web analytics
Racial right

Intelligent Christians unconsciously know

As we saw recently in one of Savitri Devi’s texts, it was precisely the Jews and intelligent Christians who understood that National Socialism was the paradigm that would replace the old one, which is why Jews and Christians (the latter are artificial Jews) feared it so much.

In my own journey, it was a discussion thread in Occidental Dissent that woke me up to the question of the historical Hitler, as opposed to the Hitler of the dogma of our times. (I had previously believed the ubiquitous propaganda about the Nazis in the media, TV documentaries and movies.)

Ten years ago I wrote:

Last year I received my first lesson on the “H man” in a blog that does not promote him at all (Occidental Dissent: here). On the contrary, most OD-ers believe that any mention of NS Germany in WN circles is a non-starter. Like most OD-ers, for decades I had swallowed too the accepted, post-1945 wisdom about the NS state and purchased books on the subject only with the PC imprimatur. But in that Occidental Dissent discussion I witnessed for the first time in my life a vigorous exchange that would be unthinkable in other blogs, let alone in the MSM.

The discussion ended in a sort of draw or stalemate when a Jewess intervened with silly posts, but I learnt more in a couple of days than what I had previously learned about NS by reading books, or watching the History Channel.

Alas, the editor of Occidental Dissent, Brad Griffin, deleted that article, published on the Führer’s anniversary in 2010 by one of his close associates: an article titled ‘Open thread – Adolf Hitler’.

I mention this because the redpill that began to wake me up to the real world regarding Uncle Adolf was deleted by the same editor of one of the most popular sites of American white nationalism. For example, it was in that discussion thread that Greg Johnson posted a long quote from Irmin Vinson demystifying almost all the negative claims about Uncle Adolf that the media has sold us.

As Thomas Khun said, paradigms are not destroyed: they are replaced. Intelligent Christians know that National Socialism can potentially replace Christianity as the Weltanschauung of the white race, and along with the Jews in the MSM they, even today’s racialists, strive so that this won’t happen.

9 replies on “Intelligent Christians unconsciously know”

National Socialism is indeed a religion.
Please go through this: i[]ibb[]co/2tZ8y0D/image[]png

Replcae ‘[]’ with ‘.’ (dot).

The specific page is a review written by the theologian by Irving Hexham titled ‘Inventing ‘Paganists’: A Close Reading of Richard Steigmann-Gall’s The Holy, Reich’Irving Hexham’.
You can read it from Jstor.

This was a scholarly refutation to the DUBIOUS book titled ‘The Holy Reich’ by a Jew named Richard Steigmann-Gall who tried his best to prove NS was Christian, but a number of researchers/scholars have absolutely debunked his BASELESS claims.

I would also recommend you to read ‘A Strange Obsession with Nazi Christianity A Critical Comment on Richard Steigmann-Gall’s The Holy Reich’ by Manfred Gaulius.

Anyway, the whole point of my comment is NS was itself was religious movement on its own.
“What does Christianity mean today? National Socialism is a religion. All we lack is a religious genius capable of uprooting outmoded religious practices and putting new ones in their place. We lack tradition and ritual. One day soon National Socialism will be the religion of all Germans. My party is my church and I believe I serve the Lord best if I do his will, and liberate my oppressed people from the fetters of slavery. That is my gospel” ~ Goebbels, Tagebücher, Part 1, Vol. 1/3, p.103 (entry for 16 Oct. 1928)

Next time just add the bare URL. If you don’t know how to properly link it—I hate bare URLs, they look bad even in comment threads—I’ll do it for you.

The Germans are just too intelligent to accept Christianity and they are too honest to pretend to accept Christianity. Hypocrisy is not a part of the Aryan character; of the Aryan soul.

Erasmus of Rotterdam was Dutch, and Luther, another German, called him an “atheist”. Erasmus was taught Greek and Latin by the best students of Ancient dead languages that the world has ever known: the Germans. Bavarian scholars even reconstructed Old Irish Gaelic.

Erasmus wrote in a High Classical, almost Ciceronian style, of Latin, and this angered the Christian Church who wrote in a vulgar proto-Italian medieval style that made the Classicist, Revilo P. Oliver, wince in disgust.

Germany and the Nordic countries, were the last to be conquered by Christianity, and the first to leave Christianity with the Reformation.

Erasmus, Luther, Gesenius, Bauer, Drews, Goethe, Kaiser Frederick; the Tübingen school; the Dutch radicals… et al. et al.

Christianity is a puerile and sordid Jewish mythology, that the best of Germany has always seen through; that the best of Germany has never been deceived by.

I was watching a debate on the KJV. The buffoon IFB Preacher correctly said that Germany, as a nation, “hated the word of God”. Germany invented higher and lower biblical textual criticism.

Even World War 1 could be seen as a Christian Holy War against the Germans, who had largely abandoned Christianity in favour of philosophies like Transcendentalism and Existentialism.

There are Christian sermons that support this view. Andrew Seidel writes about this in his The Founding Myth (2019), which, even though it is written from a leftist, Anti-white perspective, nevertheless clearly exposes what a corrosive and destructive force political Christianity is in any nation.

> ‘and the first to leave Christianity with the Reformation’.

What do you mean? They merely changed trust in the papacy for trust in the Bible. Have you read what Nietzsche wrote about German Christianity by the end of The Antichrist? I’ve quoted it several times on this site.

Today’s secular Xtianity in Sweden has reached its peak. Guilt. Guilt. Guilt! Even Jews like Ezra Levant recognise this in his former TV channel.

Christopher Hitchens said that Protestantism’s argumentsagainst Catholic Christianity are better than their arguments for Protestant Christianity. Whether the reformers intended it or not, I think that Protestantism is a step towards unbelief.

Luther said that if he be not convinced of a doctrine through the Scriptures or through reason then he cannot accept it.

I agree with Nietzsche that in the Short Term, they made Northern Europe more Christian… however, Northern Europe today is unbelieving. Any kind of dogmatic or evangelical Christianity is long dead in Northern Europe. The birth-countries of the Reformation: England, Switzerland, Germany, Holland and Scandinavia, are hardly bastions of Christian orthodoxy.

I agree with you that Secular Hyperchristianity is still Christianity… but I think that a nation probably has to go through this phase before it rejects Christian axiology altogether.

> ‘Christopher Hitchens said that Protestantism’s arguments against Catholic Christianity are better than their arguments for Protestant Christianity’.

Have you watched Kenneth Clark’s episode on the Counter-Reformation in his 1969 Civilisation? He says that the Roman Church responded not through pamphlets but through Baroque images in Catholic art.

And Luther was an asshole. When he recognised that some NT verses contradicted each other (e.g., Judas hanged himself… or he threw himself off a cliff?) he simply ignored the problem and continued with his imbecile faith in the Bible.

Do you believe that white Aryans must embrace Adolf Hitler, even if individually they disagree with him and/or dislike him, in much the way that Christians must embrace Jesus even if they disagree with him intellectually? This may seem a paradoxical question, but we often love and yearn for the things we dislike or that repel us.

In other words, if National Socialism is a religion in itself, is Hitler the Jungian counterpoint to Jesus, to be embraced as the final step in the rejection of alien Christian moral grammar in favour of Aryan morality?

Simply put, Christ represents the ego, Hitler represents the shadow that must be embraced and then actualised in a living and breathing social practice that is erotic, vital, racially-antagonistic, violent and life-affirming.

This slightly reminds me of how many Germans agreed with Hitler’s anti-Semitism in principle, but still tried to protect their totally good Jewish friends. The hatred of the Jews and the veneration of the Führer are useful litmus tests. Hitler himself might have held extraordinary opinions on Charles Martel, and yet he nevertheless admired the Spaniards for having expelled the Moors.

In a word, an alien visiting Earth would be bewildered on finding a race of Aryans explicitly hating one of their great warriors.

>”Hitler himself might have held extraordinary opinions on Charles Martel”

I think you mistaking Charlemagne with Charles Martel, as far as I know, Hitler speculated that if Charles Martel had lost the Battle of Tours, then Germany would have adopted Mohammadesim, which would have been much better for Germans than Christianity and Germans would have fared well in the world history according to Hitler.

Hitler had a good opinion about Charlemagne, not Charles Martel, the reason Hitler had a good opinion about Charlemagne was not because of Christianization, but because he unified the various Germanic Tribe.
Hitler talked about this in one of his speeches, in the same speech he recognized Christianity as being a foreign idealogy.

“This conglomerate of Aryan-Nordic-Germanic tribes later had no feeling for a real political community. It was only gradually, partly through artificial methods, by exercising the urge to rule of individuals and by accepting ideas that were partly FOREIGN to them, that a platform was created for bringing the tribes together. This is the age of a truly Christian mission in which Christianity gradually created a certain common basis in place of innumerable diverging ideals, interests, languages, that is to say better: dialects; unintentionally and unconsciously, as not intended by the driving forces. The result was the attempt, and in part also the success of the founding of German states. This process has not been painless.” ~ Adolf Hitler – speech at the Ordensburg Sonthofen Allgäu, November 22, 1937, cited in Hitlers Tischgespräche im Führerhauptquartier 1941–1942, Bundesarchiv, Koblenz (F 5/EW 68 368–68 400)

In the above when Hitler says “ideas that were partly FOREIGN”, he clearly refers to the doctrine of Christianity.

Comments are closed.