Source: https://chechar.wordpress.com/category/germanic-people/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 18:23:24+00:00

Document:
Ernst Kretschmann (1897-1941 on the Eastern Front) was a German soldier, painter, war illustrator, troop commander of the Sturmabteilung and Lieutenant of the Wehrmacht. He always signed his pictures with “EK” and provided a year. This one depicts a member of a tank-crew of war.
Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) was a German philosopher who does not need introduction. He is mostly known for his affirmation of the ascending life with Thus Spake Zarathustra and his annihilation of the chandala morals in The Antichrist. Some of his phrases referring to the races are interesting, of which the least publicised are precisely those that allude to the Nordic type.
By the way, the Celts were a completely blond race; it is wrong to connect those traces of an essentially dark-haired population, which can be seen on carefully prepared ethnological maps in Germany, with any Celtic descent and mixing of blood in such a connection, as Virchow does: it is more a case of the pre-Aryan population of Germany emerging at these points. (The same holds good for virtually the whole of Europe: to all intents and purposes the subject race has ended up by regaining the upper hand in skin colour, shortness of forehead and perhaps even in intellectual and social instincts: who can give any guarantee that modern democracy, the even more modern anarchism, and indeed that predilection for the ‘commune’, the most primitive form of social structure which is common to all Europe’s socialists, are not in essence a huge throw-back – and that the conquering master race, that of the Aryans, is not physiologically being defeated as well?…) I think I can interpret the Latin bonus as ‘the “warrior” ’: providing I am correct in tracing bonus back to an older duonus (compare bellum= duellum = duen-lum, which seems to me to contain that duonus). Therefore bonus as a man of war, of division (duo), as warrior: one can see what made up a man’s ‘goodness’ in ancient Rome.
On the Genealogy of Morality: A Polemic, 1887, First Essay, §5 (speaking about the aristocracy in Europe).
At the centre of all these noble races we cannot fail to see the beast of prey, the magnificent blond beast avidly prowling round for spoil and victory; this hidden centre needs release from time to time, the beast must out again, must return to the wild: – Roman, Arabian, Germanic, Japanese nobility, Homeric heroes, Scandinavian Vikings – in this requirement they are all alike.
It was the noble races which left the concept of ‘barbarian’ in their traces wherever they went; even their highest culture betrays the fact that they were conscious of this and indeed proud of it (for example, when Pericles, in that famous funeral oration, tells his Athenians: ‘Our daring has forced a path to every land and sea, erecting timeless memorials to itself everywhere for good and ill’).
This ‘daring’ of the noble races, mad, absurd and sudden in the way it manifests itself, the unpredictability and even the improbability of their undertakings – Pericles singles out the ράΰυμία [carelessness] of the Athenians for praise – their unconcern and scorn for safety, body, life, comfort, their shocking cheerfulness and depth of delight in all destruction, in all the debauches of victory and cruelty – all this, for those who suffered under it, was summed up in the image of the ‘barbarian’, the ‘evil enemy’, perhaps the ‘Goth’ or the ‘Vandal’.
The deep and icy mistrust that the German arouses as soon as he comes to power, which we see again even today – is still the aftermath of that inextinguishable horror with which Europe viewed the raging of the blond Germanic beast for centuries (although between the old Germanic peoples and us Germans there is scarcely an idea in common, let alone a blood relationship)… Assuming that what is at any rate believed as ‘truth’ were indeed true, that it is the meaning of all culture to breed a tame and civilized animal, a household pet, out of the beast of prey ‘man’, then one would undoubtedly have to view all instinctive reaction and instinctive ressentiment, by means of which the noble races and their ideals were finally wrecked and overpowered, as the actual instruments of culture; which, however, is not to say that the bearers of these instincts were themselves representatives of the culture. Instead, the opposite would be not only probable – no! it is visible today! These bearers of oppressive, vindictive instincts, the descendants of all European and non-European slavery, in particular of all pre-Aryan population – represent the decline of mankind!
On the Genealogy of Morality: A Polemic, 1887, First Essay, §11.
I used the word ‘state’: it is obvious who is meant by this – some pack of blond beasts of prey, a conqueror and master race, which, organized on a war footing, and with the power to organize, unscrupulously lays its dreadful paws on a populace which, though it might be vastly greater in number, is still shapeless and shifting.
On the Genealogy of Morality: A Polemic, 1887, Second Essay, §17.
Twilight of the Idols, or, How to Philosophize with a Hammer, 1889, ‘Improving Humanity’ § 2.
The Goths—Gutans or Gut-þiuda in their language—were the main people of the East Germans. Coming from Sweden, Gotland, Östergötland or Västergötland, they settled on the lower Vistula in the ‘transition period’, about the year 150 on the Black Sea. In the middle of the 1st century they split into Eastern and Western Goths (Ostrogoths, of austro, ‘bright’, and Visigoths, from wisi, ‘Good’), although they continued to be considered as a single people and usually called themselves only Goths. The Ostrogoths settled between the Don and the Dnieper (in present-day Ukraine), and the Visigoths between it and the Danube, from where they spread to the Balkans and Asia Minor, historians citing here generally the year 264. Dacia and Moesia (approximately the current Romania, Bulgaria and Serbia) were constantly under their pressure. In the year 269 Emperor Claudius II defeated them, Constantine often fought against them, and in 375 both towns (except the Catholic Crimean Goths, who remained there until the sixteenth century) were expelled by the Huns, who were advancing towards West. This tribe of nomads from the interior of Asia, were defeated and expelled in turn by the Chinese and only lived on horseback—’animals of two legs’ as Ammianus wrote—, advancing irresistibly from the northern shore of the Caspian Sea, extending the Russian plain and conquering a gigantic empire. Around 360 they had crossed the Don and reached Hungary by 430. However, allied with the Visigoths, the imperial general Flavius Aetius—who had sought and found protection among the Huns in the past—, defeated them in 451 in Gaul, in the Battle of the Catalaunian Plains. A few years later their king died, and more quickly than they had arrived, they largely withdrew towards Asia, in the Pontic steppes, the North Caucasus and the Sea of Azov. They were disbanded into several tribes and were henceforth known under the new name of Bulgarians.
The Goths of the Balkans, the Lower Danube and the shores of the Black Sea were soon ‘converted’, the first among the Germans. This began in the 3rd century through contacts with the Romans and with captives. In the 4th century there was a notable increase of Christians among the Visigoths. In the year 325 the bishopric of Gomia already exists, under the orthodox bishop Theophilus; one of the participants in the Council of Nicaea. In 348 there is a persecution of Christians and in 369 a second one, which lasts three years. However, soon after most of the Visigoths are Christians. The Ostrogoths, on the other hand, if we give credence to Augustine, when penetrating Italy in 405 under King Radagaisus were still pagans; while in 488, when they invaded Italy with Theodoric, they were already Christians.
The persecution of 348, led by a ‘judge of the Goths, without religion and profaner of God’, that is, a pagan, led to the expulsion of Ulfilas, the author of the Gothic Bible, consecrated around 341 by Eusebius of Nicomedia as ‘bishop of Christians in the land of the Goths’. With him a group of his followers fled, to whom Emperor Constantius II settled south of the Danube, in the province of the Lower Moesia, where their descendants lived for two centuries.
The second persecution against the Christians under the Visigoths (in 369-372) was led by the prince Athanaric. It is perfectly understandable that already the ancient authors were fascinated with a man who, for example, refused to address Emperor Valens with the treatment of Basileus, arguing that he preferred the title of judge, which embodies wisdom, while the king only the power. The second persecution was not solely due to questions of faith. It was mainly an anti-Roman reaction and was closely related to the war between Goths and Romans between 367 and 369, although evidently also with the struggle for power between the princes Athanaric and Fritigern, the latter representing a policy favourable to the Romans and the Christians.
After a meticulous preparation, Valens crossed the Danube in the year 367 and resumed a fight against the Goths that Constantine had already initiated, ending it in 332 by means of a formal treaty of peace with the Visigoths. Valens, without the warrior carving of the ‘great emperor’, ravaged the country, went hunting the heads of an enemy in disarray, but failed to reach the bulk of their opponents, as Athanaric always managed with great skill to flee to the Carpathians. And although in 369 he stopped with a part of his people and was defeated, it was so undecided that Valens had to accept his refusal to step on the Roman ground and had to spend a whole September day negotiating in a boat anchored in the river. Finally, the Gothic prince had free hands to dominate the adversaries in his own town, which led to three years of persecution.
The reign of Athanaric did not tremble until the Huns overwhelmed the Ostrogoths and the Visigoths, at which time Athanaric and Fritigern, in spite of their enmity, fought side by side against the powerful invaders, and apparently the Ostrogothic king Ermanaric committed suicide in desperation. One part of his people were subjugated while the other crossed the Dnieper and fled towards the Visigoths. However, the defence sank before the hurricane of the Huns. With Athanaric they fled again to the impassable Carpathians. (In 1857 the workers who built a road there found, near a ruined fortress in Pietroasele, the Visigoth ‘treasure of the crown’. In a choker the following runic inscription appeared: utani othal ik im hailag: that is, a treasure of the Goths, I am invulnerable.) Defeated again, between forty and seventy thousand Visigoths fled to the south and asked in 376 Emperor Valens to admit them into the Roman Empire.
While Athanaric left Gut-þiuda, the country of the Goths, and settled in the territories that would later be Transylvania, Valens authorised the immigration of the great mass of the Goths ruled by Fritigern as foederati; that is, colonists with the obligation to go to the army when they were needed: an ancient method of obtaining peasants, but above all soldiers. In the autumn of 376 they crossed the river, an event of great historical significance, probably by Durostorum (Silistra): a long row of chariots, often carrying the ancient pagan idols but also with some bishop among them, a Christian priest. And Fritigern, who with many of his own had become Arian in 369, promised Valens the ‘conversion’ of the part of his people that was still pagan, something that pleased the ears of the fanatical ‘heretic’, but that for the Goths was more a question of opportunism: misery and the Huns on the one hand and the attractive Roman Empire on the other. However, their exploiters and their officials, the monopolists of food and hunger caused that not a few Goths, even some bosses, sell as slaves their own wives and children, even in exchange for dog meat, a business quite common on the Danube. The thrust of the new ‘barbarians’, Visigoths, Taifals, Alans, and Huns on the open border pushed the newcomers, who occupied all of Thrace, to rebel and march on Constantinople, joining them bands of Huns, Alans and also slaves, peasants and workers of the mines of the country.
 Plin. nat hist 37, 35; 4.28. Tac. Germ. c 44. Socr. 6.34. Ammian 31.2.1 f; 31.3 f. Philostorg. 9.17. Stein, Vom römischen 289 f. Hauptmann 115 f. Schmidt, Ostgermanen 195, 201, 243. K.-D. Schmidt, Die Bekehrung 205 f, 215, 316 f. Capelle 185 f. Historically, Weibull (Die Auswanderung der Goten aus Schweden, 1958) is of special importance. Ferdinandy 186 f. Vemadsky 258 f. Dannenbauer, Entstehung 110 f, 193 f. Conrad, Deutsche Rechtsgeschichte 77. Maier, Die Verwandiung 109 f, 130. A. v. Müller, Geschichte unter useren Füssen 114 f. Rice 149. Schwartz, Goten 13 f, 142 f. Bullough, Italien 167. Wagner, getica 214. Claude, Westgoten 7. Stockmeier, Bemerkungen zur Christianisierung 316 f.
 Mansi Collect. Consil. II 214. Schmidt, Die Niedergang Roms 427 f. Aland, Glaubenwechsel 58 f. Stockmeier, Bemerkungen zur Christianisierung 315 f. Apparently, the first missionary of the Visigoths was one Eutyches, ibid.
 Jord. Get 267 (MG Auct., Ant. V 1,127). Lex dtv Antike, Religion H 311 f. Thompson, The Visigoths 94 f. Fridh, 130 f. Wolfram, Gotische Studien lis. Schäferdiek, Wulfila 107 f, especially 117.
 Ammian. 27.5.9. The sources in Jones, Prosography 120 f. Lex dtv Antike, Geschichte 1155. K. K. Klein Frithigem 34 f. Aland, Glaubenswechsel 59. Wolfram, Gotische Studien 2 f, 13. Handbuch der Kirchengeschichte II / l, 235.
 Ammian. 31,4,13. K. K. Klein Frithigem 38 f. Wolfram, Gotische Studien 4.9 f.
 Ammian. 31.3,4. Socr. e.h. 4.33 f. Soz. 6.37. According to Dudden 1165 they were ‘nearly a million persons of both sexes’. Giesecke, Die Ostgermanen 62 f. Schmidt, Die Bekehrung 223 f. Capelle 185 f. Thompson, Attila 23. Ensslin, Einbruch 101. Aland, Glaubenswechsel 60. Altheim, Hunnen I 351. Dannenbauer, Entstehung I 195. A. v. Müller, Geschichte unter unseren Füssen 115. Maier, Verwandiung 110.
 Eunap. fr. 42 f; 55. Ammian. 26, 10, 3; 27.4; 31.3 f. Zos. 4.10 f. Socr. e.h. 4.33 f. Soz. 6.37 f. Orog 7.32 f. Seeck, Untergang V 93 f, 101 f. Schwartz, Zur Geschichte des Athanasius 370. Delbrück, Kriegskunst II 280. Stein, Vom römischen 286 f. V. Campenhausen, Ambrosius 37 f. Schmidt, Die Bekehrung 242 f. The same, Die Ostgermanen 233. Giesecke, Die Ostgermanen 69 f. Capelle 172 f. Baetke, Die Aumahme17. Komemann, Weltgeschichte II, 352. The same, Römische Geschichte II 418 f. Ostrogorsky, Geschichte des byzantinischen Staates 43. Ensslin, Einbruch 100 f. Vogt, Der Niedergang Roms 310 f, 428. Dannenbauer, Entstehung 1195. Maier, Verwandiung 110. Claude, Westgoten 14 f, 26 f. Nehisen 161. Aland, Glaubenswechsel, 59 f. Wolfram, Gotische Studien 10.
Primitive Christianity was characterized by its intolerance and intransigence, and by considering itself as the only way of salvation for all men on the planet. These characteristics were inherited from Judaism, from which it came and which it imitated.
Christianity shows, paradoxically, that to consider all human beings equal is the worst form of intolerance: because it is assumed as a dogma of faith that the same religion or moral is valid and obligatory for all men, and therefore it is imposed, even against their will. This aspect was renewed later with the other great and virulent egalitarian doctrines: democracy and communism.
The Aryans, accepting the difference of peoples, also accepted that they worshiped gods other than their own and had different customs; and they would never have thought of preaching their religion or their morals outside of their town. It would have seemed ridiculous to preach Odin’s worship among blacks, for example; and it made no difference to them that the Semites worshiped Molech.
The tactic of the old European was always to dominate through military triumph, not to forcefully convert or manipulate thoughts. The reaction of Christianity, on the other hand, was to wipe out everything that could remind us our old beliefs and traditions. Any medicinal knowledge of plants or animals was branded as heresy and persecuted. In fact, any kind of knowledge that was not Judeo-Christian was persecuted conscientiously. Spiritual terror had made its appearance in Europe.
This is Christianity, and what came after: feints, collages, palimpsests and mixtures of it with paganism in unstable combinations that never finished curdling in the confused European collective unconscious. In those days the schizophrenia of the current West started: the debate between the heroic Greco-Roman heritage or the humanist Judeo-Christian heritage.
The founders and the great conquerors had wanted their peoples to triumph and be eternal on Earth. They did not achieve it in the long term, and all disappeared. The Romans, then, went to swell that macabre list. In the West, the future of millennia belonged to the Germans, who established throughout Western Europe feudal kingdoms where they rose as aristocracy.
I have listed facts that marked the end of Classical Antiquity with all its wisdom, and the beginning of the Dark Ages. This age used as a tool the Germans, but the Germans were not guilty. They only gave the coup de grâce to a decadent monster—and it was precisely the Germans who preserved Roman works of art from Christian destruction when they seized power (consider the case of King Theodoric).
The occultation would last in Europe until the time of Catharism; of the Vikings and Crusades in the 11th century: when the European knights discovered the tradition that the East had kept. Some friars devoted themselves to collecting natural knowledge such as medicine or botany. The Mesopotamian, Egyptian, Persian and to some extent Greek and Hindu legacies were preserved by the Islamic civilisation which, unlike Christianity, not only did not destroy the pagan legacy, but kept it.
The resurgence of European spirituality came from the warrior and chivalric castes. And the results, some cleaner than others, were the Holy Roman-Germanic Empire, the Vikings, the Occitan civilization, the Templars, the Italian Renaissance with its fascination for the Greco-Roman world, and the Spanish empire.
There are those who get themselves into a mess with the ‘Christian heritage’ of Europe. I do not. I see Europeans living with some customs and their natural rites, beautiful and harmonious, which automatically led to the most normal thing in the world, thus taking part in that immense orchestra that is the Earth.
I see a fanatical creed preached by Semitic fundamentalists from the East and Africa, who inflamed the spirits of the world’s scum against the good people; against the native Europeans, against the representatives of order and light. They said that our ancestral customs were abominations. They said that those who practiced them were sinners. They said that our science was demonic sorcery, and our art, blasphemy.
They said that whoever did not kneel before a strange new oriental god deserved the worst torments. They cursed the strong, the nobles, the fighters, the pure, the philosophers and the wise, and blessed the slaves, the sick, the trampled, the prostitutes, the ignorant and the cowardly.
They destroyed the legacy that we had accumulated for centuries. They killed our leaders. They put an end to an Empire that could well, under Germanic influence, spread throughout the world.
They plunged Europe into ignorance and banned knowledge. For centuries, they spread depression, guilt and the feeling of sin, introducing into Europe that cancer that is the Old Testament, and that castrating poison that is the New Testament.
If Europe could still thrive in these conditions, it was not thanks to Christianity but in spite of it, and thanks to the things that Christianity had not yet touched.
This piece is from a statue of the emperor Hadrian that should have measured about five meters, and was found in Sagalassos, present south-central Turkey, where Christianity took root early.
In short, Christianity was a subversive movement of agitation against Rome, against Greece and, ultimately, against the European world.
We have to assume that what has come down to us from the Greco-Roman world is only a tiny part of what was really there, and that it was taken away by the Judeo-Christian destruction.
Christianity, as a slave rebellion devised and led by Jews with the aim of destroying Roman power—and, ultimately, all European power—was and is a doctrine aimed at converting vigorous peoples into domesticated flock of sheep.
Let’s say we are Germanophiles. We want Nordic imperialism and we want to liquidate every other culture that is not Nordic, after all.
I believe if a person doesn’t identify this way they are not seriously pro whites. Unfortunately most of the white nationalists are Russophiles.
Other problem: most of the identitarian and European nationalists are not even racists. They just want to be separated but don’t believe in superiority and are fans of Alexander Dugin.
Editor’s note: Constantine did not only wage war on the adepts of Hellenic culture but on the Aryans themselves, the blond Goths: he perpetrated massacres even against blond women and children. In this entry the behaviour of the Judaized Christians he empowered reminds me the saying, ‘The Jew is always either at your throat or at your feet’.
That prince, buried among the funeral steles of the apostles and sanctified by the Eastern Church—although among western heroes there is not lacking of the same genre: Charlemagne for example, was called a Saxon butcher—, that saint Constantine who never lost a battle, ‘man of war’ (Prete), the ‘personification of the perfect soldier’ (Seeck), fought countless wars and great campaigns, most of them ‘with a terrible hardness’ (Kornemann).
In summer or autumn of 306 he waged war against the Bructeri, first in Roman territory and then invading them. In 310, again against the Bructeri, Constantine burns the villages and orders the dismemberment of the ringleaders. In 311, against the Franks; the chiefs of the tribes pay with life. In 314, against the Sarmatians, already vanquished by himself in the time of Galen, now deserving the title of ‘great slayer of the Sarmatians’ (sarmaticus maximus). In 315, against the Goths (gothicus maximus).
In 320, his son Crispus defeated the Alamanni; in 332, it is he himself who again defeats the Sarmatians. All this is worth a rich booty and thousands of prisoners deported to Roman lands as slaves. In 323, he defeats the Goths and orders to burn all their allies alive. The survivors are also thrown into slavery; new title: ‘gothorum victor triumphator’. New foundation: the games ‘ludi gothici’, which are held every year from 4 to 9 February (after having founded the ‘frank games’).
During the last decades of his life, Constantine fought often in the Danubian regions, trying to make ‘land of a mission’ of them (Kraft), and inflicts on the Germans defeats that influenced even their religious history (Doerries). In 328, he subdues the Goths in Banat. In 329, Constantine II almost exterminated an army of Alamanni. In 332, father and son again crush the Goths in Marcianopolis; the number of deaths, including hunger and freezing (‘fame et frigore’, as the Anonymous Valesian says), was calculated in hundreds of thousands, not excepting women and children victims of the ‘Great Diaspora of the Goths’.
In the year 313, Constantine and Licinius enact their Edict of Tolerance; Christianity, once forbidden, becomes a licit religion (which from that moment hastens to declare all other religions unlawful), and from overnight comes the amazing metamorphosis of the pacifists into regimental chaplains! If before they faced everything, even martyrdom, as long as they did not provide the pagan service, now the need to kill seems obvious to them. The Church became the party of the predators from that moment on, it shared the direct and indirect responsibility of a millennium and a half of massacres.
Lactantius ‘was one of the first to enjoy, as favourite of the emperor, the new regime of alliance between the sword and the cross’ (Von Campenhausen); in other words, one of the first to change colours. In 314 he wrote a summary or epitome where he crossed out all the pacifist passages. The grateful writer corrects the dedication of his main work and begins to praise the war and legislative activity of the sovereign. It is then when Christianity happens to become a ‘bloody struggle between good and evil’ (Prete).
Thus Lactantius betrayed his own convictions, denying almost three centuries of pacifist tradition—and with him, in the background, the whole Church, obedient to the will of the emperor who had recognized and made her rich and influential, but who had no job for a pacifist and passive clergy, but for those who agreed to bless their weapons. And they have not stopped blessing them since then, or as Heine has written: ‘It was not only the clergy of Rome, but also the English, the Prussian; in a word, always the privileged priesthood associated with the caesars and their ilk, in the repression of the peoples’.
Modern theologians, who do not dare to deny in their entirety that bankruptcy of the doctrine of Jesus, speak of an ‘original sin’ of Christianity. With this they try to play down the importance of the event, as if remembering the story of the snake and the apple, as if the whole question were nothing more than ‘a small Edenic slip’. As if we did not speak of massacres perpetrated for millennia, now committed in the name of ‘the good news’, of the ‘religion of love’; massacres that now turn out to be fair, necessary and even excellent.
Thus a new theology is born, although wrapped in the terminological garb of the old woman to disguise it. And the new theology is not only political but also militaristic: now they speak of Ecclesia triumphans, of Ecclesia militans, of the theology of the emperor… or of all the emperors, at least of the Romans of Antiquity who brought their line back to Caesar, but much further on in reality.
My dear countrymen and women! We are quite used to being generally referred to as monsters. And we are considered particularly monstrous because, in a question that certain gentlemen in Germany are nervous about, we are marching at the head—namely in the question of the opposition to the Jews.
Note that I didn’t reproduce her whole translation, only excerpts. No male racist that I know, except her ol’ friend Tan, has reached this level of hysteria.

References: §5
 §11
 §17
 § 2
 v. 
 v. 
 V.