Daniel Zakal's Art Gallery
से पुनः पोस्ट किया:
Europa The Last Battle Activism
07.03.202502:58
Keith Woods’ recent article, "Nationalism Doesn't Need National Socialism - Response to Joel Davis," perfectly encapsulates the kind of intellectual dishonesty and historical illiteracy one expects from closet National Bolsheviks posing as nationalists. Encouraging his audience to reject National Socialism isn't just misguided—it's ideological sabotage.
Daniel Zakal, author of National Socialism: Our Struggle and Vitalis, and founder of Invisible Empire Publishing LLC, decisively dismantles every weak and superficial claim made by Woods, exposing his arguments as little more than lazy rhetoric wrapped in recycled Allied propaganda.
Read the full, unapologetic takedown here, and witness Keith Woods, the crypto-communist masquerading as a nationalist, being intellectually annihilated point by point:
https://www.invisibleempirepublishing.com/keith-wood-the-bolshevik-revolutionary/
Daniel Zakal, author of National Socialism: Our Struggle and Vitalis, and founder of Invisible Empire Publishing LLC, decisively dismantles every weak and superficial claim made by Woods, exposing his arguments as little more than lazy rhetoric wrapped in recycled Allied propaganda.
Read the full, unapologetic takedown here, and witness Keith Woods, the crypto-communist masquerading as a nationalist, being intellectually annihilated point by point:
https://www.invisibleempirepublishing.com/keith-wood-the-bolshevik-revolutionary/
06.03.202519:50
https://keithwoods.pub/p/nationalism-not-ns
Part 5
National Socialism: Beyond Hitler and the Third Reich
Woods, like many who misunderstand National Socialism, assumes that it is purely a historical phenomenon—a movement tied exclusively to Hitler and the Third Reich. This is fundamentally incorrect.
National Socialism is not just a political system—it is a worldview, a world truth, and a human truth expressed politically. It is a flexible and evolving philosophy that was discovered and articulated by Hitler and his contemporaries, but it has always existed in the natural order of life. It is not merely a product of Germany in the 20th century; rather, it is the natural alignment of a people’s survival instincts, biological reality, and moral framework with the governance of a state.
▫️National Socialism recognizes that all life is struggle, and that a people must be strong, self-sufficient, and free from parasitic influences to thrive.
▫️National Socialism is not static—it is refined and adapted over time. Just as National Socialists of the past analyzed and documented its principles, we continue to refine them today.
▫️National Socialism is life-affirming, not reactionary. Unlike conservatism, which simply tries to preserve dying institutions, and unlike liberalism, which promotes degeneracy and decay, National Socialism actively builds and strengthens the people and the state in harmony with nature.
The great mistake of many nationalists today is that they view nationalism as an end in itself, rather than understanding that it must be guided by a higher principle. Nationalism alone is too flexible, too easily co-opted by reactionaries, populists, or foreign influences. National Socialism is the only nationalist framework that provides a moral, economic, and philosophical foundation to ensure that a people not only survive—but rise, thrive, and dominate.
This is why Woods’ rejection of National Socialism in favor of generic “ethnonationalism” is weak and self-defeating and literally a National Bolshevik stance. He proposes an ideology without structure, without a guiding principle, and without a clear path forward. His vision is one of endless fragmentation, where each nation builds its own isolated identity while lacking the necessary framework to resist globalist subversion, economic exploitation, or internal decay.
The truth is simple: National Socialism is not just history—it is the eternal truth of life, refined into a political doctrine. It is the only system capable of ensuring a people’s survival, prosperity, and ultimate destiny.
Part 5
National Socialism: Beyond Hitler and the Third Reich
Woods, like many who misunderstand National Socialism, assumes that it is purely a historical phenomenon—a movement tied exclusively to Hitler and the Third Reich. This is fundamentally incorrect.
National Socialism is not just a political system—it is a worldview, a world truth, and a human truth expressed politically. It is a flexible and evolving philosophy that was discovered and articulated by Hitler and his contemporaries, but it has always existed in the natural order of life. It is not merely a product of Germany in the 20th century; rather, it is the natural alignment of a people’s survival instincts, biological reality, and moral framework with the governance of a state.
▫️National Socialism recognizes that all life is struggle, and that a people must be strong, self-sufficient, and free from parasitic influences to thrive.
▫️National Socialism is not static—it is refined and adapted over time. Just as National Socialists of the past analyzed and documented its principles, we continue to refine them today.
▫️National Socialism is life-affirming, not reactionary. Unlike conservatism, which simply tries to preserve dying institutions, and unlike liberalism, which promotes degeneracy and decay, National Socialism actively builds and strengthens the people and the state in harmony with nature.
The great mistake of many nationalists today is that they view nationalism as an end in itself, rather than understanding that it must be guided by a higher principle. Nationalism alone is too flexible, too easily co-opted by reactionaries, populists, or foreign influences. National Socialism is the only nationalist framework that provides a moral, economic, and philosophical foundation to ensure that a people not only survive—but rise, thrive, and dominate.
This is why Woods’ rejection of National Socialism in favor of generic “ethnonationalism” is weak and self-defeating and literally a National Bolshevik stance. He proposes an ideology without structure, without a guiding principle, and without a clear path forward. His vision is one of endless fragmentation, where each nation builds its own isolated identity while lacking the necessary framework to resist globalist subversion, economic exploitation, or internal decay.
The truth is simple: National Socialism is not just history—it is the eternal truth of life, refined into a political doctrine. It is the only system capable of ensuring a people’s survival, prosperity, and ultimate destiny.
06.03.202519:47
https://keithwoods.pub/p/nationalism-not-ns
Part 3
National Socialism as the Only Truly Life-Affirming Nationalism
Woods ignores that National Socialism uniquely aligns with the Life Affirming Principle—the idea that every decision and policy must support, maintain, and protect life. Unlike reactionary nationalism, which merely seeks to resist external threats, National Socialism actively builds a life-affirming order that safeguards the future of a people through a structured state, moral clarity, and economic independence.
▫️Ethnonationalism alone does not solve internal degeneration—National Socialism purges degeneracy, ensuring the moral and cultural health of the people.
▫️Ethnonationalism alone does not guarantee economic renewal—National Socialism creates an economy that serves the people, not foreign bankers or corporate interests.
▫️Ethnonationalism alone does not ensure long-term survival—National Socialism implements policies that encourage strong families, biological health, and demographic growth.
Woods wants nationalism without the moral framework, economic principles, and life-affirming philosophy that make it viable long-term. He wants nationalism that is safe, neutered, and acceptable to polite society—the kind of nationalism that has failed to prevent Europe’s decline for the past century.
Part 3
National Socialism as the Only Truly Life-Affirming Nationalism
Woods ignores that National Socialism uniquely aligns with the Life Affirming Principle—the idea that every decision and policy must support, maintain, and protect life. Unlike reactionary nationalism, which merely seeks to resist external threats, National Socialism actively builds a life-affirming order that safeguards the future of a people through a structured state, moral clarity, and economic independence.
▫️Ethnonationalism alone does not solve internal degeneration—National Socialism purges degeneracy, ensuring the moral and cultural health of the people.
▫️Ethnonationalism alone does not guarantee economic renewal—National Socialism creates an economy that serves the people, not foreign bankers or corporate interests.
▫️Ethnonationalism alone does not ensure long-term survival—National Socialism implements policies that encourage strong families, biological health, and demographic growth.
Woods wants nationalism without the moral framework, economic principles, and life-affirming philosophy that make it viable long-term. He wants nationalism that is safe, neutered, and acceptable to polite society—the kind of nationalism that has failed to prevent Europe’s decline for the past century.
03.03.202500:28
The Jews forged a weapon greater than any sword, sharper than any dagger, more insidious than any poison. A whisper in the ear, a promise of salvation, a call to surrender. And we—blind, trusting—took the blade into our own hands and turned it against ourselves.
Where once our people stood proud, unyielding, masters of their own destiny, now they kneel. They beg. They forgive. They love their enemies while their enemies sharpen the knife. They have forgotten what it means to resist. Forgotten the fire in their blood.
It was not stolen from them. No. They gave it away. Bound by chains they chose to wear, shackled by words that preached submission, obedience, and the slow death of their will. The creed of meekness, of turning the other cheek, has hollowed them from within, leaving only echoes of what they once were.
And so here we stand—bereft of what was ours, exiled in our own land, betrayed not by invaders, not by outsiders, but by our own brothers, our own kin, who refused to fight, who embraced weakness as a virtue.
We were not conquered. We were convinced. And that was the greatest defeat of all.
A people who will not fight for themselves do not deserve to survive. But we are not all lost. Some still remember.
Some still burn.
Will you?
Where once our people stood proud, unyielding, masters of their own destiny, now they kneel. They beg. They forgive. They love their enemies while their enemies sharpen the knife. They have forgotten what it means to resist. Forgotten the fire in their blood.
It was not stolen from them. No. They gave it away. Bound by chains they chose to wear, shackled by words that preached submission, obedience, and the slow death of their will. The creed of meekness, of turning the other cheek, has hollowed them from within, leaving only echoes of what they once were.
And so here we stand—bereft of what was ours, exiled in our own land, betrayed not by invaders, not by outsiders, but by our own brothers, our own kin, who refused to fight, who embraced weakness as a virtue.
We were not conquered. We were convinced. And that was the greatest defeat of all.
A people who will not fight for themselves do not deserve to survive. But we are not all lost. Some still remember.
Some still burn.
Will you?
24.02.202500:56
I find it deeply disturbing to see people openly defending what should be universally condemned, all in the name of their most sacred text. The reactions I’m receiving only confirm that pointing out uncomfortable truths within their own holy book is met with anger rather than reflection.
If you consider yourself a Christian but find yourself rejecting certain passages of the Bible—passages said to be the direct word of God—then it’s worth asking yourself: Why do I follow something that contains such reprehensible ideas? Blind faith should never come at the cost of morality or critical thought.
Do better, be better, hail Hitler.
If you consider yourself a Christian but find yourself rejecting certain passages of the Bible—passages said to be the direct word of God—then it’s worth asking yourself: Why do I follow something that contains such reprehensible ideas? Blind faith should never come at the cost of morality or critical thought.
Do better, be better, hail Hitler.
23.02.202523:45
Lot: A “Righteous Man” Who Offers His Own Daughters to be Raped
Christian apologists love to talk about how Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for sexual sin. But what they don’t talk about is what their so-called “righteous” men did in those cities.
In Genesis 19:1-8 ✝️, Lot welcomes two angels disguised as men into his home. The men of the city demand that Lot send them out so they may rape them. Rather than refusing outright, Lot offers his own daughters instead.
✝️ Genesis 19:7-8
“I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. Behold, I have two daughters who have not known any man. Let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please. Only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof.”
This is one of the most horrific passages in the Bible. Lot—who is later described in the New Testament as “a righteous man” ✝️(2 Peter 2:7-8)—is willing to hand over his own daughters to be raped by a mob to protect strangers.
The glaring problem? God does not rebuke Lot for this. There is no punishment. No condemnation. Instead, Lot is rescued, while the rest of the city is destroyed.
This raises a critical question: If Christianity stands against the abuse of children, why does God allow Lot to survive after attempting to hand over his own daughters to be violated? Why does God burn Sodom and Gomorrah, yet reward Lot—a man who willingly offers his own daughters to rapists?
The answer is obvious: Christian morality is selective. In biblical law, a man’s daughters are his property, and he may do with them as he pleases.
Christian apologists love to talk about how Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for sexual sin. But what they don’t talk about is what their so-called “righteous” men did in those cities.
In Genesis 19:1-8 ✝️, Lot welcomes two angels disguised as men into his home. The men of the city demand that Lot send them out so they may rape them. Rather than refusing outright, Lot offers his own daughters instead.
✝️ Genesis 19:7-8
“I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. Behold, I have two daughters who have not known any man. Let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please. Only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof.”
This is one of the most horrific passages in the Bible. Lot—who is later described in the New Testament as “a righteous man” ✝️(2 Peter 2:7-8)—is willing to hand over his own daughters to be raped by a mob to protect strangers.
The glaring problem? God does not rebuke Lot for this. There is no punishment. No condemnation. Instead, Lot is rescued, while the rest of the city is destroyed.
This raises a critical question: If Christianity stands against the abuse of children, why does God allow Lot to survive after attempting to hand over his own daughters to be violated? Why does God burn Sodom and Gomorrah, yet reward Lot—a man who willingly offers his own daughters to rapists?
The answer is obvious: Christian morality is selective. In biblical law, a man’s daughters are his property, and he may do with them as he pleases.
06.03.202520:02
This is the TLDR.
06.03.202519:49
National Socialism is more than just Adolf Hitler or the Third Reich—it is a timeless worldview discovered, articulated, and refined by Hitler and his compatriots. It has always existed as a fundamental human truth: a worldview centered on survival, strength, and the flourishing of life. Woods, however, prefers superficial, reactionary nationalism—a nationalism without foundation or conviction. He rejects the totality of National Socialism in favor of easy half-measures because he is unwilling or incapable of engaging deeply with historical truth and the essential principles that ensure national revival and survival. His arguments amount to nothing more than rhetorical cowardice and intellectual surrender, clearly exposing him as a National Bolshevik, not a serious nationalist thinker.
06.03.202519:46
https://keithwoods.pub/p/nationalism-not-ns
Part 2
The Core of Woods’ Mistake: Nationalism vs. National Socialism
Woods is correct that many nationalist movements have existed before and after National Socialism, but he fails to understand why those movements were flawed or incomplete. Irish nationalism, Polish nationalism, and other European nationalist traditions may have served their peoples in historical contexts, but none of them created a holistic system for economic renewal, cultural revival, and the removal of foreign subversion in the way National Socialism did.
Woods claims:
“Every White nation has their own national story and heroes that can be harnessed to these ends.”
But what exactly is he proposing? A fragmented, regionally focused nationalism that lacks any overarching unifying vision? This approach has already been tried and has failed repeatedly. Nationalism without a greater guiding principle inevitably collapses into petty infighting, inefficiency, or becomes co-opted by external forces.
Part 2
The Core of Woods’ Mistake: Nationalism vs. National Socialism
Woods is correct that many nationalist movements have existed before and after National Socialism, but he fails to understand why those movements were flawed or incomplete. Irish nationalism, Polish nationalism, and other European nationalist traditions may have served their peoples in historical contexts, but none of them created a holistic system for economic renewal, cultural revival, and the removal of foreign subversion in the way National Socialism did.
Woods claims:
“Every White nation has their own national story and heroes that can be harnessed to these ends.”
But what exactly is he proposing? A fragmented, regionally focused nationalism that lacks any overarching unifying vision? This approach has already been tried and has failed repeatedly. Nationalism without a greater guiding principle inevitably collapses into petty infighting, inefficiency, or becomes co-opted by external forces.
24.02.202500:00
Christianity is not a faith of righteousness. It is a faith of corruption, submission, and moral cowardice.
If you believe in justice, strength, and the protection of the innocent, then Christianity is not your faith. Let it die.
If you believe in justice, strength, and the protection of the innocent, then Christianity is not your faith. Let it die.
23.02.202523:40
The Story of Lot: Christianity’s Endorsement of Sexual Perversion, Incest, and the Protection of Predators
Christians love to claim that their faith is the foundation of morality. They tell themselves that their god is righteous, that their doctrine defends the innocent, and that degeneracy is a modern invention. Yet, their own sacred texts expose these lies. The Bible—the very book that defines their faith—condones, excuses, and even rewards sexual perversion, incest, and the exploitation of children. And nowhere is this clearer than in the story of Lot, a man described in the Bible as “righteous” yet whose actions are anything but.
Lot offers his own daughters to be gang-raped, commits incest with them, and suffers no punishment for any of it. Instead, he is saved by God and honored in Christian scripture. This is not an obscure story—it is one of the most famous tales in biblical history, and it shatters the idea that Christianity stands against sexual degeneracy. The Bible does not merely contain horrific acts—it justifies them.
Some Christians will desperately attempt to escape responsibility by saying, “That’s the Old Testament! That’s not real Christianity!” This is a blatant lie. Jesus himself constantly referenced the Old Testament and affirmed its teachings. The New Testament is built upon the foundation of the Old Testament. Without it, Christianity collapses entirely. If the Old Testament is false, then so is Christianity, and every so-called “moral” argument from the Bible falls apart.
This is what modern Christians refuse to admit: their faith is not separate from these stories—it is built upon them.
I bring this up because many "Christians" have zero clue as to what they are subscribing too. To call your self a Christian is to also say your a defender of pedophilia, child rape, incest, and extermination of innocent people and animals when it's convenient for you through your so called righteous God. How I see it is simple, you are just as evil as the Jews. And somehow you're okay with it. I am not and I'll never be okay with someone being a Christian around me.
Christians love to claim that their faith is the foundation of morality. They tell themselves that their god is righteous, that their doctrine defends the innocent, and that degeneracy is a modern invention. Yet, their own sacred texts expose these lies. The Bible—the very book that defines their faith—condones, excuses, and even rewards sexual perversion, incest, and the exploitation of children. And nowhere is this clearer than in the story of Lot, a man described in the Bible as “righteous” yet whose actions are anything but.
Lot offers his own daughters to be gang-raped, commits incest with them, and suffers no punishment for any of it. Instead, he is saved by God and honored in Christian scripture. This is not an obscure story—it is one of the most famous tales in biblical history, and it shatters the idea that Christianity stands against sexual degeneracy. The Bible does not merely contain horrific acts—it justifies them.
Some Christians will desperately attempt to escape responsibility by saying, “That’s the Old Testament! That’s not real Christianity!” This is a blatant lie. Jesus himself constantly referenced the Old Testament and affirmed its teachings. The New Testament is built upon the foundation of the Old Testament. Without it, Christianity collapses entirely. If the Old Testament is false, then so is Christianity, and every so-called “moral” argument from the Bible falls apart.
This is what modern Christians refuse to admit: their faith is not separate from these stories—it is built upon them.
I bring this up because many "Christians" have zero clue as to what they are subscribing too. To call your self a Christian is to also say your a defender of pedophilia, child rape, incest, and extermination of innocent people and animals when it's convenient for you through your so called righteous God. How I see it is simple, you are just as evil as the Jews. And somehow you're okay with it. I am not and I'll never be okay with someone being a Christian around me.
06.03.202519:52
Woods Advocates Weakness, Compromise, and Intellectual Dishonesty
Keith Woods' arguments ultimately boil down to a defense of half-measures and ideological timidity, dressed up as pragmatic strategy. His primary concern—that National Socialism carries negative stigma—is nothing more than a fearful retreat into weakness and respectability politics. Rather than standing firmly behind a rigorous, comprehensive, and proven life-affirming ideology, Woods prefers a sanitized nationalism designed to placate enemies who despise our existence regardless.
Nationalism without National Socialism is precisely the half-measure that has repeatedly failed European peoples. It offers neither structural solutions nor ideological coherence. Woods' belief that the essence of National Socialism—its fundamental commitment to racial health, cultural vitality, economic independence, and disciplined self-overcoming—can be stripped away, leaving behind a vague ethnonationalist shell, is intellectually bankrupt. Such hollow nationalism can never provide the depth of purpose, moral clarity, or strategic vision essential for genuine rebirth and sustained revival.
Woods deliberately misconstrains the complexity of historical events, lazily parroting mainstream tropes without rigorous engagement with primary sources. He misrepresents the nature of Lebensraum, dismisses Slavic collaboration, and leans heavily on mistranslated excerpts from Hitler’s Table Talks. The reality is clear: the Table Talks—recorded firsthand in German by Picker and Heim—are authentic records, distorted only through English translations. To entirely dismiss them, as Woods does, is intellectually negligent and betrays a lack of scholarly integrity.
Woods' rejection of National Socialism reveals more than historical ignorance—it exposes his philosophical cowardice. His ideological stance resembles National Bolshevism, a confused hybrid that tries and fails to reconcile nationalism with leftist economic populism, inevitably resulting in ideological paralysis. Woods advocates a path of least resistance, endorsing a nationalism devoid of moral clarity or revolutionary intent. He proposes nothing concrete beyond vague appeals to national tradition, conveniently sidestepping the urgent structural crises—demographic collapse, cultural degeneration, economic subjugation—that demand radical solutions.
In short, Woods represents precisely what must be eradicated from nationalism: timidity, compromise, and a preoccupation with optics. He prioritizes popular acceptance over ideological integrity, fundamentally misunderstanding the reality that true nationalism requires sacrifice, struggle, and unwavering adherence to principles that sustain and elevate life.
The Life Affirming Principle dictates clear solutions: nationalism must be bold, disciplined, and uncompromising. It cannot thrive through half-hearted populism or sanitized historical revisionism. National Socialism is more than Adolf Hitler or the Third Reich; it is a timeless truth, discovered rather than invented, a guiding philosophy for cultural, biological, and economic health. To reject it is to reject the only fully coherent system capable of achieving lasting strength and survival for our people.
Ultimately, Woods embodies a defeatist mindset. He would rather pursue polite nationalism, begging permission to exist, instead of forging an uncompromising path toward genuine national renewal. His approach offers neither hope nor solutions, only endless retreat. To embrace Woods’ path is to embrace perpetual defeat.
Keith Woods' arguments ultimately boil down to a defense of half-measures and ideological timidity, dressed up as pragmatic strategy. His primary concern—that National Socialism carries negative stigma—is nothing more than a fearful retreat into weakness and respectability politics. Rather than standing firmly behind a rigorous, comprehensive, and proven life-affirming ideology, Woods prefers a sanitized nationalism designed to placate enemies who despise our existence regardless.
Nationalism without National Socialism is precisely the half-measure that has repeatedly failed European peoples. It offers neither structural solutions nor ideological coherence. Woods' belief that the essence of National Socialism—its fundamental commitment to racial health, cultural vitality, economic independence, and disciplined self-overcoming—can be stripped away, leaving behind a vague ethnonationalist shell, is intellectually bankrupt. Such hollow nationalism can never provide the depth of purpose, moral clarity, or strategic vision essential for genuine rebirth and sustained revival.
Woods deliberately misconstrains the complexity of historical events, lazily parroting mainstream tropes without rigorous engagement with primary sources. He misrepresents the nature of Lebensraum, dismisses Slavic collaboration, and leans heavily on mistranslated excerpts from Hitler’s Table Talks. The reality is clear: the Table Talks—recorded firsthand in German by Picker and Heim—are authentic records, distorted only through English translations. To entirely dismiss them, as Woods does, is intellectually negligent and betrays a lack of scholarly integrity.
Woods' rejection of National Socialism reveals more than historical ignorance—it exposes his philosophical cowardice. His ideological stance resembles National Bolshevism, a confused hybrid that tries and fails to reconcile nationalism with leftist economic populism, inevitably resulting in ideological paralysis. Woods advocates a path of least resistance, endorsing a nationalism devoid of moral clarity or revolutionary intent. He proposes nothing concrete beyond vague appeals to national tradition, conveniently sidestepping the urgent structural crises—demographic collapse, cultural degeneration, economic subjugation—that demand radical solutions.
In short, Woods represents precisely what must be eradicated from nationalism: timidity, compromise, and a preoccupation with optics. He prioritizes popular acceptance over ideological integrity, fundamentally misunderstanding the reality that true nationalism requires sacrifice, struggle, and unwavering adherence to principles that sustain and elevate life.
The Life Affirming Principle dictates clear solutions: nationalism must be bold, disciplined, and uncompromising. It cannot thrive through half-hearted populism or sanitized historical revisionism. National Socialism is more than Adolf Hitler or the Third Reich; it is a timeless truth, discovered rather than invented, a guiding philosophy for cultural, biological, and economic health. To reject it is to reject the only fully coherent system capable of achieving lasting strength and survival for our people.
Ultimately, Woods embodies a defeatist mindset. He would rather pursue polite nationalism, begging permission to exist, instead of forging an uncompromising path toward genuine national renewal. His approach offers neither hope nor solutions, only endless retreat. To embrace Woods’ path is to embrace perpetual defeat.
06.03.202519:49
https://keithwoods.pub/p/nationalism-not-ns
Part 4.5 Continued
Addressing Woods’ Misrepresentations of the Table Talks and German Policies
Keith Woods relies heavily on Hitler’s Table Talks, selectively quoting passages to reinforce his portrayal of National Socialism as fundamentally anti-Slavic and inherently oppressive. While Woods is correct that the German originals of the Table Talks are authentic—having been accurately recorded by Hitler’s personal associates, Heinrich Heim and Henry Picker—he fails to mention the critical issues regarding their later English translations. These translations are widely known to contain significant distortions, often ideological in nature, which fundamentally alter Hitler’s original meaning.
To be clear, the Table Talks themselves are not "false documents"; they are authentic German transcripts recorded firsthand. To outright dismiss their authenticity would indeed be intellectually lazy. The nuanced and scholarly approach is to recognize their authenticity while simultaneously acknowledging the problematic translations. Serious historical analysis, therefore, demands direct reference to the original German manuscripts, rather than relying blindly on mistranslated excerpts to attack National Socialism. Woods’ convenient reliance on these distorted English translations highlights either intellectual dishonesty or a lack of serious historical rigor.
Additionally, Woods cites historian David Irving to bolster his claims. Irving, however respected, conducted much of his research in an era when comprehensive access to archival materials was significantly limited compared to today. The massive expansion of digital archives and the broad dissemination of previously inaccessible historical documents provides contemporary historians with far more thorough resources. Irving’s limited archival access at the time inevitably affected the depth and accuracy of his conclusions regarding nuanced matters like the Table Talks. Citing Irving’s older conclusions as absolute truth, without considering the richer, more detailed historical context now available, further underscores Woods’ intellectual laziness.
Woods’ argument regarding Lebensraum and supposed anti-Slavic policies similarly lacks historical nuance and intellectual rigor. He conveniently ignores the reality of widespread Eastern European collaboration with Germany and the existence of numerous Slavic units in the Waffen-SS, whose purpose was resistance to Bolshevik terror. Instead, he embraces Allied wartime propaganda that portrays National Socialism solely as genocidal or inherently imperialistic. This approach demonstrates that Woods has effectively internalized the Allies' propaganda narratives—the very same narratives responsible for demonizing Germany, National Socialism, and Hitler to justify their wartime actions.
The excerpt from David Irving's Hitler's War, specifically on the German treatment of Ukrainians under Erich Koch, further illustrates Woods' misunderstanding. Woods incorrectly implies that German wartime policies in occupied territories represented Germany’s broader ideological stance toward other European peoples in peacetime. This flawed reasoning neglects to differentiate between wartime expediency—often harsh and brutal across all nations—and National Socialism’s peace-time philosophy. In times of peace, Germany actively promoted humanitarian principles, cooperation, and self-determination. Woods' failure to grasp this critical historical distinction again highlights a superficial grasp of history.
In essence, Keith Woods deliberately cherry-picks wartime events and distorted translations, misrepresents historical nuance, and employs allied propaganda tactics. He hopes no one notices this intellectual sleight of hand. Unfortunately for him, historical truth is not as malleable as he wishes. His approach reveals him not as a genuine nationalist thinker, but as someone closely aligned with National Bolshevik thinking—willing to borrow enemy rhetoric whenever convenient to discredit genuine National Socialism.
Part 4.5 Continued
Addressing Woods’ Misrepresentations of the Table Talks and German Policies
Keith Woods relies heavily on Hitler’s Table Talks, selectively quoting passages to reinforce his portrayal of National Socialism as fundamentally anti-Slavic and inherently oppressive. While Woods is correct that the German originals of the Table Talks are authentic—having been accurately recorded by Hitler’s personal associates, Heinrich Heim and Henry Picker—he fails to mention the critical issues regarding their later English translations. These translations are widely known to contain significant distortions, often ideological in nature, which fundamentally alter Hitler’s original meaning.
To be clear, the Table Talks themselves are not "false documents"; they are authentic German transcripts recorded firsthand. To outright dismiss their authenticity would indeed be intellectually lazy. The nuanced and scholarly approach is to recognize their authenticity while simultaneously acknowledging the problematic translations. Serious historical analysis, therefore, demands direct reference to the original German manuscripts, rather than relying blindly on mistranslated excerpts to attack National Socialism. Woods’ convenient reliance on these distorted English translations highlights either intellectual dishonesty or a lack of serious historical rigor.
Additionally, Woods cites historian David Irving to bolster his claims. Irving, however respected, conducted much of his research in an era when comprehensive access to archival materials was significantly limited compared to today. The massive expansion of digital archives and the broad dissemination of previously inaccessible historical documents provides contemporary historians with far more thorough resources. Irving’s limited archival access at the time inevitably affected the depth and accuracy of his conclusions regarding nuanced matters like the Table Talks. Citing Irving’s older conclusions as absolute truth, without considering the richer, more detailed historical context now available, further underscores Woods’ intellectual laziness.
Woods’ argument regarding Lebensraum and supposed anti-Slavic policies similarly lacks historical nuance and intellectual rigor. He conveniently ignores the reality of widespread Eastern European collaboration with Germany and the existence of numerous Slavic units in the Waffen-SS, whose purpose was resistance to Bolshevik terror. Instead, he embraces Allied wartime propaganda that portrays National Socialism solely as genocidal or inherently imperialistic. This approach demonstrates that Woods has effectively internalized the Allies' propaganda narratives—the very same narratives responsible for demonizing Germany, National Socialism, and Hitler to justify their wartime actions.
The excerpt from David Irving's Hitler's War, specifically on the German treatment of Ukrainians under Erich Koch, further illustrates Woods' misunderstanding. Woods incorrectly implies that German wartime policies in occupied territories represented Germany’s broader ideological stance toward other European peoples in peacetime. This flawed reasoning neglects to differentiate between wartime expediency—often harsh and brutal across all nations—and National Socialism’s peace-time philosophy. In times of peace, Germany actively promoted humanitarian principles, cooperation, and self-determination. Woods' failure to grasp this critical historical distinction again highlights a superficial grasp of history.
In essence, Keith Woods deliberately cherry-picks wartime events and distorted translations, misrepresents historical nuance, and employs allied propaganda tactics. He hopes no one notices this intellectual sleight of hand. Unfortunately for him, historical truth is not as malleable as he wishes. His approach reveals him not as a genuine nationalist thinker, but as someone closely aligned with National Bolshevik thinking—willing to borrow enemy rhetoric whenever convenient to discredit genuine National Socialism.
06.03.202519:45
https://keithwoods.pub/p/nationalism-not-ns
Part 1
Nationalism Without National Socialism is a Hollow Shell
Keith Woods argues that National Socialism is unnecessary for European nationalism today, claiming that nationalist movements can succeed without it. He suggests that Eastern European nationalist movements, Irish nationalism, and various other historical nationalist traditions prove that a positive view of National Socialism is not required. Yet his entire argument rests on an incomplete understanding of what National Socialism actually is—not just as a historical movement, but as the highest refinement of nationalist thought, rooted in a profound understanding of biological, cultural, and economic reality.
Woods believes he can strip nationalism down to a generic ethnonationalism, disconnected from the hard-earned lessons of the past century. But this is where his argument collapses. Nationalism without a unifying philosophical, moral, and economic framework is nothing more than a reactionary movement doomed to failure. National Socialism isn’t just nationalism—it’s the perfected form of it, aligning the state, people, and economy toward the highest goal: the preservation, strengthening, and flourishing of life.
Part 1
Nationalism Without National Socialism is a Hollow Shell
Keith Woods argues that National Socialism is unnecessary for European nationalism today, claiming that nationalist movements can succeed without it. He suggests that Eastern European nationalist movements, Irish nationalism, and various other historical nationalist traditions prove that a positive view of National Socialism is not required. Yet his entire argument rests on an incomplete understanding of what National Socialism actually is—not just as a historical movement, but as the highest refinement of nationalist thought, rooted in a profound understanding of biological, cultural, and economic reality.
Woods believes he can strip nationalism down to a generic ethnonationalism, disconnected from the hard-earned lessons of the past century. But this is where his argument collapses. Nationalism without a unifying philosophical, moral, and economic framework is nothing more than a reactionary movement doomed to failure. National Socialism isn’t just nationalism—it’s the perfected form of it, aligning the state, people, and economy toward the highest goal: the preservation, strengthening, and flourishing of life.
26.02.202506:13
“When people attempt to rebel against the iron logic of Nature, they come into conflict with the very same principles to which they owe their existence as human beings. Their actions against Nature must lead to their own downfall.”
― Adolf Hitler
― Adolf Hitler
23.02.202523:55
“That’s the Old Testament!” – The Christian’s Pathetic Excuse
When confronted with these atrocities, modern Christians will desperately attempt to distance themselves by saying, “That’s the Old Testament! That’s not Christianity!”
This is a blatant lie. The New Testament is completely dependent on the Old Testament. Jesus himself affirmed the Old Testament as the foundation of Christian doctrine.
Jesus Directly References Lot as a Righteous Figure
✝️“Likewise, just as it was in the days of Lot—they were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building, but on the day Lot went out from Sodom, fire and sulfur rained from heaven and destroyed them all.” (Luke 17:28-29)
Jesus treats Lot’s survival as an example of God’s will. No condemnation of his actions—only affirmation.
The New Testament Continually Upholds the Old Testament as Divine Law
✝️“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” (Matthew 5:17)
✝️“For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.” (Matthew 5:18)
If Jesus himself affirmed the laws and stories of the Old Testament, then Christians cannot reject them without rejecting their own faith. If the Old Testament is wrong, then Christianity is built on a lie.
When confronted with these atrocities, modern Christians will desperately attempt to distance themselves by saying, “That’s the Old Testament! That’s not Christianity!”
This is a blatant lie. The New Testament is completely dependent on the Old Testament. Jesus himself affirmed the Old Testament as the foundation of Christian doctrine.
Jesus Directly References Lot as a Righteous Figure
✝️“Likewise, just as it was in the days of Lot—they were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building, but on the day Lot went out from Sodom, fire and sulfur rained from heaven and destroyed them all.” (Luke 17:28-29)
Jesus treats Lot’s survival as an example of God’s will. No condemnation of his actions—only affirmation.
The New Testament Continually Upholds the Old Testament as Divine Law
✝️“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” (Matthew 5:17)
✝️“For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.” (Matthew 5:18)
If Jesus himself affirmed the laws and stories of the Old Testament, then Christians cannot reject them without rejecting their own faith. If the Old Testament is wrong, then Christianity is built on a lie.
23.02.202523:35
4. Christianity Demands Absolute Submission to Authority—Even Child Abusers
One of the biggest reasons pedophilia thrives in Christian circles is because Christianity demands blind obedience to religious leaders.
✝️ Romans 13:1-2 – “Submit to Authority”
“Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established.”
This means that if a priest or pastor molests a child, the victim must remain obedient because they are “ordained by God.”
✝️ 1 Peter 2:18 – “Slaves, Obey Your Masters, Even the Cruel Ones”
Children raised in Christian households are taught that disobedience is a sin—which makes them easy targets for predators.
One of the biggest reasons pedophilia thrives in Christian circles is because Christianity demands blind obedience to religious leaders.
✝️ Romans 13:1-2 – “Submit to Authority”
“Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established.”
This means that if a priest or pastor molests a child, the victim must remain obedient because they are “ordained by God.”
✝️ 1 Peter 2:18 – “Slaves, Obey Your Masters, Even the Cruel Ones”
Children raised in Christian households are taught that disobedience is a sin—which makes them easy targets for predators.
06.03.202519:51
https://keithwoods.pub/p/nationalism-not-ns
Part 6
Why National Socialism is Essential for European Survival
Woods states:
“I don’t see any principle unique to National Socialism that Europeans need to survive and thrive today.”
This is the most ignorant statement in his entire article. Here’s what he is missing:
1. National Socialism is the only ideology that fully integrates nationalism, economics, and moral philosophy into a single, functional system.
▫️Unlike capitalism, it does not allow profit-seeking to override the well-being of the people.
▫️Unlike communism, it does not sacrifice national identity and biological reality for class struggle.
▫️Unlike reactionary conservatism, it does not cling to outdated institutions but embraces progress when it serves the people’s survival.
2. National Socialism is the only system that recognizes that survival alone is not enough—it seeks to elevate a people to their highest potential. Life is not just about existing—it is about thriving, expanding, and overcoming obstacles.
3. National Socialism solves the degeneracy crisis at its root. Nationalism without a cultural and moral revival is doomed to be co-opted by globalist forces, just as we see happening with conservative parties across the West.
The Failure of “Ethnonationalism” Without National Socialism
Woods wants nationalism to exist without a guiding principle, without a moral foundation, and without the necessary policies to ensure its longevity. This approach has been tried:
▫️Western European nationalist parties have failed to stop mass immigration.
▫️Eastern European nationalist movements rely on the EU and American economic support while resisting globalism in a limited way.
▫️Conservative nationalists in the Anglosphere are constantly cucked, shifting leftward, and apologizing for their existence.
National Socialism was the only movement that successfully implemented an economic model that serves the people, a cultural model that promotes strength and discipline, and a political model that removes parasitic influences.
Part 6
Why National Socialism is Essential for European Survival
Woods states:
“I don’t see any principle unique to National Socialism that Europeans need to survive and thrive today.”
This is the most ignorant statement in his entire article. Here’s what he is missing:
1. National Socialism is the only ideology that fully integrates nationalism, economics, and moral philosophy into a single, functional system.
▫️Unlike capitalism, it does not allow profit-seeking to override the well-being of the people.
▫️Unlike communism, it does not sacrifice national identity and biological reality for class struggle.
▫️Unlike reactionary conservatism, it does not cling to outdated institutions but embraces progress when it serves the people’s survival.
2. National Socialism is the only system that recognizes that survival alone is not enough—it seeks to elevate a people to their highest potential. Life is not just about existing—it is about thriving, expanding, and overcoming obstacles.
3. National Socialism solves the degeneracy crisis at its root. Nationalism without a cultural and moral revival is doomed to be co-opted by globalist forces, just as we see happening with conservative parties across the West.
The Failure of “Ethnonationalism” Without National Socialism
Woods wants nationalism to exist without a guiding principle, without a moral foundation, and without the necessary policies to ensure its longevity. This approach has been tried:
▫️Western European nationalist parties have failed to stop mass immigration.
▫️Eastern European nationalist movements rely on the EU and American economic support while resisting globalism in a limited way.
▫️Conservative nationalists in the Anglosphere are constantly cucked, shifting leftward, and apologizing for their existence.
National Socialism was the only movement that successfully implemented an economic model that serves the people, a cultural model that promotes strength and discipline, and a political model that removes parasitic influences.
06.03.202519:48
https://keithwoods.pub/p/nationalism-not-ns
Part 4
Addressing Woods’ Historical Critiques
Woods attempts to discredit National Socialism by citing supposed anti-Slavic policies, Lebensraum, and Hitler’s Table Talks. These are well-worn talking points that lack proper historical context and ignore crucial nuances:
▫️The NS movement was not a generic "pro-German" ideology—it was a structured system of national and racial renewal that aligned the economy, culture, and state with the well-being of the people. Slavic collaboration with National Socialist Germany was widespread, with thousands of volunteers from Eastern Europe joining the Waffen-SS to resist Bolshevism. The claim that National Socialism was universally hostile to Slavs is a distortion of historical nuance and ignores the practical alliances formed during the war.
▫️The Polish situation was far more complex than Woods admits. German grievances regarding Danzig and ethnic cleansing were real, and Poland’s alignment with British and French anti-German policies escalated the situation. Woods ignores the geopolitical factors and portrays the invasion of Poland as simple aggression, rather than recognizing it as a militarily strategic response to worsening conditions for Germans in the region.
▫️Lebensraum was not an exterminationist policy but an economic and agricultural necessity. Germany, a nation deliberately weakened by post-WWI treaties, sought to ensure self-sufficiency and long-term food security for its people. Expansion of living space and access to resources were not unique to Germany—every major European power engaged in territorial expansion to secure its survival.
Part 4
Addressing Woods’ Historical Critiques
Woods attempts to discredit National Socialism by citing supposed anti-Slavic policies, Lebensraum, and Hitler’s Table Talks. These are well-worn talking points that lack proper historical context and ignore crucial nuances:
▫️The NS movement was not a generic "pro-German" ideology—it was a structured system of national and racial renewal that aligned the economy, culture, and state with the well-being of the people. Slavic collaboration with National Socialist Germany was widespread, with thousands of volunteers from Eastern Europe joining the Waffen-SS to resist Bolshevism. The claim that National Socialism was universally hostile to Slavs is a distortion of historical nuance and ignores the practical alliances formed during the war.
▫️The Polish situation was far more complex than Woods admits. German grievances regarding Danzig and ethnic cleansing were real, and Poland’s alignment with British and French anti-German policies escalated the situation. Woods ignores the geopolitical factors and portrays the invasion of Poland as simple aggression, rather than recognizing it as a militarily strategic response to worsening conditions for Germans in the region.
▫️Lebensraum was not an exterminationist policy but an economic and agricultural necessity. Germany, a nation deliberately weakened by post-WWI treaties, sought to ensure self-sufficiency and long-term food security for its people. Expansion of living space and access to resources were not unique to Germany—every major European power engaged in territorial expansion to secure its survival.
06.03.202517:50
Keith Woods is a Communist.
24.02.202518:58
I could wield the wealth of kings, claim the hoarded treasures of fallen empires, yet my soul would remain unsatisfied. If the vast dominion of the earth, the moon, and even the stars themselves were placed beneath my hand, still, I would be empty. For there is only one fire that burns within me, one yearning that eclipses all else—the unshackling of my people.
Without them, I am nothing. You are nothing. But together, we are everything.
I do not seek to pass from this life into some distant eternity, knowing I have left my task undone. I do not long for the comfort of remembrance, nor do I fear the abyss. My purpose is here, now, pressing upon me like an unrelenting force, a whisper carried through the ages, calling me to resurrect what was lost, to reclaim what was stolen, to restore what was cast into oblivion.
Before my birth, I did not exist, and it did not trouble me. Yet here I stand, bound to this world once more. And that alone has sealed my fate—I will return. The wheel turns. It does not ask, it does not wait, and it does not stop. I have risen once from the depths of nothingness, and so I shall rise again. The cycle is set. To be born once is to be born again, for the path back has been carved. There is no escape from the will that pulls me forward, no release from the purpose that grips my essence.
So now I say to you, standing in the shadows of hesitation, watching as others fight and build—step forward or be forgotten. To spectate is to betray. What is a man if he does nothing for his own? A ghost before death, a hollow vessel awaiting the inevitable. Rise! Build for your people, create for your people! Take your place among the Life-Affirming soldiers, for without them, you are nothing. With us, you are everything.
Without them, I am nothing. You are nothing. But together, we are everything.
I do not seek to pass from this life into some distant eternity, knowing I have left my task undone. I do not long for the comfort of remembrance, nor do I fear the abyss. My purpose is here, now, pressing upon me like an unrelenting force, a whisper carried through the ages, calling me to resurrect what was lost, to reclaim what was stolen, to restore what was cast into oblivion.
Before my birth, I did not exist, and it did not trouble me. Yet here I stand, bound to this world once more. And that alone has sealed my fate—I will return. The wheel turns. It does not ask, it does not wait, and it does not stop. I have risen once from the depths of nothingness, and so I shall rise again. The cycle is set. To be born once is to be born again, for the path back has been carved. There is no escape from the will that pulls me forward, no release from the purpose that grips my essence.
So now I say to you, standing in the shadows of hesitation, watching as others fight and build—step forward or be forgotten. To spectate is to betray. What is a man if he does nothing for his own? A ghost before death, a hollow vessel awaiting the inevitable. Rise! Build for your people, create for your people! Take your place among the Life-Affirming soldiers, for without them, you are nothing. With us, you are everything.
23.02.202523:50
Lot Commits Incest with His Own Daughters—and God Does Nothing
As if offering his daughters to a rape mob wasn’t enough, Lot’s story takes an even darker turn. After escaping Sodom, Lot and his daughters settle in a cave. Fearing they will never find husbands, his daughters decide to intoxicate their father and rape him to become pregnant.
✝️ Genesis 19:32-36
“Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve offspring from our father.”
So they made their father drink wine that night. And the firstborn went in and lay with her father; he did not know when she lay down or when she arose.
The next day, the younger daughter did the same, and Lot was not aware of it. Thus both daughters of Lot became pregnant by their father.
Two daughters rape their own father while he is intoxicated—yet God does nothing.
There is no punishment for this act. No condemnation. No wrath from heaven. Instead, Lot’s incestuous offspring go on to become rulers.
✝️ “The firstborn bore a son and called his name Moab; he is the father of the Moabites to this day. The younger also bore a son and called his name Ben-Ammi; he is the father of the Ammonites to this day.” (Genesis 19:37-38)
This is biblical morality. A man gets drunk, his own daughters rape him, and their children become great nations—all with God’s silent approval.
If Christianity is truly about righteousness, then why does God destroy Sodom and Gomorrah for their sins but allow Lot’s incest to go unpunished? If Christian morality is absolute, why does it apply to some acts but not others?
The answer is clear: because biblical law does not see incest or the abuse of children as a moral crime.
As if offering his daughters to a rape mob wasn’t enough, Lot’s story takes an even darker turn. After escaping Sodom, Lot and his daughters settle in a cave. Fearing they will never find husbands, his daughters decide to intoxicate their father and rape him to become pregnant.
✝️ Genesis 19:32-36
“Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve offspring from our father.”
So they made their father drink wine that night. And the firstborn went in and lay with her father; he did not know when she lay down or when she arose.
The next day, the younger daughter did the same, and Lot was not aware of it. Thus both daughters of Lot became pregnant by their father.
Two daughters rape their own father while he is intoxicated—yet God does nothing.
There is no punishment for this act. No condemnation. No wrath from heaven. Instead, Lot’s incestuous offspring go on to become rulers.
✝️ “The firstborn bore a son and called his name Moab; he is the father of the Moabites to this day. The younger also bore a son and called his name Ben-Ammi; he is the father of the Ammonites to this day.” (Genesis 19:37-38)
This is biblical morality. A man gets drunk, his own daughters rape him, and their children become great nations—all with God’s silent approval.
If Christianity is truly about righteousness, then why does God destroy Sodom and Gomorrah for their sins but allow Lot’s incest to go unpunished? If Christian morality is absolute, why does it apply to some acts but not others?
The answer is clear: because biblical law does not see incest or the abuse of children as a moral crime.
23.02.202523:30
3. The Catholic Church is a Global Pedophile Ring
If Christianity were truly moral, then why has nearly every major Christian institution been caught covering up mass child rape?
⛪ Over 330,000 Children Abused by Catholic Priests in France Alone
A 2021 report found that over 330,000 children had been sexually abused by Catholic clergy in France since 1950.
The Vatican responded not by punishing the priests, but by covering up their crimes.
🇻🇦 The Global Vatican Cover-Up
The Catholic Church has spent billions covering up child sex abuse scandals worldwide.
Instead of removing pedophiles, the Vatican moves them to new locations where they can continue abusing children.
✝️ Christian “Missionaries” Have Used Their Faith to Target Children
Across Africa, Latin America, and Southeast Asia, Christian missionaries have been caught sexually abusing the children they claim to be “saving.”
These crimes go largely ignored because the Church simply pays off victims and silences them.
This is not an accident—this is systemic. Pedophilia in Christianity is not an exception—it is the norm.
If Christianity were truly moral, then why has nearly every major Christian institution been caught covering up mass child rape?
⛪ Over 330,000 Children Abused by Catholic Priests in France Alone
A 2021 report found that over 330,000 children had been sexually abused by Catholic clergy in France since 1950.
The Vatican responded not by punishing the priests, but by covering up their crimes.
🇻🇦 The Global Vatican Cover-Up
The Catholic Church has spent billions covering up child sex abuse scandals worldwide.
Instead of removing pedophiles, the Vatican moves them to new locations where they can continue abusing children.
✝️ Christian “Missionaries” Have Used Their Faith to Target Children
Across Africa, Latin America, and Southeast Asia, Christian missionaries have been caught sexually abusing the children they claim to be “saving.”
These crimes go largely ignored because the Church simply pays off victims and silences them.
This is not an accident—this is systemic. Pedophilia in Christianity is not an exception—it is the norm.
दिखाया गया 1 - 17 का 17
अधिक कार्यक्षमता अनलॉक करने के लिए लॉगिन करें।