The Family Circle

ROBERT SHEFFIELD has written extensively on scientific and paramilitary matters, often attracting the unwelcome attentions of the secret state. He is currently writing a lengthy analysis of IRA strategy and preparing a detailed introduction to Physics.

THE past can’t be changed, but mistakes can be recognised. Aryans have fought one another for thousands of years, but most antagonisms are now long forgotten. Being near in time makes the last world war memorable. However, this cause of division is beginning to disappear as well - to everyone’s joy. Well, almost everyone; we all know the Zionist prayer for prosperity: Let me revive memories of pogrom and war, to remind them of disunity and suffering - forever! Only when Europeans are insecure and guilt-ridden can we non-Europeans flourish amongst them - forever!

This particular outcome is, of course, dependent on us walking into their trap. For example, by taking out one side (the German) against the other (the Russian). Gable has just this in mind when he proposes to ride a T34 tank to victory. Here is my answer: To make this possible he will, first, need plastic surgery; he’s no Mark Spitz, so there’s little danger his glamour will be damaged. Then he’ll need some that stuff Michael Jackson uses. This is necessary because, otherwise, the Russians will easily recognise a cosmopolitan. If they do, he won’t get near their T34’s, never mind drive to Berlin in one!

It is 1529. The Ottoman Turks are laying siege to Vienna. If Vienna falls, the Turks can march on to Spain and link up with other Muslim forces, stealing the Mediterranean for Islam. So the stakes were high; when out of a morning mist came the Polish Cavalry, and engaged the brutal aliens in combat. Loyalty has brought them into battle, there was no exchange of money or goods, and their legendary courage and discipline won the day. The Turks were driven into retreat. Slav sacrifice had defeated a dire threat to European Civilisation and, indirectly, had made a certain Adolf Hitler possible.

It is 1939. Poles are caricatured as brutish peasants by German propaganda. This was contradicted, after Poland’s defeat, by the selection of more than 100,000 Polish children for Himmler’s eugenics programme (the ‘well of life’). On a more personal level, the writer of this piece was raised with a half-Polish lad and gladly testifies that he was neither brutish nor sub-human. We must all have wondered why it was that Hitler failed to see the benefits of an anti-Communist front with the Poles and Czechs. Surely, it was the best way, morally and practically, to avoid a war in the West. Instead, he made a bargain, to carve-up Poland, with the devil. The devil won. War transformed Stalin from a blood-soaked ogre into a genuine national hero. Hitler underwent the reverse process, in the popular mind at least. Unfair, but that’s the price of defeat. The Communists proved they weren’t fools. They realised that a call to defend ‘Mother Russia’ was the only way of inspiring Russians to give up their lives. So WW2 became ‘The Great Patriotic War’, and Europe prepared to lose millions more of her ‘fittest’ sons and daughters in yet another biological catastrophe.

But what of historical Russia, how did her intellectuals view Europe? Between 1835 and 1845 there was a fierce debate between ‘Westernisers’ and ‘Slavophiles’ about Russia’s past and future. The Slavophiles weren’t simply reacting against Tsar Peter I and his wish to emulate Western Europe, but seeking to establish a balance between traditional Russian collectivist and anti-materialist values, and the new ideas - Rationalism - which were also essential for Russia’s future. They saw an organic cycle in peasant life: the people (the narod) were organised by the village council (the mir), to which all land reverted on death for reallocation among the peasants. The moving spirit was wholeness (sobernost), and the political unity they sought was the brotherhood of all Slav peoples (Pan-Slavism). The most famous Slavophile, Dostoevsky, always felt that Russia was a better Europe, purged of the defects and disharmonies resulting from her two great revolutions, French and Industrial. These defects were, of course, Communism and Capitalism. He believed that true Slav values could save Europe from its contradictions. He saw through the life-enhancing idea of the 18th-Century Enlightenment that men, through Science and their own will, could shape the world into a useful order, but had been twisted to justify both mass murder in Republican France and the awful conditions of the Victorian factory-system. To such Russian eyes, western society was weary and decadent.

Russian expansion into Asia - reaching the Pacific Coast by 1640 - was, in reality, an extension of the frontiers of Christian Europe. Russia has always considered itself to be the defender of Europe’s eastern marches against the Tartar. Her anger and bewilderment at the West’s continual flirtation with Islam is easy to understand. Today, it’s the same old story: Muslim Bosnians and Albanians are preferred to Christian Serbs by the latest Western Establishment. Yet Russian literature, music and science are a magnificent part of the common stock of our Civilisation! Dostoevsky (a proto-National Socialist) was pleased at the vast lebensraum and mineral resources achieved by the eastward expansion. He had a vision of overcrowded urban Europe sinking into humiliating Communism, her families being forced into standardised settlements, her private homes destroyed. Russia, he wrongly predicted, would be spared this degradation: “We shall have wide expanses, meadows and forests, and our children will continue to grow up in their parent’s homes, among pleasant gardens, cultivated fields, and not in stony barracks”.

His views on Jewish influence were most interesting. He felt that their triumph in the West was due to a craving for wealth without responsibility which had become characteristic of all Western society; i.e. the virus had spread to the host community. When Western Europeans boasted about their individual liberty and equality before the law, he replied that they conceived of liberty solely in terms of financial security, greed and envy. He deplored ‘progressives’ who perverted young Russian women from their role as wives and mothers, by suggesting that self-fulfilment in ‘useful’ work was preferable. He saw all this as part of an artificial plan for universal happiness, in which abstract talk of brotherhood and theoretical humanity leads to the invention of a code of justice, necessarily enforced by violent legal penalties. A superb analysis of the process of internationalism by a man writing 140 years ago!

This longing for an organic society crossed the whole continent, and its call became stronger with increasing industrialisation and the consequent migrations from country to city. Its common theme was the unity of natural society or of some language or racial group within Europe. In the birthplace of our Civilisation, king Leonidas had taken his Spartans to Thermopylae, and opposed the invader uncompromisingly (the Oracle had said that a Spartan king would fall). To Athenians, such as Plato, the ‘polis’ (the city-state) was the finest form of association amongst human beings. Justice was limited to lawfulness, in their minds, so those who acted as the law demanded were the just members of society. Hence Leonidas was described as a just king. The point should also be strongly made that these pagans were enquiring constantly into the nature of truth, goodness, love, immortality and justice - an activity not restricted to religious Semites, as often implied by Christians.

Rome, on the other hand, created a materialist civilisation, achieved with the technology of roads, bridges, aqueducts, sewers, huge buildings, merchant navies, military science and metallurgy. Its vision brought organisation and force to impose unity on Western Europe. Roman law was impartial and just, and the progress of its technology brought a corresponding shift in ideas. Our long racial wanderings had ended and the resources of seas, rivers, mountains, forests and plains were now used for the benefit of a vast Empire. The State itself appeared to give to the people a new sense of greatness, purpose and permanence - some protection from the unpredictable hostile forces which always occur in our brief lives. So, what destroyed this grand experiment in pan-European unity? The dissolution of Rome, and the end of Classical civilisation, began when the ideas of egalitarian Christianity entered Europe.

The Jews believed the one God had made a bargain with their father, Abraham, to bring them to dominance on the earth. Jesus, however, was a total egalitarian: there were no chosen people on earth and no favourites in Heaven - all men were brothers. This certainly simplified things; but the Jews recognised the dangers! They were then, as today, passionate tribal patriots, with strong family bonds. All of this, Jesus rejected: “Who is my mother? Who are my brethren? He stretched forth his hand towards his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in Heaven, the same is my brother and sister, and mother!” Not only did Jesus condemn patriotism and family loyalty, but also economic and social hierarchies, and all private possessions. Christ had offered this subversive philosophy to his own people and they had rejected it, realising its potential for undermining ordered, civilised life.

The Romans weren’t as shrewd as the Jews; at least, their Establishment proved easy prey to certain ‘liberal’ ideas. Thoughtful and realistic Nordic-Latin intellectuals like Juvenal and Tacitus viewed policies such as the naturalising of freed slaves as a racial danger to Rome they were angry men like us. To the east, some Greeks regarded intermarriage with peoples of Asia Minor in the same light. This process continued, however, and it is estimated that the population of the city of Rome in AD100 was as high as 90% non-Italian by race. The Romans, then, were a new multi-racial mix, very different from the Latins who had created the Empire in the early centuries of the Republic by disciplined force and brilliant leadership. Modern-day egalitarians couldn’t wish for more. However, as Edward Gibbon made crystal clear, it led directly to the fall of the Roman Empire. In summary, egalitarianism had hypnotised the Rulers, debased the People and, finally, destroyed the imperial- nation. Luckily, we are not yet destroyed, and we know exactly know the Enemy is.

For nearly 2,000 years Jews have attempted to control European societies for their own benefit. This was instinctual, I believe, rather than due to any kind of conscious malevolence. Nevertheless, the creation of International Capitalism and State Capitalism has stained the modern world with blood. Jewish Communism has been slain; oddly enough, Capitalism played a prominent role in this, albeit directed by Aryans. If we wish to survive, then the siren voices of Capitalism and abhorrent internationalism must be silenced too. If we can put the partisan days behind us, we will find that millions of our brothers and sisters in Europe, America and Australasia support our purpose. We still have the men and resources with which to save ourselves. First, let us admit that mistakes were made last time. The honest Jewish historian, George L. Mosse, remarked that the young French writer Pierre Drieu La Rochelle had committed suicide (in 1945) because of what Fascism had made of itself - not because of what it actually represented! The dangers of the present make it imperative that we unite. The cosmopolitan races (Chinese, Jews, Pakistanis) owe their ecnomic and political success to two main factors: networks and solidarity. If we are to become pan-European, we should follow their example. There are international networks already in place. But is there any recent (and successful) pan-Europe organisation we might copy? The Waffen SS was undoubtedly successful, and there is no secret as to why - because it was task-oriented, hence it was organic, flexible and purposeful. But didn’t all German Fascists believe the orthodoxy about Slav sub-humans, particularly so the Waffen SS? How can their example promote pan- Europeanism?

We can answer this important question by considering the career of Railton Freeman, an English Fascist. Born in 1903, he entered Sandhurst as a gentleman cadet in 1922. There he developed an interest in flying and, at the end of his course, was formally transferred to the RAF as a Flying Officer. His career in the RAF continued until 1931, when he decided to retire, buy an estate in Gloucestershire and settle down to life as a farmer. He was now a rural landowner, and one who thought deeply about the politics of the age: “I have studied Moscow propaganda . . . and its hideous exploitation by World Jewry and I am more than dismayed by the fearful fate that awaits this country and Western Europe . . . when this menace overpowers them!” Consequently, he joined the British Union of Fascists (BUF) in 1937. When war broke out, he re-joined the RAF and, in 1940, was captured and taken to Dulag Luft in Oberursel, near Frankfurt. There was no conflict, however, between his code of honour as a British Officer and his political beliefs; when other prisoners organised an escape from Dulag, Freeman did not inform the Germans. Nevertheless, he eventually agreed to help them in the “promotion of peace and the frustration of Bolshevist plans” . In September 1944 he came into contact with an organisation which he felt was doing something concrete about the Soviet menace: the Waffen SS. At a social function he met SS-Standartenfuhrer Gunther D’Alquen, who was one of the leading sceptics within the Waffen SS of the view that Slavs were sub-human. For example he was a champion of the anti-Communist Russian General Vlasov’s ‘Russian National Liberation Army’. The Germans had found the Russians, in fact, to be brave, resourceful and intelligent - hard fighters.

Himmler always had a great enthusiasm for non-German troops to serve in Germanic legions, such as Legion Norwegen and Legion Flandern, and had formed a new department, the ‘Germanische Leitstelle’ (GL: Germanic Administration). Subsequently, the GL became a centre of those in the Waffen SS who had developed a pan-European outlook: they agreed with the concept of German hegemony in Western and Central Europe, but felt there was a place in Eastern Europe for other national groups. This idea became, to a large extent, the orthodoxy within the hierarchy of the Waffen SS. Absolutely of this mind, Freeman joined the Waffen SS in 1944. He had found his ideological niche as an SS Officer. His later comments are typical of non-Germans in the SS: “The comradeship was terrific, the relationship between officer and men the most democratic I have ever known, yet the discipline was solid as a rock!” At the end of the hostilities, his comrades offered to let him fly an aircraft to Switzerland, but he refused to abandon them: “I thanked them very much but said I would stay with them until the last day . . . what I had done was for the best and if certain people thought I was a traitor, I had much the same opinion of them!” Yes, indeed! Significantly, in the last battle fought by the Waffen SS - in Berlin - most of the soldiers were neither German nor Germanic. By the end of the war, of the 90,000 men in the Waffen SS, more than half were born outside Germany. They included men from almost every ethnic and national group in Europe. Driven by anti-Communism and a sense of pan-European unity, they had largely proven as loyal and effective as the Germans themselves. European unity had worked under fire!