A new religion for whites, 3

by Kevin Alfred Strom

This week we continue our exploration of the evolution of religion and religious thought in National Socialist Germany. We’ll be learning about these stirrings of our race’s true religious spirit in the words of National Socialist writer Savitri Devi. This is an important series, and it’s vital that we make our journey carefully, understanding every point before leaping to the next highest level.

Devi’s words are taken from her book Impeachment of Man. What, you might wonder, does a book dealing primarily with humanity’s horrific cruelties against his fellow creatures have to do with building a new religion for European Man? Just this: The false religions which plague our people, corrupt their souls, cloud their eyes, and weaken their wills all have as one of their major tenets the idea that human beings are set apart from and above the rest of Nature—that men have souls and other creatures do not—that God is primarily concerned with human needs and human perfectibility and the other living beings are just part of the stage settings, or food to be eaten; and that, therefore—and this is the most important concept—all human beings partake of the divine and in that sense are equal.

The violent thief, the murderer, the grasping, cheating merchant, the child rapist, the warmongering politician—all are literally, they tell us, the living image of God. They can “wash away” their sins in two seconds flat with proper invocations to Jesus or Yahweh or Allah. Except in microscopically rare circumstances, they cannot be killed by us no matter how much they deserve it.

The most noble of non-human animals, however, can be killed with impunity by anyone (except, again, in microscopically rare circumstances), even hundreds or thousands at a time, and the priests and rabbis and imams say all is well.

For you see, in these alien religions there is a wall—an impenetrable boundary of kind—separating Man from all the rest of Nature. The idea of this wall makes some of us callous to the spirit and nobility and beauty of non-human creatures, but it gets worse—it also makes us think that everyone on “our side” of this imaginary wall—the human side—is somehow set apart from the rest of Nature—set apart from “mere animals.” These religions tell us that because of our “image of God” uniqueness, we humans are somehow “equal” to each other “in our souls”—“equal in the eyes of God,” as the saying goes, no matter how vile the human specimens being considered. Thus the Abrahamic religion accepted by many of our people inherently denies race, due to this concept alone, and would do so even if it didn’t have other, more explicit, race-denying ideas in its scriptures.

In reality, there is no such wall. There is no wall or dividing line in Nature between human and non-human. We are a part of evolving Nature. And there is a continuum in the qualities of all living things. The most virtuous dog is not inferior in the quality of his soul to the most degenerate human being—far from it! There are chipmunks, even rats, more deserving of life and sustenance than some human beings. When it comes to intelligence, the highest kinds of hominids, canines, felines, and cetaceans exceed the congnitive abilities of the worst human weeds.

And there is no evidence that a Divine Spark exists in all men, just because they are human—though it does exist in some. With the Abrahamic lie of the wall removed, we can finally clearly see that the idea of racial or individual equality, on the spiritual or any other plane, is totally absurd. Individual men—and races of men—have their strengths, their weaknesses, their potentials, their lack of potentials. The one thing they don’t have is equality.

If we acknowledge that we need faith in God to prevail, and if we acknowledge that physics, mathematics, and genetics are the real word of God; then our new religion must cast off all incorrect perception of reality, cast off all superstition, and see ever-evolving Creation for what it really is. That is what makes Devi and the spiritual evolution of our folk inherent in National Socialism directly relevant to our quest.

 

______ 卐 ______

 

Man-centered creeds vs. racial-hierarchical reality

by Savitri Devi

According to the religious creeds which we have characterized as “man-centered,” man, alone created “in the likeness of God,” is God’s most beloved child, perhaps even his only child on this earth. The heavenly Father of the Christian Gospels no doubt loves the sparrows. But he loves man infinitely more. He loves the lilies too; he has clothed them more beautifully “than Solomon in all his glory”; yet, man is the main object of his solicitude, not they. Among all the living beings that are born in the visible world man alone is supposed to be endowed with an immortal soul. He alone was created for eternity. The transient world was made for him to enjoy and exploit during his short earthly life, and creatures of several species were appointed—both quadrupeds and birds—as meat for him to eat.

And that is not all. A whole scheme of salvation was worked out for him by God himself, so that man might still reach everlasting bliss in spite of his sins. God raised prophets to urge rebellious humanity to repentance and to point out the way of righteousness. And according to the Christian belief, he even sent his only Son to suffer and die, so that his blood might become the ransom of all sinners who put their faith in him. All the splendor of the material world; all the grace, strength and loveliness of millions of beasts, birds, fishes, trees and creepers; the majesty of the snow-clad mountains, the beauty of the unfurling waves—all that and much more—is not worth, in God’s eyes, the immortal soul of a human imbecile—so they say, at least. That is why the hunting of tigers and deer, the butchering of innocent woolly lambs, so glad to live, the dissecting of pretty white guinea pigs or of intelligent dogs, are not “sins” according to the man-centered faiths—not even if they imply the most appalling suffering. But the painless chloroforming of worthless human idiots is a “crime.” How could it be otherwise? They have two legs, no tail, and an immortal soul. However degenerate they be, they are men.

I cannot help here recalling the answer of a French medical student, a member of the “Christian Federation of Students,” whom I had asked, twenty-five years ago, how he could reconcile his religious aspirations with his support of vivisection. “What conflict can there be between the two?” said he. “Christ did not die for guinea pigs and dogs.” I do not know what Christ would actually have said to that. The fact remains that, from the point of view of historical Christianity, the boy was right. And his answer is enough to disgust one forever with all man-centered creeds.

Man-centered creeds do not even enjoy that minimum of inner consistency which forces one sometimes to recognize a certain strength in a bad system of thought. Those who believe in them and who happen not to be by nature too irredeemably irrational, try to justify their point of view by saying that man, as a whole, is superior to the dumb beasts. He can speak, and they cannot. That is certain. He can speak, and subsequently he can define and deduce, and pass from one deduction to another. He can transfer to other people the conclusions of his reasoning and the results of his experience. He becomes more aware of his own thoughts by expressing them. In a word, he can do all that is only possible by means of a conventional system of symbolical sounds, which we call language and which beasts and birds do not possess. His very being is raised above the immediate needs of everyday life, and his mind rendered capable of evolution, by the use of such a system.

Anyone will agree that this is true to a great extent, though all may not necessarily see what relation there is between this human advantage of speech and the exploitation of dumb animals by man. It is more difficult to understand the privileged place which religions such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam give to man, when one remembers that the sacred books of those three famous creeds admit the existence of heavenly creatures far more beautiful and more intelligent than he, mainly of angels—creatures who need not wait for the day of resurrection to acquire a “glorious” body, but who are, here and now, in their raiment of light, free from disease, decay and death. They, and not the clumsy sons of Adam, should have been the ones for whom Nature and man were made, for it would seem, from whatever one can gather about them in the holy scripture, that angels are as much above men as the most brilliant men can claim to be above animals, and even more so.

Still, apparently God loves man the best. All human sinners can expect to be saved by his grace; while those poor angels who once, at the dawn of time, rebelled against their Maker under the leadership of Lucifer, have no other alternative but to remain damned forever. No Redeemer was ever sent to pay the ransom of their sin. No hope of salvation was ever given to them. No repentance of theirs, it seems, would be of any avail. Why? Goodness knows. They are not men, not God’s spoilt darlings. That is the only explanation one can give, if any can be given of old Father Jehovah’s strange justice and queer tastes. They are not men. Intelligent and beautiful as they may be, and full of endless possibilities for good no less than for evil if only they were given a chance, they are apparently not worth, in God’s eyes, the repentant drunkard who weeps aloud at the end of a Salvation Army meeting. God’s ways cannot be discussed. But then, don’t tell us that his love for man is “justified” by man’s superiority, and that the right he gave the chosen species to exploit the rest of his weaker creatures is founded on a reasonable basis. It is not. For, if it were, there would have been, in Paradise, a place for the repentant fallen angels, and at least as much joy for one of them as for the souls of ten thousand drunkards from the East End of London.

The real reason for this continual stress upon the welfare of man alone, in this world and in the next, seems to lie in God’s incapacity to transcend a certain puerile partiality—we speak, of course, of the personal God of the man-centered faiths rooted in Judaism, and not of that impersonal Power behind all existence, in which we are inclined to believe. The God of the Christians, the God of Islam, and the God of most of those later Free Thinkers who are not out and out atheists, never succeeded in shaking off completely the habits he once had when he was but the patron deity of a few tribes of desert wanderers, slaves in the land of the Pharaohs. He was able to raise himself from the rank of a national god to that of a God of all humanity. But that is all. His love seems to have been spent out in its extension from the “Chosen People” of Israel to the Chosen Species of mankind. He had not in him the urge to broaden his fatherly feelings still beyond those narrow limits. It never occurred to him how narrow they were in fact and how irrational, how mean, how all-too-human that childish preference for man was, in a God that is supposed to have made the Milky Way.

The bloodthirsty national gods of West-Asian Antiquity—once his rivals; now all dead—were more consistent in their narrowness. They limited their sphere to a town, or at the most to a country, and in cases of emergency accepted—some say: asked for—human victims as well as burnt offerings of animal flesh. Grim gods they were, most of them. But there was something outspoken and reassuring in their very limitations. One knew, with them, where one stood. One was not carried away in their name by prophets and saints who took one right along the path leading to universal love, only to leave one in the middle of it. The prophets of Jehovah might call them “abominations,” but they were consistent. So was Jehovah, as long as he remained merely the tribal god of the Jews.

Note

The title of these excerpts is editorial; the text was originally prepared and edited by Irmin Vinson of the Racial Nationalist Library.