It seems to me that I hear from all sides the objection that has been made to us from the very beginning of the Movement, from the very first speeches of the Master, from the first edition of the Book. I am quoting the words, written in black and white on page 507 of the Book, words which I too have recalled so many times, in public and private meetings, before, during and after the Second World War:
Political parties tend to compromise; the Weltanschauungen never do. Political parties take into consideration the opposition of possible opponents; the Weltanschauungen proclaim their own infallibility. 
If this is not the most cynical glorification of intolerance, what is? And I remember—and how!—from the response of all the enemies of National Socialism, from the enthusiasts of good Parliamentary Democracy to the most rabid Communists, also theoretical defenders of ‘human rights’, to the slightest suggestion of identical treatment of all ‘committed’, including the Hitlerites: ‘There can be no question of tolerating the intolerant…’
Are we really ‘intolerant’? And did the Führer, in the passage quoted, or elsewhere, exalt intolerance? Yes, he did. But it is not the same intolerance that I have tried to describe throughout the preceding pages. It is the response to it, the reaction against it, which is very different.
In ancient times, before the virus of Jewish intolerance was spread throughout the world, we were tolerant as well as racist, as were all the Indo-Europeans and all the peoples of the world, including the Jews themselves, before the great Mosaic reformation. I will say more: without it our Movement, with its intransigence and aggressiveness, would not have existed—would not have had any justification. For it can only be understood in an age of accelerated decadence.
It is the supreme, desperate reaction—the reaction of people who have nothing to lose, since whatever comes of their revolution cannot be worse than what they see around them—against this decadence. Now this decadence is, as I have tried to show, linked to two attitudes that complement each other: the superstition of ‘man’ and to the superstition of ‘happiness’. It is these two superstitions which give rise to intolerance of the type I have described above, not really ‘that of the Jews’ (with the exception, no doubt, of the prophets), but that of all the doctrines with roots in Judaism: that which the Jews use, after having aroused it in other peoples, to incite those peoples to fight for them, without even knowing it.
Intolerance can only be fought with the help of other intolerance based on another faith, just as terror can only be fought with terror: a terror exercised in the name of another idea.
Editor’s Note: I’ve already embedded a clip of the 1959 film Ben-Hur in a previous post, but it’s worth rewatching.
It is at this point that white nationalists err big time, as it is schizophrenic to try to awaken the masses of whites to the JQ and at the same time behave like Sextus, not like Messala: a revolutionary idea must be fought with another revolutionary idea.
Most white nationalists are so traitors to their race that they really think like Sextus (watch the clip: here).
We fight the intolerance of the devotees of ‘man’ and those thirsty for ‘happiness’—both directly born of Judaism, and the humanitarian rationalists with scientific pretensions, fed by the same two superstitions. We are fighting against it with our intolerance, which has arisen not from the naive desire to make all men happy in this world or any other, but from the will to keep pure and strong this human minority, the biological elite that our Aryan race represents, so that one day (probably after the end of the present time-cycle) a community may emerge which is as close to our idea of the overman—without faults or weaknesses—as the tigers are to the idea of the perfect feline.
It does not matter to us whether the individuals who make up this biological elite are ‘happy’ or ‘unhappy’! The Strong have no interest in personal happiness. Their function is to ensure, from generation to generation, both the continuity of the race in its beauty and virtues, in its health, and the continuity of faith in natural values. The pride they feel in fulfilling this function, and the pleasure of defying those who would draw them to other tasks, must suffice for their ‘happiness’.
Happiness in the sense that the vast majority of people in consumer societies understand it, i.e., material comfort plus the satisfactions of the senses and the heart, is good for the beasts who, deprived of the word, and therefore of the possibility of looking back on themselves, feel no particular pride in fulfilling their functions and have neither ideological adversaries to harass, nor ‘re-educators’ to challenge. It is, as I said at the beginning, their right. Even the ‘man’ of the inferior races should disdain to seek it—all the more so the average Aryan, and especially the Strong.
Moreover, our intolerance, like that of the orthodox Hindus, is manifested on the plane of life, of action, not on that of pure thought, for we do not believe that the basic propositions of our Weltanschauung are true: we know it. We are undoubtedly irritated by those uninformed people who persist in denying them—those who, for example, proclaim loudly that ‘race does not exist’.
We feel no more hostility towards them than towards madmen who go away repeating that two and two make five. We see that if we add two pebbles to two pebbles, and count the whole, we inevitably find four pebbles. And although this belongs to another order of ideas—the domain of natural science, and not to that of mathematics—we also see, and very clearly, that there are, among all the people who are called Indo-Europeans, or Aryans, common, well-defined traits. That some fools—or parrots, repeating what they have been fed on television by anti-racist propaganda—deny this does not change the facts. It is not to ‘save’ these fools, or parrots, from error, for the sake of their souls, or out of respect for their ‘reason’, that we would crack down on them if we had the power to do so, but only to prevent the repercussions their speeches might have in society, and especially among the young.
Their ‘reason’ is so unreasonable—and so little ‘theirs’!—that we have no respect for them. And we are not interested in the fate of their souls, if they have any. But the survival of our race—still so beautiful, wherever it has remained more or less pure—and the possibilities of assertion and action that a future, however threatening it may seem, interest us deeply. It is in the name of these that we would, if we had the power, take ruthless measures against them. In a society long since imbued with our spirit, in which every anti-racist, egalitarian, pacifist statement, contrary to the divine wisdom of Nature—every expression of the superstition of ‘man’—would be received with irresistible laughter, like a crude fairground joke, or with total indifference, even more deadly, perhaps we would not take action against our adversaries, but would let them yap all they want. They would not be dangerous, and would soon tire of it.
 Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, German edition 1935, p. 507.
4 replies on “Reflections of an Aryan woman, 10”
The below passage is from the book ‘Hitler’s Religion: The Twisted Beliefs that Drove the Third Reich’ by Richard Weikart.
//Worse yet, he[Hitler] actually threatened to obliterate Christianity later in the second volume[of Mein Kampf]. After calling Christianity fanatically intolerant for destroying other religions, Hitler explained that Nazism would have to be just as intolerant to supplant Christianity:
“A philosophy filled with infernal intolerance will only be broken by a new idea, driven forward by the same spirit, championed by the same mighty will, and at the same time pure and absolutely genuine in itself. The individual may establish with pain today that with the appearance of Christianity the first spiritual terror entered in to the far freer ancient world, but he will not be able to contest the fact that since then the world has been afflicted and dominated by this coercion, and that coercion is broken only by coercion, and terror only by terror. Only then can a new state of affairs be constructively created.” (Mein Kampf, Chapter V)
Hitler’s anti-Christian sentiment shines through clearly here, as he called Christianity a “spiritual terror” that has “afflicted” the world. Earlier in the passage, he also argued Christian intolerance was a manifestation of a Jewish mentality, once again connecting Christianity with the people he most hated. Even more ominously, he called his fellow Nazis to embrace an intolerant worldview so they could throw off the shackles of Christianity. He literally promised to visit terror on Christianity. Even though several times later in life, especially before 1934, Hitler would try to portray himself as a pious Christian, he had already blown his cover.
Hitler’s tirade against Christianity in Mein Kampf, including the threat to demolish it, diverged remarkably from his normal public persona. He was usually more circumspect, refraining from open criticism of Christianity. However, many of his colleagues testified that Hitler’s personal opinion about Christianity did not match his hypocritical public stance; Hitler, for his part, thought religion itself was hypocritical.//
Very important issue, thanks.
In spite of the fact that Richard Weikart is ideologically an enemy, he is infinitely more honest about Hitler’s anti-Christianity than Richard Carrier. I guess I’ll have to get a copy of Weikart’s book…
You should get his book, Richard Weikart clearly proves Hitler’s religion was Pantheism, where Hitler saw Nature itself as being a God, which issues commandments, that is Nature’s Law.
What I really like about the Führer is that he never blamed the victor, the least of all victorious tactics. And Christianity did triumph for millennia, although not for long anymore, as the death of its host race draws near.