more closely. This is so because, from the outset, the presumption is made that the recommendation has been made on merit.
Normal people will not even consider the possibility that the candidate has been recommended purely on the similarity of his sexual predisposition to that of his proponent.
Now the same does not stop there. The lawyer, who is now a governmental official, will proceed on the same principle and make further appointments based on the same principle upon which he was hired.
This means that in a patriarchy, if you have one man of such disposition in a position of authority, you are sure to find three, four, eight, ten or even more men of similar disposition; for one draws in the other.
If there are one or two normal men amongst these people, then they are basically damned – they can do what they want but they will be ruined.” (pg. 5-6)
I find myself having to highlight much of this speech as Himmler had very intelligently and thoroughly described this issue; he knew precisely what he was talking about, as opposed to some stereotypical angry German rambling many would often assume. What mainstream thought perceives as the Nazi attitude is as if they were, in American terms, crazed, racist rednecks bent for the kill. But you see, Himmler had even addressed this as well, being well aware of the German stigma of its militant personality, and describes this as a fault, rather than as something to condone. He argues incorporating the overmasculinizing, patriarchal lifestyle in every single part of life (namely, personal attitude and at university) is a detriment to the male-female sexual dynamic, whereby it encourages women to become militaristic like the men to compete with them, rather than being their own true feminine selves. He explains that this only turns men off to the women, and therefore encourages male homosexuality. However, he’s not saying to be completely non-militant, but rather to tone it down a bit and get the sexual rhythm back in order.
Likewise, it is extremely important to note that even in 1933 when Himmler gave his speech, the male-female dynamic was very, very similar to how it is today, whereby the more militant life became, the more it masculinized women to become the radical feminists we see today. He even stated that
“One consequence of the over-privileged woman in America is that no man even dares to look at a girl anymore, because then he will be hauled before a court and made to pay for it. In America, homosexuality is certainly a defensive measure for the men because they have fallen into such slavery to the women.” (pg. 17)
He continues on with explaining how our ancestors took care of the problem, being that the Urning was drowned in a swamp,
“. . . not as a punishment, but rather the extinction of an abnormal life . . . It was not a question of revenge, but simply that the person in question had to go. This was how our ancestors did it. With us, this course of action is no longer possible.” (pg. 10)
Himmler then proposes the idea of eradicating prostitution, but while it would effectively prevent homosexuals from further spoiling the breed, it would not solve the issue, for once they were let out of prison, they would still carry on as a homosexual all the same. And this is where the concentration camps come into play, as a form a reprogramming to rid the individual of their homosexuality rather than straight up throwing them into a swamp and calling it a day. He continues with the question:
“If I lock up 20,000 prostitutes from the big cities, will I be able to return the three or four thousand of them who are young enough – say 17 or 18 years old – to a normal way of life through discipline, order, sports, and work? This has actually been done quite successfully in a number of cases, by the way . . . We could gather up these 17 to 18-year-old boys, and, apart from those who are already totally spoiled, bring them to a camp where we can try to make them reasonable and decent once again.”
Moreover, I find it important to give an interview of a Waffen-SS unterscharführer (or junior squad leader), Hans von der Heide, a watch whereby he explains that not only were Poles communicating with each other both inside and outside of the German concentration camp he was stationed somewhat near in eastern Poland, but also the Poles even worked there. Even though he didn’t directly work inside of the camp, he says that if genocide did indeed take place then it’s still something they would know about as it could not be easily disguised.
He goes on to describe that when he was a prisoner of war in England, that in London he and the other PoWs were shown a film of bodies piled up and burned in the streets, whereby one of the men with him (who was then immediately taken out of there by the military police) pointed out a place in the film that was not where they had said it was, but was rather in Dresden! Furthermore, he explains that in 1945 Dresden was bombed by the Allies and killed a quarter of a million civilians, and so to manage all of the bodies, they weren’t able to bury or cremate them all. They then piled them up and burned them. A sinister attack by Germans as the Allies had proposed happened, he explains, would’ve been impossible to conceal it from the entire German nation, but that at the same time he would’ve been the last person to know about it.
What was also interesting about this interview was that he describes, during his station in Ukraine, the women of the Russian guerrillas, the Partisans, to have committed a rather brutal murder of several medical officers and 19 of his comrades, yet when von der Heide and his group retaliated by burning their village, these women ran outside and begged them for mercy. Upon hearing this, my mind directly associates this cowardly, dishonorable behavior with the Bolshevik ANTIFA of today!
And so, this comparison leads me to when we talk about the Weltschmerz, where we often find ourselves introducing it as some new phenomenon as we say things like “back in the old days when times weren’t so dark as these days”. The lesson here is clear: history repeats itself. The times now weren’t so different as they were in 1933, nor were they so different in 1554, nor were they so different in 10,000 B.C.E. during those days of Noah. So the solution is evidently not to wait around for an opportunity to arise – it is to fix the root right now at hand. And that root, as Himmler saw it, was the mental disease of homosexuality as this is what causes inversion and insanity.
There is no savior, there is no mysterious, promising “God” to save us from the global moral degeneracy. If there were, he would have already done so. Ah, but there is a God that can do something about it, and that is your greatest, most ideal superhero self: your Übermensch. We cannot fix ourselves into blaming the problem on the Past, nor can we set ourselves up for false expectations of the Future; we can only tackle the Present, for that is where the actual root of both our personal and Western civilization’s tragedy lies.
What we need, as Himmler instructed, is to teach boys and men
“to become chivalrous men and young gentlemen. That is the only way in which we can clearly draw the line so that we do not fall into the Anglo-Saxon and American conditions.” (pg. 17) He emphasizes that with all the greatness of a patriarchy, it has its downfalls, but can still prove to be a strong and healthy system if the women are respected and are not masculinized. However, he is not speaking about feminist men, but rather simply for a man to not be ashamed of his mother or sister, adding that
". . . it is catastrophic when boys tell their mothers that when they march past in the Hitler Youth, their mothers can watch but they must not expect boys to greet their mothers because the others will laugh and they will be considered as a ‘mommy’s boy and a weakling’ . . . It is catastrophic for a people when a boy is somehow made to be ashamed of his sister and his mother, or is told to be ashamed of women – or in this particular case, of the women who are closest to him, his mother and sister who is turning into a woman.
When a boy who loves a girl is unnecessarily mocked, and is treated with disrespect and as a sissy, and is told that men don’t bother about girls, then he won’t bother with them.
In such a case, there are only friendships with other boys, and men dominate their world. From there, the next step is literally homosexuality.” (pg. 15-16)
Doing so would naturally solve the radical feminization problem amongst women. Women truly just want to be loved and valued, but we have had to build up an armor to receive male attention by becoming more masculine ourselves. But when we are actually shown that it is not only okay for us to be a sweet, nurturing woman, but that men actually prefer us to be like as so, we would naturally follow course.
Likewise, this natural balance is most easily maintained when we ruralize our communities, as he explains that
“in the village – despite the presence of the clergymen, despite the imposition of Christian morality, and despite a thousand years of religious education – the young man still finds a way to climb through a girl’s bedroom window, and the problem of sexual outlets is thus solved. A few children are born out of wedlock in the village, but the minister is glad of it, because it gives him a topic for the Sunday lesson from the pulpit.” (pg. 13)
As so, Himmler advocated early marriage, for he saw that the earlier a sexually-capable man can be involved with a woman, the better it is for that man, the community, and the whole nation.
Now the very seed of Himmler’s solution to purge the population of homosexuality is, as I’ve mentioned earlier,
“. . . to address the over-masculinization of our way of life and of our patriarchal society.” He elaborates that this “. . . is a catastrophe when women’s organizations, communities of women, and women’s federations become active in an area; that destroys all feminine charm, all feminine dignity and grace . . . We, foolish men, want to turn women into logical instruments of thought and educate them in everything. This is only possible if we so masculinize them so much that in time the difference between the sexes, the polarity between the sexes, disappears.
From there, the path to homosexuality is not far.” (pg. 13)
Furthermore, he speaks about a rather, unfortunately, uncomfortable issue for either even those within the movement or those of us today who seek to restore real nationalism to save Western civilization, and that is the spiritual nature. He states that
“when it is understood that the Party is actually a political order, and not just a military formation consisting of marches and backpack, then it becomes clear that it must take on a greater spiritual content, down to the smallest individual nuance. This applies across the board.” (pg. 15)
Even when we return to Machiavellian statesmanship, we see that religion proves as a most vital component to civilian conduct and order, providing a mental and spiritual field for the nation’s community to interact with each other on and to teach them morality: what is clearly right and what is clearly wrong. But this religion ought not to be so strict that the people will quickly seek to rebel, but to give them the pagan comfort of a free mind for them to live as they please, but with sanctuaries of honor to the Earth and the Übermensch as well as to the ancestral and local spirits where they may engage in attaining higher wisdom, heal their spirit, understand their own selves, and find peace should they experience troubles. Likewise, the marriage between justice and spirituality ought to be restored, and so when one is brought to trial, legal action will be taken according to what is morally fair and best.
And so as much as Himmler detested homosexuals, he also had a similar dislike towards Judaism and Christianity whereby he describes the question put forth by St. Thomas Aquinas of
“does a woman have a soul?” as summing “. . . up the entire tendency of Christianity, namely the total degradation of women and continuous emphasizing of their inferiority” (pg. 17)
as a way to encourage homosexuality in men and to prevent them from actually becoming the Übermensch. Thereafter, he likens the ancient world with his present world in that
“. . . the Roman emperors who attempted to extirpate the first Christians, did exactly the same thing that we are doing with the communists. The Christians then were the very worst fermenters of discord which the great city of Rome contained, the worst Jews, and the very worst of Bolsheviks. It was only on the dying carcass of Rome that the Bolshevism of that time was allowed to become a strong force.” (pg. 18)
He goes on further to describe that
“a belief in the inferiority of women is in fact a traditional attitude of the Christians, and many National Socialists, even those who are strict heathens, have unwittingly adopted this concept. I know of a large number of party members who feel that they have to prove their dedication to our worldview and their masculinity by being domineering or being reprehensible toward women.” (pg. 20 – 21)
And so, he identifies an extremely important issue to the male/female dynamic, and thus attributes Europe’s witch trials as a great tragedy in relation, making very, very clear that
“the movement, our world view, will only have eternal stability when it is supported by women, because men understand and interpret things with their minds, while women understand and interpret things with their innermost feelings. The German woman has sacrificed far more than the German man in terms of blood sacrifice of witch and heretic trials. The Christian priests knew exactly what they were doing when they burned 5,000 or 6,000 women. They know that women hold on to the old knowledge, the old ways, and the old ideologies on an emotional level, and can not be dissuaded from them, whereas the men could be converted through logic and thought.” (pg. 22)
Himmler ends his speech with the encouraging of male and female interaction, where first he announces to the group leaders there that
“at the next summer solstice celebration, the boys must dance with the girls” and that dances and social events in the winter should be arranged for the SS men and women so that they become more and more comfortable with each other. (pg. 23)
This is of utmost critical need as he explains that
“the age between fifteen and sixteen years – as we witness from experience – is precisely the age at which a boy is most vulnerable in sexual matters. If he is offered a dancing lesson with a beautiful girl, and falls madly in love, he is permanently won over, and will never slide down the path towards homosexuality . . .
It is important for the sixteen-year-old boy to understand that sex with a girl who he loves is the purest, cleanest and most ideal form of love . . .
And this can only be if he is not shy in front of a female in this regard. He must have his natural human instincts in order. And in that moment, the danger has passed. It is our obligation to make sure that opportunity takes place . . .
Indeed, we can say that the issue of properly-directed sexuality is actually a question of the life and survival for every man.” (pg. 23-24)
After this speech, Dr. Hermann Hitzinger includes recent statistics from 2016-2018 that demonstrate the gross percentages of sexually-transmitted diseases among not just the MSM (i.e. “men who have sex with men”; and notice the word play here with the mainstream news source), but also among other races. Blacks and male homosexuals are listed at the top of these charts. Likewise, homosexuals have been reported to be much more mentally-ill, depressed, and suicidal than heterosexuals. (pg. 25-42, 49-50)
In Appendix 4, he reveals a study that shows that by using a phallometric test,
“homosexuals are 11 times more likely to be pedophiles than heterosexuals.” (pg. 43-44)
In Appendix 6, Hitzinger provides information on transgenderism as a mental illness, writing that Dr. Paul R. McHugh, the Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry, expressed that
“'sex change' is biologically impossible. People who undergo sex-reassignment surgery do not change from men to women or vice versa. Rather, they become feminized men or masculinized women. Claiming that this is civil-rights matter and encouraging surgical intervention is in reality to collaborate with and promote a mental disorder.”
“. . . the idea of sex misalignment is simply mistaken – it does not correspond with physical reality. The second is that it can lead to grim psychological outcomes . . .
It is a disorder similar to a ‘dangerously thin’ person suffering anorexia who looks in the mirror and thinks they are 'overweight'.”
Very importantly, McHugh says that
“. . . studies show between 70 and 80 percent of children who express transgender feelings ‘spontaneously lose their feelings’ over time . . .” and that puberty-delaying hormones “. . . stunt the children’s growth and risk causing sterility.” (pg. 46-48)
And so, back to Himmler, while the information he provides is perfectly sound, those with their minds already made up about him and National Socialism will continue with their argument, no matter the reason or logic of their opponent. So it is important to not get into the habit of arguing with others who are unwilling to hear. They will listen when they want to listen; they will follow when they want to follow. As it is with children, the more taboo something is, the more likely they will want to do it; but the more relaxed you are about it, the more they are accepting and trusting of it. The more you let them have a choice, the more in control and safer they feel, and are thus much more inclined to listen to you and even adopt your perspective.
Interestingly, it is also worthwhile to take in consideration Enoch Powell’s argument against socialist philosophy. In the first 15 pages so far of his book, Freedom & Reality, he describes the state as a
“. . . little group of fallible people in Whitehall, making guesses about the future, influenced by political pressures and partisan prejudices, and working on projections drawn from the past by a staff of economists. Of a 'national plan' thus produced we can assert three things with confidence: it is likely to be wrong, dead wrong, in its major assumptions; its errors will do the maximum damage because they will be imposed on the whole of the economy, and they will be persisted in long after they have been revealed, because governments are the slowest of all creatures to admit themselves mistaken and a state plan is of all plans the most inflexible.” (pg. 10)
What Powell is saying here is that there needs to be a healthy, creative flow within a government, that a few people charged with the responsibility to make the best decisions for a nation is preposterous as they will unknowingly be dismissing every individual’s needs for the sake of a better community as a whole. He prefers, rather, that a nation should allow its people to govern itself so to promote the best and most effective happiness and service and production flow and quality. Otherwise, for the government to impose its will upon the individual’s way of life will cause them to, in time, grow lethargic and thus stunt the nation’s genius. This to me also makes sense, and so I believe that perhaps a healthy balance of the two political ideologies would be best . . . and I believe this can happen if we were to merge the state with spirituality once again, though this time rather than it be Christianity, it would be wiser for it to be the free-thinker’s Aryan paganism as I’ve earlier described. In this way, the people may do as they please, but a healthier sense of morality within the state will guide and encourage them to comfortably trust in the state to execute fair and humane justice. A state detached from its spirit is only the living dead – a corpse that has no conscience, operating purely as the very Mechanical Mind itself.
And as we can see how a political movement, a religion, a lifestyle, education, and the family have been completely and utterly inverted, whether we see it as communism, Abrahamic faith, homosexuality, insidious university indoctrination, or the attack upon the family, this Mechanical Mind is the very mind of the Mimic whom seeks to imitate, to merely trace, the beauty of the eternally organic, creative, loving heart. The problem with it is that it can never claim originality to anything! The Mimic can never honestly say that it has produced something brand-new from its very own creativity! And you see, this merciless imitator spirit resides within all those whom, well, quite frankly, can’t meme.
Freedom & Reality, by Enoch Powell (1969)
The Homosexual Threat to Civilization: A Speech by Heinrich Himmler, translated by Dr. Hermann Hitzinger (2018)