Introduction to Heroes and Villains (Jewry in England-- Peter Aldag)

Introduction to the Heroes and Villains Sections

What is Heroism and Villainy?

Everyone knows what heroes and villains are; however, their definitions have been distorted, and it is therefore useful to clarify the terms in light of our struggle. The categories have been deliberately perverted to benefit Jews, who ostensibly fight for humanity but actually cause its destruction. A Jew fights for humanity by seeking to destroy all nations. If nationalists are correct in thinking that all meaning, including the meaning of life, is found in the person's participation in their nation, then heroism and villainy are intrinsically national, and the battle against the Jews is the central existential struggle in the world.

Of Superheroes and Supervillains

In contemporary culture, a hero is someone who fights for humanity. Fictional superheroes, more or less invented by Jews, exemplify this concept: a mundane hero might fight for a petty national cause, but a superhero fights for the greater good of all mankind. Superheroes don't fight against enemy nations; rather, they battle against villains aiming to oppress all mankind. In this formulation, Superman is greater than William Wallace because Wallace only fought for the Scots, while Superman fights for everyone. Of course, Superman isn't real, but real-life universalist equivalents, such as Martin Luther King Jr. and Winston Churchill, are presented as examples.

The superhero plays a significant role in shaping people's views of heroism. Firstly, the superhero's powers belittle the physical accomplishments of real men. The astounding feats of Richard the Lionheart or King Leonidas pale in comparison to those of an alien who could destroy entire planets with his bare hands and kill millions of people with ease. Alexander the Great couldn't shoot lasers from his eyes or fly. The trick is to make heroism all about cool powers and scary villains and transition it away from self-sacrifice. You can't emulate Superman because there's nothing you can do to gain his powers. You're just a useless ant in his world, helpless beneath the boots of supervillains and reliant on superheroes to save you. Perhaps if you were wealthy like Batman, then you too could fight evil, but you're not. "With great power comes great responsibility", but you don't have any powers, so don't worry about it.

Above all else, the superhero story avoids instilling the heroic spirit in its viewers. Heroism is something cool viewed at a distance, like a firework. It is something without real risk, because if a hero dies, they can always be revived later with a magic stone or brought back in a multiverse. Little kids grow up wanting to be superheroes because it means having cool powers, being rich, and being handsome. But we grow out of it. It is childish. Adults don't talk about wanting to be a hero, unless they're autistic. The word 'hero' is like the words' honor' or 'duty': don't use them unless you want to sound like a dork. The result is that we live in a society without heroes. We have plenty of influencers and celebrities, people who have adopted the superhero's egoism, branding, and aversion to risk, while evil men accordingly rule over us.

It could be argued that our society has people like police officers, firefighters, and soldiers, and that these professions are considered heroic. The first response is that these people are hardly celebrated in our society, if at all. If anyone celebrates them, it is little boys idolizing them alongside Spiderman. Billionaires, YouTubers, and Hollywood actors have infinitely higher status than public servants. More importantly, these heroes are in no way national heroes. They fight for generic, faceless individuals, not for a group of their ethnic brethren. They are cogs in a machine that keeps things running smoothly, maintaining the status quo, regardless of who is in charge. These so-called heroes have nothing to do with justice. If the very Devil ruled the Earth, as he may indeed, there would still be policemen, firemen, and soldiers. And even the U.S. soldier is portrayed as fighting for humanity and for the universal "proposition nation" of the United States.

The goal of this essay and the ethos of our movement is to restore the proper hierarchy of heroism. A policeman or a fireman would only be a hero in the higher national sense if they joined the force specifically to serve their ethnic people. The Jews have placed the universal hero above the national hero; we know that the man who fights for his people is superior to the general "do-gooder." This idea may be counter-intuitive to the Americanized reader, but further examination reveals that not only is the traditional definition correct, but it is also tautologically so, necessarily and by definition.

Pascal's Wager for Jews

The Villains section will not simply include every Jew mentioned in Aldag but only the most significant ones. Of course, not all of the figures in the Villains section are Jews, but there is no Jew in the Heroes section. This is certainly a lesson in itself: a kind of Pascal's wager regarding Jews. As Himmler said, we all have our favorite Jews, but if there has ever been a Jewish hero, he is an exceptionally rare thing indeed. The wager for engaging with a Jew is as follows: the best case scenario is that the Jew is moderately informative or entertaining, and the worst case scenario is that he is the worst devil from Hell. But perhaps this is too harsh. Is there really no such thing as a genuine Jewish hero, a Jew who is so valuable as to make the risk worthwhile?

Jewish Heroes

Perhaps Ilan Pappé and Ariel Toaff are heroes. Anyone familiar with their work is likely to be sympathetic to this view. Maybe they are heroes, but for whom are they heroes? Most Jewish heroes or "good Jews" ultimately have the good of the Jewish people in mind and are trying to offer their own people constructive criticism, or else, get out ahead of the criticism to lessen its blow. They're engaging in controlled opposition, a rear-guard action, as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion recommend. We cannot be certain how much information Pappé may have concealed. If a Gentile had access to the Israeli archives like he did, the Gentile might have made a much better meal of it. However, this is speculation, as Pappé and Toaff may be both perfectly earnest and suppress no scrap of incriminating information. They may be great Jewish heroes of humanity. "Heroes of humanity"… it certainly sounds nice. However, this concept is itself a poison, for what it means for a Jew to fight for humanity is really for him to fight against it.

The Zionist Jew and the Universalist Jew

There are two kinds of Jews. The first is the Zionist who fights against humanity for his race– he may pretend to fight for humanity, but really fights for Jewry. The second kind, the universalist, fights against all races for humanity. Both oppose the Gentile's right to self-determined, autonomous nations.

Every heroic "good Jew" is an anti-Zionist because he is an anti-nationalist. His universalist ideology sets him against Zionism, but it also sets him against every other nation. And so, following the Jews' lead, we shall either have a world with only the nation of Israel, dominating all of the mixed countries of the world, or else a world with no nations. Either would mean our annihilation.

The Zionist/ universalist distinction is all the more important when one realizes that the two kinds of Jews spend very little energy fighting each other– they engage in some mild mutual criticism, but they use the bulk of their time, money, and weapons against the Gentiles, each attacking the Gentile nations from their own perspective. Crucially, their seeming opposition to each other allows them to infiltrate each side in any Gentile conflict, as the Zionists will appear right-wing and the anti-Zionists appear left-wing. The extent to which the two Jewish factions do their work cynically, secretly coordinating behind the scenes while putting up a divided front for the Gentiles, is up for debate. Doubtless, there are plenty of earnest Jews on each side. However, that they spend their energies primarily attacking Gentiles is telling enough. Furthermore, there is concrete evidence throughout history that at the highest levels, the two factions in every supposed intra-Jewish conflict are united and working together for broad Jewish goals. The effectual truth, regardless of the individual case, is that factions of Jews function together to destroy Gentile nations.

The Best Jews Are Traitors to Their Race

There may be one or two Jews, if one really stretched to find them, who genuinely fought for a Gentile national cause. There were a couple of Jews in the National Socialist movement who evidently remained loyal from the very beginning. Hitler personally protected this small handful of Jews when he took power. It would be unwise to trust any Jew, particularly in this day and age, with the information industrial complex as it is, but there is some limited precedent for the phenomenon of the genuine Jewish hero.

The question of Jewish heroes belies a deeper distinction: any Jew who does take up a Gentile national cause is inherently a traitor to the Jewish race. A Frenchman who joined the British army when France were at war with Britain would be a traitor, but if he joined when France was fighting, say, Holland, assuming France had no interest in either side, then he would not be a traitor. A Jew, however, is always a traitor if he genuinely fights or advocates for any nation's right to exist because Jewish power relies on the Jews being allowed into other countries. And not just allowed in: they must be allowed to commit usury and fraud and all of their natural means of existence. He would be like a tapeworm spreading antiparasitic medication.

As has been proved eternally in every case– in Weimar Germany, contemporary America, and Britain historically– the Jew is a parasitical being who sucks the blood from the national body. Repeated attempts by the likes of Longshanks and Napoleon to wean the Jews from their morbid sustenance have failed. (See 'Napoleon as a Second Longshanks or First Hitler' under Themes and 'Peter Aldag on Napoleon' under Quotes.) Anyone who supports a nation's sovereignty must oppose usury and foreign domination and must accordingly oppose the Jews. Therefore, any Jew who is a genuine supporter of Gentile nations is a traitor to the Jewish people.

The Jewish worldview is zero-sum, and this is what allows Jews to harm Gentiles with no remorse. Judaism teaches that every other people group is illegitimate because they worship idols. In Judaism, only the Jews' god, Yahweh, is real, and every other people group worships demons. The Old Testament is full of commands to kill and oppress Gentiles and prophecies of Jewish world domination. A Gentile is only moral if he abandons his ethno-religious interests and joins the Jews. The Talmud is even more explicit in teaching that Gentiles are subhumans with no rights. Anything that helps a Gentile innately hurts the Jews, and so Jews are forbidden from doing good works for Gentiles. "Keeping the lost property of a non-Jew is rabbinically lawful, for it says: 'regarding your brother's loss.' But if the Jewish finder nevertheless returns the loss to the non-Jewish loser, he commits a violation of the law because he strengthens the [economic] power of the non-Jewish violators of the law." Erich Bischoff- The Book of the Shulchan Aruch, pg. 97 It truly is a zero-sum game.

The true Jewish hero (from a Gentile perspective) is hence exceptionally rare, and it is important to remember the wager: the possible evils of associating with a Jew outweigh the potential benefit by a million times. One might find a National Socialist street fighter who happens to be a Jew. Still, if that Jew is a genuine comrade, he will not have international Jewish power behind him– not money, intelligence networks, or government connections. At best, you have another set of hands; at worst, a spy and a traitor, and one with the whole might of world Jewry behind him at that. There is no need to embrace the likes of Ilan Pappé or Ariel Toaff– they can do their work at a distance and, as anti-nationalists, they wouldn't want to associate with us anyway.

Gentile Heroes vs Jewish Heroes

Gentile heroes fight against other Gentile nations, but they are different in kind from the Jew who fights against all nations. England, for example, is not the enemy of every people. England is capable of having genuine allies because its existence is not dependent on the suffering of any other people. It can exist on its own islands and not mess with any other group, in theory. In practice, England has infringed on the rights of different countries and had its own rights violated in turn, but such oppression in either direction is unnecessary.

The shifting alliances throughout history prove that every people can be friends or enemies with any other people, depending on their interests. Only the Jew, because of its parasitical nature, is always opposed to every people, even if the people's government sides with the Jew for its own reasons. The key distinction between Israel and other nations is that the Jew fundamentally doesn't respect other people's right to exist. They have to be inside of and controlling every other nation, sucking out its money. England has traditional enemies, such as France, but that's one enemy as opposed to all of mankind. England has even allied with France on several occasions.

Perhaps the most crucial difference is that Gentiles seldom wage wars of extermination like the Jews. The British may have wanted to defeat the French and take some land, but they didn't want to kill them all and erase them from existence. British interests might differ from the French, but they wouldn't deny that the French exist or have interests.

Even Gentile wars of extermination are different because Gentile nation A might want to exterminate Gentile nation B, but have no problem with Gentile nations C-Z. What truly sets the Jews apart is that they are always and necessarily the enemies of all nations.

Any Gentile who fights for their own nation is arguably a hero of all nations, for implicit in their battle is the belief that nations are fundamentally valid entities. If the game of football is at risk, any honest football player is a hero to the game. His participation reifies the existence of other players and teams.

The National Principle

What might be called the "national principle" begins with the assertion that nations have the right to exist. Its first half is essentially the Wilsonian right to self-determination. Historically, there have been a few Gentiles who not only fought for their own nation but also explicitly fought for nationhood itself. Hitler, of course, is the greatest example. He was not only a hero of Germany, but a hero of all peoples, for he genuinely believed in the principle of self-determination, the same principle the Entente disingenuously promoted. In short, Hitler combated the international forces seeking to destroy all peoples. The full national principle is that nations have the right to exist and that national existence is the greatest good.

All goods in this world originate from a nation: its culture, tradition, and group cohesion. Even things like family are meaningless without the nation. Is a family worth anything if the members can't trust each other because of society's erosion? What meaning is there to family without art, religion, music, national food dishes, spiritually rich holidays, and the like? What use is a family if one is living in a dystopia like Fahrenheit 451 or Wall-E (or America, arguably) where all the people are fat, uneducated, lazy slobs who do nothing but eat slop and watch TV?

For better or worse, everything, even nature, is interpreted through the lens of one's culture. One's own self is developed and seen through socialization. In a way, the "left" is correct: everything is a social construct because the mind itself is socially constructed. Everything may be a social construct, but that very statement emphasizes the supreme importance of society, whose content is culture. To deconstruct culture is to destroy everything.

National Socialism is an idealist ideology, but ideas manifest in the world as concrete objects, and they do so through cultural development. People even access universal human principles through their people's specific history. For example, all people groups have a law against murder, but the origin of this taboo is different in every culture. Nobody expresses the universal command without drawing on one cultural source or another. Another example is that all people groups revere nature, but the form varies by people, and it is impossible to view nature outside of one cultural lens or another. Universal physical traits are likewise only encountered through diverse historical development. Consider that all people universally have noses because of their common human ancestors, but they inherit their noses only from their parents. If someone has a nose, it is from their ancestral line, not from some great universal human nose they plucked from the sky. Even Platonists believe that the form of the human nose manifests only through biology. The diverse expression of human universals is the source of much of the world's beauty, and the suggestion that it should all be abandoned in favor of a singular one is monstrous. The national principle affirms the supreme importance of diversity.

There is no such thing as a universal person, and humanity is not a monolith, but a collection of parts. Conceptually, it can only be heterogeneous, not homogeneous. A person can only access common humanity through their own lineage. Consider that a dog only participates in doghood by existing as a specific dog. A dog can't be canine except by being itself; there is no such thing as a universal, generic dog.

Another analogy may be useful. If a person is to be a part of the family tree of humanity, they can only do so through their own branch. They do not connect to the tree's trunk or roots, except indirectly. To be a part of the tree, you have to be a part of the tree: that is to say, you cannot be the whole tree. A tree is united as it's divided into different parts. If a tree were to lose its parts-- if it were fed through a wood chipper and made homogeneous-- then it would no longer be a tree.

If there is anything good in humanity as a whole, it is only because of its parts, the diverse outgrowths of humanity. It is thus impossible to affirm the value of humanity and exterminate every people group. The Jew is the enemy of humanity because, in the name of uniting humanity, he tries to put it through the proverbial wood chipper. Recall the two kinds of Jews from earlier. The Zionist cynically tries to destroy the tree, except for the small Jewish branch, and the universalist, sometimes genuinely believing in the suicidal madness of universality, tries to destroy the entire tree.

The Heart is the Shield

The specifics of the broad national principle are unimportant. For example, whether a tribe would qualify as a nation is unimportant. For these purposes, a nation is a group of people united by shared blood and culture. This definition is sufficient to cover any exclusive country, tribe, or clan, and to demonstrate the Jews' villainy, for the existence of any exclusive group, one that can have its own self-sustained life without Jewish parasitism, is enough to provoke Jewish malice.

In national socialism, the highest good is culture. A people group exists to create and participate in its culture. As stated earlier, culture is the very meaning of life. In addition to its intrinsic value, culture is enormously useful. It allows people to cooperate harmoniously. It also acts as their immune system. The biggest obstacle to destroying any people is their culture.

The things that make life worth living – art, music, language, cultural clothing, religion, etc. – are the same things that give a people a sense of themselves. They provide a people group with morale and the symbols around which to organize against foreign invaders, including Jews. As Ludovici said, "since the Jew approaches the society in which he resides, more or less as a stranger, he and those he influences will naturally strive to break down as far as possible all the barriers in that society which tend to perpetuate his strangeness, or to bar his access to complete citizenship. This means that the Jew's form of power — wealth — will find itself opposed to all other kinds of power, such as Gentile aristocratic lineage, Gentile aristocratic character and prestige, hereditary honours of all kinds, and, above all, national solidarity…" (681)

The Jews must destroy a nation as such, with all of its goods, to operate comfortably. The international Jew wants a world of individuals who are unable to unite, which would be a world without real culture. The United States, the most Judaized country on Earth, is the model: a mixed country where people shed their ethnic identities in favor of a generic, commercialized one. The same universal non-culture is the destiny of all mankind if the Jews have their way. Indeed, genetic diversity is equally on the chopping block as it is the fount of cultural diversity and the foundation of all identity. The Gentile's nightmare is the Jew's dream: an endless horizon of McDonald's, reality TV, synthetic pop music, CGI reboot movies, and WWE wrestling.

A Final Word

The Jew is the enemy of every nation and is therefore the enemy of humanity. Even when he appears to work for humanity, he is really poisoning it. Therefore, every Jew is a villain insofar as he is a Jew, and a Jew only ceases to be villainous if he betrays his people and affirms the national principle. Even so, Pascal's wager for Jews demonstrates the wisdom of never trusting any Jew.

Heroism is the most sacred thing in the world because it is self-sacrifice for the good of one's nation, and nations could not exist without it. In contrast to libertarianism, national socialism posits that self-sacrifice is responsible for all creation and persistence, while self-interest leads to stagnation and decay. As nations are the source of all good things in the world, heroism deserves an exalted status. It is the hero's disregard for his own well-being that makes him worthy of celebration. Heroes go to war and die by the millions for a cause greater than themselves, and despite the efforts of the nation to celebrate them, they are individually more or less forgotten. The individual reward could never be worth the risks they take. As national socialism exalts the hero, capitalism celebrates the influencer or celebrity self-promoter, the quintessential figure of capitalism. The hero is thus the complete opposite of the Jew and the Jew's capitalist creatures. He is the Jew's mortal enemy.