web analytics

Category: God

Categories
Exterminationism God Kali Yuga

Moloch = Yahweh


In the seminal essay ‘The Red Giant’ a Swede said:

Secular Christianity has thrown out god and Christ, but keeps the Christian ethics (inversion of values etc.). And the Christian ethics actually gets heightened and unfettered in Secular Christianity (I have written much about that in my blog). With Christ as part of the equation, the Christian ethics of the Gospels became balanced. Humans were seen as imperfect and it was Christ who covered for us with his self-sacrifice. In Secular Christianity each person has to be like Jesus himself, doing self-sacrifice, since there’s no other way to realize Christian ethics. On top of that, with the Industrial Revolution and the surplus it created in our societies, we came to the point where all the good deeds of Christian ethics could finally be executed by giving off our surplus to all the poor and weak foreign people around the world: food, Western medicine, and other aid.

And on pages 131ff of my Day of Wrath I introduced my readers to psychohistory, which includes this paragraph:

The culture that the Europeans brought included family violence. But unlike them, in the conquered people the anxieties that the children arose, based in turn on the abuses the natives had suffered as children, were enough to kill the source that triggered the anxiety. Children have been in the garbage bin where the adults dump the unrecognised parts of their psyches. It is expected that the child bin will absorb the ill moods of his custodians to prevent the adult feels overwhelmed by her anxieties. If I murder the soul of my son I thus kill the naughty child that once inhabited me.

The Aryan neo-Christian, after WW2, always prefers self-sacrifice to his race. That is the defence mechanism that kills the source that triggered his anxiety after WW2 propaganda took hold of his psyche. He always chooses this new Moloch who used to make self-sacrifice by roasting his firstborn alive rather than perpetuating his race openly (perpetuating as the Germans of the Third Reich did).

Why do they make this sacrifice? Because their false self was structured with the new foundational myth after that war. But why this dominance of the false self if the white man before WW2 had a reasonable self-image? Why today’s zeitgeist always throws away the Aryan, sacrifices, annihilates and denies him and chooses the anti-Nazi fiction that covers the collective unconscious today?

Because the false self that virtually every Aryan has installed today is a Semitic malware, a parental deity in the collective unconscious since Constantine but only now fully triumphed. It is a Moloch that demands a tribute of Aryan blood, and the Aryans, including the white nationalists who continue to worship the god of the Jews, offer this blood constantly. (Remember that these nationalists are completely unable to distinguish between mudblood and Aryan precisely because of the Semitic malware that has taken hold of them.) And this Semitic Moloch demands not just one but an infinity of sacrifices, and won’t be satiated until the extinction of the white man is accomplished.

It all originated with our stupid Christian parents installing this Semitic malware in our psyches from our early childhoods. Secular liberalism in its Wokist phase is a missionary religion, like that of the Jew Saul (St Paul). Both Jewry and white Wokery try to convert others to sacrifice Aryan blood to this new Moloch and even the followers, once they fall into this cult, are sacrificed as they will leave no white offspring. Everything is done to fulfil the unquenchable, voracious thirst of this new Moloch whose strength is none other than the post-WW2 foundational myth.

This false self is the new God of the white man. It is the religion of the second part of the 20th century and the first part of the 21st century. It is a new divinity. The Aryan has to sacrifice himself to this new voracious God: sacrifice his true self. It is a human sacrifice: the false self (Wokism) replaces the true self (Nazism), and a new covenant is sealed between the Aryan and the Semitic god who wants to exterminate him. That covenant is perfectly antithetical to the covenant between the Semitic god and Abraham, who promised him and his descendants that their offspring would be as abundant as the stars (the old covenant). From the moment of the new covenant a religion was created: the religion of exterminating the Aryan on the initiative of the Aryan himself who always obeys the god of the Jews, including white nationalists.

Wokism (i.e. atheistic hyper-Christianity), I said, is a missionary religion. They try to convince you, Aryan man, that it is your duty to disappear from the face of the earth. Like the Muslims during their first conquests, they give you two choices: submit to the new religion or die.

When I first entered the forums supposedly defending the West from the invasion of migrants, I encountered a non-Jew counter-jihadist Christian who believed that Jewish tradition was the antidote to this Moloch claimant. False. As I wrote in Day of Wrath:

In the past, the shadow of infanticide covered the world, but the Phoenicians and their biblical ancestors, the Canaanites, performed sacrifices that turn pale the Mesoamerican sacrifices of children.

The Tophet, located in the valley of Gehenna, was a place near Jerusalem where it is believed that children were burned alive to the god Moloch Baal. Later it became synonymous with hell, and the generic name ‘tophet’ would be transferred to the sacrificial site of the cemetery at Carthage and other Mediterranean cities like Motya, Tharros and Hadrumetum, where bones have been found of Carthaginian and Phoenician children.

According to a traditional reading of the Bible, stories of sacrifice by the Hebrews were relapses of the chosen people to pagan customs. Recent studies, such as Jon Levenson’s The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son: The Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity have suggested that the ancient Hebrews did not differ much from the neighbouring towns but that they were typical examples of the Semitic peoples of Canaan. The cult of Yahweh was only gradually imposed in a group while the cult of Baal was still part of the fabric of the Hebrew-Canaanite culture. Such religion had not been a syncretistic custom that the most purist Hebrews rejected from their ‘neighbour’ Canaanites: it was part of their roots.

The god of the Jews, the god of the Carthaginians and Phoenicians, the god who sacrificed Jesus, is ultimately the same odious thing. What we really need is an infinite hatred of all things Semitic, starting with Judeo-Christianity: the Trojan horse that brought this infection into our collective unconscious.

Categories
God Oracle of Delphi Roger Penrose

Delphi

There are ineffable things that cannot be communicated through reason.

The 14 words (aesthetics)

The day I visited Jez Turner and his London Forum group was the only time in my life that a reader of The West’s Darkest Hour, an artist I think, mentioned the Maxfield Parrish paintings I had added on the sidebar in the old incarnation of this site. No one else has mentioned that to me, presumably because the spiritual side of Aryan beauty, perfectly depicted in those idealised nymphs, can only be seen by a few.

One of the commenters who used to comment on this site, on the other hand, sent me an email in which he said, alluding to those paintings, that he was only turned on by the sight of women naked in erotic art! Unlike him, one of the nuclear engines that moves me to blog is that spiritual call, which far transcends the mere instinct, to the point of wanting to preserve those creatures for centuries to come.

The 4 words (ethics)

The 4 words, eliminate all unnecessary suffering, are also ineffable and complement the psychogenic emergency of he who already tends towards overhumanity. Like the 14 words, one cannot educate a subject in them: either you feel them or you don’t feel them from childhood. But the most serious thing is that the four words wrap up the fourteen words, as we can see in this email I sent to Roger Penrose in January:

I have just read your book The Large, the Small and the Human Mind where you say at the beginning that one can very well adopt the view that the Platonic world contains, besides mathematics, other ideas such as goodness and beauty. I have also been watching your videos and I was greatly impressed by a similar pronouncement of yours: that beauty encompasses mathematics and that goodness in turn may encompass beauty.

Just last year I finished my magnum opus that I started in 1988: a new genre of autobiography in several volumes. What struck me when I watched you on YouTube is that I came to the same conclusions about goodness and beauty but from this new literary genre that we could call ‘total autobiography.’ It seems as if the universe and the inner Self reflect each other, as the ancients Greeks used to say in the temple of Delphi.

‘Goodness’ is what I call the four words which, although it sounds very nice, is ultimately a call for extermination because the Neanderthals are producers en masse of an enormous amount of unnecessary suffering. So in a conflict between the 4 and the 14 words the Overman prioritises the four. Savitri Devi in her books, and the first thing Hitler and his henchmen did when he came to power (banning vivisection), gives a clue to what we mean. But the way I say it in my trilogy is more direct, frank and brutal than what the Nazis did or what Savitri wrote.

In a way that was not expected or regarded as likely, Penrose’s cosmology and total autobiography might be one and the same:

Know thyself and you shall know the universe and the Gods…

Categories
Axiology Ethnic cleansing Eugenics God Hitler's Religion (book) Miscegenation Racial right Richard Weikart

Hitler’s Religion: Chapter 10

On April 10, 1923, Hitler fulminated, “The liberation [of Germany] requires more than diligence; to become free requires pride, will, spite, hate, hate, and once again, hate.” A year earlier, he told a Munich crowd, “Christianity prescribes to us faith, hope and love. Love and hope cannot help us; only faith can, because it begets the will.” Hitler preached hate, spurned Christian love, and later ordered the murder of millions of innocent [sic] people, including Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, and people with disabilities.

 

______ 卐 ______

 

Note of the Editor: This is where we see the gulf between me and not only the author of Hitler’s Religion, but with white nationalists who don’t know how to hate to the point of becoming exterminationists.

 

______ 卐 ______

 

The notion that Hitler was a Nietzschean promoting an aristocratic morality and spurning the so-called slave morality of Christianity was a position already popularized in the 1930s and 1940s by Hermann Rauschning, a Nazi leader who jumped ship well before Hitler launched his war of aggression and genocide. Rauschning became a vociferous critic of Hitler from exile. On the basis of his personal contacts with Hitler, he claimed Hitler was an “Antichrist” waging a “deliberately planned battle against the dignified, immortal foundation of human society; the message from Mount Sinai.” Rauschning called this “Hitler’s Battle Against the Ten Commandments.” According to Rauschning, Hitler said he was fighting against “the curse of so-called morals, idolized to protect the weak from the strong in the face of the immortal law of battle, the great law of divine nature. Against the so-called ten commandments [sic], against them we are fighting.” Rauschning’s work is controversial and must be used cautiously, because he is not always accurate in his description of Hitler’s religious and philosophical stance. Nonetheless, it is interesting he intimated that Hitler’s religious position was either pantheistic or at least close to pantheism, since he put the words “divine nature” in Hitler’s mouth. He also testified that Hitler stated, “For our Volk it is decisive, whether they uphold the Jewish Christian faith with its morality of sympathy, or a strong heroic faith in God in nature, in God in one’s own Volk, in God in one’s own destiny, in one’s own blood.”

More recently, the German philosopher Gunnar Heinsohn has taken Rauschning’s position even further, arguing that the reason Hitler wanted to annihilate the Jews was to extinguish their moral teaching promoting the sanctity of life. No doubt Heinsohn is correct when he explains that Hitler embraced a social Darwinist position that was the polar opposite of Judaism’s ethics, which forbade murder and enjoined loving one’s neighbor. However, the problems with Heinsohn’s position are legion. First, most Christians believe in the Ten Commandments, too, and the prohibition against murder is just as pronounced in the Christian tradition as in Judaism, so why didn’t Hitler kill all Christians in his zeal to eliminate this ethical code?
 

______ 卐 ______

 

Note of the Editor: As Savitri Devi said, Hitler was one thing, Kalki will be another…

 

______ 卐 ______

 

When Hitler pursued policies that most of us consider evil, he was not, in his mind, abandoning moral considerations. On the contrary, he was convinced that what he was doing was not only morally justified, but morally praise-worthy.

I argued this point extensively in my previous book, Hitler’s Ethic: The Nazi Pursuit of Evolutionary Progress, where I identify Hitler’s ethical position as a racist form of evolutionary ethics. Hitler believed that whatever promoted evolutionary progress was morally good, and anything that hindered progress or led to biological degeneration was reprehensible. In his view, any moral system, code, or commandments must be judged according to how it contributes to the biological advancement (or regression) of humanity. His belief that the Aryan or Nordic race was superior to all other races led him to this corollary: Whatever benefits the Nordic race is moral. Wolfgang Bialas’s recent analysis of Nazi ethics agrees largely with this interpretation of Hitler’s thought. Bialas states, “The Nazi worldview clearly had an ethical dimension, rooted in notions of an evolutionary ethic that legitimized the struggle for existence.” Indeed, so many historians have argued that social Darwinism was a central tenet of Nazi ideology that this idea is considered commonplace.

Since Hitler based his ethical views on natural laws, especially evolutionary laws, this means that Christian ethics were not sacrosanct. Some elements of Christian morality might, in Hitler’s view, comport with the laws of nature and thus be valid. Other Christian commandments, however, needed to be discarded as relics of the benighted, prescientific past. Indeed, many historians have noted the fundamentally anti-Christian thrust of Hitler’s ethics. Alan Bullock, an early biographer of Hitler, explains, “In Hitler’s eyes Christianity was a religion fit only for slaves; he detested its ethics in particular. Its teaching, he declared, was a rebellion against the natural law of selection by struggle and the survival of the fittest.” Another biographer, Joachim Fest, notes that Hitler wanted to replace Judeo-Christian morality with the “indubitable will of Nature.” Claudia Koonz, in her insightful study titled The Nazi Conscience, argues that Nazism preached and practiced a coherent moral ideology that was an “absolutist secular faith” contrary to Christianity. The Holocaust historian Robert Wistrich also stresses the anti-Christian character of the Nazi moral vision, stating, “For at the heart of Nazism, despite its cunning pretense of ‘positive Christianity,’ there was a deep-seated rejection of the entire civilization that had been built on Judeo-Christian ethics.” Ulf Schmidt, who specializes in the history of medicine and medical ethics under Nazism, likewise interprets Nazi ideology as a departure from Christian moral teaching. He asserts, “Nazism reveals a fundamental break with Judeo-Christian ethics, an attack against a traditional belief system based on altruism and compassion”…

By the time he made this statement in October 1941, German physicians following his orders had murdered over 70,000 Germans with disabilities, and German killing squads operating in Soviet territories had massacred multitudes of Jews and communist officials…

Another way that Hitler’s morality diverged from Christian norms was that he ignored or reinterpreted what Jesus called the most important commandment: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength.” Hitler did love nature, so perhaps in some sense he did love his pantheistic God. However, Jesus was quoting from the Old Testament, where the Lord specified was Yahweh. Hitler certainly did not love that God, whom he identified as the God of the Jews.

Further, Hitler continually insisted that God was inscrutable and unknowable, unlike in Christianity, where one could cultivate a personal, loving relationship with Him. One cannot communicate with the impersonal kind of God that Hitler believed in. (I do not give much weight to Hitler’s public invocations to God in his speeches, since they seem to have been intended for his audience, not as a sincere effort to communicate with God.) In any case, Hitler never encouraged people to love God and cultivate a relationship with Him, so whatever positions he took on other questions of ethics, he missed the central tenet of Christian morality…

What Hitler thought he discovered through reason was that nature was ruled by the struggle for existence, and humans could not escape this natural law. He believed that the struggle for existence had produced everything, including humanity, and would continue to lead to biological progress. Gilmer Blackburn expresses a view widely shared by historians when he explains the primacy of struggle in Hitler’s worldview: “If the Nazi dictator entertained convictions that could be termed ‘religious,’ his creed began and ended with the struggle for existence.” In Hitler’s view, then, morality consisted of submitting to the universal law of the struggle for existence by fighting one’s enemies and triumphing—or else perishing —in the contest. Only through this struggle could humanity thrive and progress. Trying to evade the struggle would only lead to decline and biological degeneration.
 

______ 卐 ______

 

Note of the Editor: What to make of the pacifism of Greg Johnson and other white nationalist pundits, for whom the concept of Holy Racial Wars is anathema?

 

______ 卐 ______

 

He then scoffed at those who thought they could contravene the laws of nature and extinguish the instinct for preservation: “For only then [if the self-preservation instinct could be eliminated] could one try to implement the statutes of a League of Nations or the Geneva Convention, in the place of the law of the all-powerful nature (Allgewalt Natur) that has been valid since the beginning of all life on this earth.” He then asserted that the “unbreakable laws of nature” will continue to hold sway over the struggle for existence between humans in the future. Hitler’s use of the term “all-powerful nature” (Allgewalt Natur) implies pantheism, since it ascribes to nature a characteristic—omnipotence— exclusive to deity. Further, he clearly invoked natural laws, especially the struggle for existence, as the arbiter of morality…“Whether man agrees to or rejects this harsh law makes absolutely no difference,” he said. “Man cannot change it; whoever tries to withdraw from this struggle for life does not erase the law but only the basis of his own existence”…

Hitler deduced two key principles from the need to wage the struggle for existence: the right to destroy those who are weaker and the right to take living space, i.e., land, from them. These themes reverberate through many of Hitler’s speeches and writings, and found their ultimate fulfillment in his genocidal policies during World War II…

In another passage in Mein Kampf which addresses the need to promote population expansion, he articulated the social Darwinist perspective that this process would result in the weak perishing in the competition for limited resources… He then spelled out the consequences of his pro-natalist policy more clearly: “A stronger race will drive out the weak, for the vital urge in its ultimate form will, time and again, burst all the absurd fetters of the so-called humanity of individuals, in order to replace it by the humanity of Nature which destroys the weak to give his place to the strong”…

In the struggle for existence in nature, many organisms are exterminated, so, Hitler queried, why should we suppose that this would be different for human races, some of which are not far separated from apes? Hitler warned against moralizing about this struggle or the destruction of the inferior creatures of the earth (such as other human races), stating, “On this earth the right of the stronger holds sway, the right of struggle and the right of victory; if you think that rights prevail, then you are deceiving yourself.” The struggle is good in itself, Hitler claimed, because it prevents degeneration, which would otherwise occur…

During World War II, Hitler continually justified his genocidal policies by appealing to the laws of nature, especially in “secret speeches” given to military cadets and officers. (Some of these “secret speeches” had thousands in attendance; in this respect, they were hardly secret. However, they are called “secret speeches” because they were not open to the general public and not published at the time, as many of Hitler’s speeches were.) In May 1944, Hitler lectured his military leadership about the reasons they needed to be relentlessly harsh in the war. Hitler insisted that nature knows nothing of tolerance, but rather eliminates the weak:

“There is no tolerance in nature. Nature is, if I take ‘tolerant’ as a human concept, the most intolerant thing that has ever existed. It destroys everything that is not capable of living, that will not or cannot defend itself; it eliminates them…”

Later in this speech, Hitler broached the topic of his harsh anti-Jewish policies, and though he did not specifically mention the mass extermination of the Jews, he certainly implied it. He insisted that his policy of “driving out” the Jews was “just as nature does it, not brutal, but rational, in order to preserve the better ones [i.e., the Germans].” He then answered those who might wonder if this could have been accomplished in a less cruel fashion: “We stand in a struggle for life and death.” Anything that helped the Aryans preserve their race in this struggle was morally right, Hitler informed them. Thus, cruelty, oppression, murder, and even genocide were morally justified, in his view, if they advanced the cause of the German people.

During his Nuremberg Party Congress address in 1929, Hitler indicated one of the corollaries to his view that the strong should prevail over the weak: infanticide for those deemed inferior. He hoped to take the “natural process of selection” into his own hands if he came to power by “acting deliberately according to racial laws.” He then praised Sparta for having practiced infanticide, and he criticized modern European societies for setting up institutions to care for the weak and sickly…

By killing approximately 200,000 disabled Germans during World War II, Hitler thought he was pleasing God.

When Hitler spoke about the triumph of the stronger in the struggle for existence, he was of course rooting for the home team: the German people, whom he believed to be racially superior, because they had substantial portions of so-called Aryan or Nordic racial elements in their blood. Though at times Hitler called the German Volk a creation of God and indeed “the highest image of the Lord,” on many other occasions he actually deified the German Volk. In his May Day speech in 1923, he told his audience that National Socialists needed to learn to love their Fatherland and Volk with a fanatical love that “allows no other idols beside it.” Seeing divinity in the German Volk is consistent with a pantheistic view, where God pervades everything.

Hitler’s devotion to the German Volk was in some ways even more pronounced than his devotion to the inscrutable God, because the German Volk was closer at hand. Hitler never quite figured out how to worship his unknowable Providence, but he did find ways to serve the German people (or, at least, he thought he was serving them). He often claimed that the German Volk was supreme on this earth and the object of his complete faith and commitment. In October 1935, he denied that he was subject to anyone except his own conscience. Then he continued, “And this conscience has but one single commander (Befehlsgeber): our Volk!” Two days earlier, he made a similar statement: “The Volk alone is our Lord (Herr), and we serve this Volk according to our best knowledge and conscience.” Both these statements would be blasphemous for anyone believing in a monotheistic god that transcends the German Volk. If Hitler had been a monotheist, he should have confessed God as the commander of his conscience, not the Volk. If he were a Christian, he should have confessed Jesus as his Lord.

 

______ 卐 ______

 

Note of the Editor: If white nationalists had their race as their God and not Jesus, they would celebrate Uncle Adolf’s birthday every April 20, not Jesus’ putative birthday. Think of Parrish’s Daybreak painting on this site to see what we mean by God: not just any kind of life but the most sublime, including majestic Nature.

 

______ 卐 ______

 

Just a few days after he came to power in February 1933, he preached to his fellow Germans that the Volk was the highest value they could pursue. They were engaged in a struggle in which the goal was “the preservation of this Volk and this soil, the preservation of this Volk for the future, in the realization that this alone can constitute our reason for being”…

Hitler served a God and cultivated a conscience that did not care if some people were exterminated in the global struggle for existence. His God only cared about the strongest, the ablest, and the most intelligent—and Hitler was convinced that the German people embodied these traits better than any other race.

 

______ 卐 ______

 

Editor’s note: If the Western traitors had not thrown so much manure on Hitler’s memory, his words and not those of David Lane would be our sacred words, as Adolf’s precede Dave’s.
 

______ 卐 ______

 

How did Hitler’s vision of the supremacy of the German Volk and his utter disregard for other peoples fit into the Christian command to love your neighbor as yourself, which Jesus called the second most important commandment?… Hitler’s insistence that Germans should hate or harm their racial enemies, rather than love them, demonstrates once again his opposition to Christian morality…

When Hans Frank asked Hitler what he read at the Western Front during World War I, Hitler replied that at first he read the Gospels. Later, he gladly set them aside, he said, in part because “the story about turning the other cheek, when one receives a blow, is not a good prescription for the Front.” In December 1941, Goebbels recorded in his diary that Hitler rejected Christianity because of its Sermon on the Mount morality.

Christianity, Hitler claimed, “is Jewish in its entire essence. A religion that proceeds from the principle that one should love his enemies, may not kill, and must offer the left cheek when struck on the right one, is not suitable for a manly doctrine of defending one’s Fatherland. Christianity is in fact a doctrine of decay. For a modern person it deserves only intellectual disdain.”

Hitler’s contempt for Christian morality, including some of the Ten Commandments (such as the prohibition on killing), was palpable. Certainly many versions of Christianity had interpreted loving one’s enemies and turning the other cheek in such a way that did not apply to many areas of life, such as warfare. However, no one committed to Christian morality would directly criticize a commandment of Jesus—or one of the Ten Commandments—as Hitler did.

Not only did Hitler not consider other races part of the same moral community with the German Volk, but he also construed them as competitors in the racial struggle for existence. Thus he held that destroying people of other races is not only morally permissible, but morally good and right…

In 1933, Hitler could not publicly spell out what suppressing other races meant, because he was still trying hard to deceive the world into thinking he was a man of peace so he could remilitarize without outside interference. However, after the genocidal war on the Eastern Front was in full swing, Hitler divulged his racial philosophy in all its brutality to his entourage. In a monologue in October 1941, Hitler expounded his philosophy of conquest and racial annihilation. He planned to sift through the people in the conquered territories of the East to find racially desirable elements that could be preserved. However, Russians living in the cities “must completely die off. We need not have any pangs of conscience about this,” because “we do not have any responsibility toward these people.” The Germans’ task, Hitler asserted, was to settle these territories with Germans and treat the natives as American Indians had been treated.

Hitler denied, however, that he had any hatred for these people. Rather, he was acting with cool deliberation. He remarked, “I am approaching this matter ice-cold. I feel that I am only the executor of a historical will [i.e., a will guiding historical development]”… Hitler asserted: “Heaven only recognizes power.” He then sarcastically dismissed the “principle that all humans should love one another”…

Hitler considered expansionist warfare a part of the God-ordained racial struggle. This was a constant theme in Mein Kampf and in many of his speeches, especially during World War II. It was also the primary message of his Second Book, where he claimed that the earth is not given once and for all to anyone, but rather is on loan from Providence to those courageous enough to take possession of it and strong enough to hold onto it. Once again, Hitler thought the stronger race had God on its side, even as it crushed the weaker. “Therefore,” he asserted, “every healthy native people sees nothing sinful in the acquisition of land, but rather something natural.” The “modern pacifist,” he continued, “who repudiates this most holy right” lives off past injustices.
 

______ 卐 ______

 

Editor’s note: Once more: Johnson et al…

 

______ 卐 ______

 
In a December 1940 speech, Hitler enunciated similar social Darwinist themes that virtually quoted from his Second Book and reiterated major points he made in Mein Kampf. People ignore these wise but harsh laws at their peril, according to Hitler, because those not strong enough to prevail in the struggle have forfeited their right to exist.

In a monologue in October 1941, Hitler contrasted his philosophy of expansionist warfare with Christianity. He presented war as essentially a struggle over land and resources, and, as he did so often in other venues, justified killing in warfare by appealing to the pitiless struggle in nature. War, he stated, “corresponds to the principle in nature, ever to bring about selection through struggle: The law of existence demands uninterrupted killing, so that the better will live. Christianity is rebellion against this fundamental principle, a protest against the creation; followed consistently, it would lead to the breeding of the inferior”…

Hitler’s belief that nature imposed a moral imperative to expand the population had profound implications for his views on sexual morality. His pro-natalist sexual morality had some points of contact with traditional Christian views, since the Catholic Church opposed contraception, abortion, prostitution, and homosexuality. However, Hitler’s opposition was based on entirely different premises. Hitler only opposed them to the extent that they interfered with increasing the number of healthy Nordic babies, which was the ultimate goal of his sexual morality. In the case of contraception and abortion, Hitler favored contraception and abortion for those deemed biologically inferior. In July 1933, Hitler passed a decree that resulted in the compulsory sterilization of about 350–400,000 Germans with disabilities. While prohibiting abortion for healthy Germans, abortions for Germans with disabilities were required, and Jews and other racial “undesirables” were allowed to practice abortion.

One of the most important commandments in Hitler’s sexual morality was thou shalt not mix your blood with other races. While the Catholic Church forbade intermarriage between Catholics and non-Catholics, Hitler forbade intermarriage and sexual relations between Germans and Jews, regardless of their religious convictions.
 

______ 卐 ______

 

Note of the Editor: As my ancestors were Spanish, I am fascinated by the origins of the tragedy of ancient Hispania. When the values were standing, the Visigoths burned at the stake those who interbred with the Iberian mudbloods. That all changed with what the Visigothic king Recceswinth did, who, being duped by the Christians, transvalued the most vital value: from trying to keep the bloodline pure to what would become in Spain the burning at the stake of heretics. The astronomic blunder of Recceswinth dates back to the 7th century. Weikart, as a good Christian, lives under the sky of the inverted values bequeathed to us by Christianity; so in this passage, and his book in general, he sees everything in a photographic negative (as does every Christian and neochristian in the West who condemns Hitlers’ eugenics).

 

______ 卐 ______

 

For Hitler, it was a sin— punishable by law after the Nuremberg Laws were promulgated in 1935— for a Catholic of Aryan descent to marry a Catholic with Jewish grandparents. Hitler also forbade intermarriage of Germans with Slavs but encouraged German intermarriage with the Norwegians or Dutch, because they were deemed fellow Nordic peoples…

Goebbels noted that Hitler was not prudish but viewed sexual morality from an entirely different perspective than Christians did. Hitler thought, “We must also view this question [sexual morality] from the standpoint of its utility for the Volk. That is our morality.” The main point, according to Hitler, was to get as many children as possible for the Volk.

Because he favored marriage and procreation, Hitler was incensed that the Catholic Church taught celibacy for priests and nuns. In his view, this robbed the German people of its potential and weakened it in its struggle with other races. In October 1941, Hitler lamented that Catholicism encouraged some women to forgo marriage. However, even more important than marriage, Hitler intoned, was that women bear children: “Nature doesn’t care at all, whether before-hand a declaration is made in the presence of witnesses! Nature wants the woman to have a child.” This demonstrates once again that, for Hitler, nature dictated morality. In this case, the morality it dictated was that extramarital sexual relations were perfectly fine, as long as they resulted in more healthy German babies.

Categories
God Hans F. K. Günther Hitler's Religion (book) Martin Bormann Nordicism Richard Weikart Roger Penrose

Hitler’s Religion: Chapter 8

Editor’s Note: We will now read excerpts from ‘Who was Hitler’s Lord?’, the eighth chapter of Hitler’s Religion by Richard Weikart:
 

______ 卐 ______

 

One of the most famous quotations from Hitler’s Mein Kampf is, “Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.” Some construe this to mean Hitler believed in the Christian God and saw his war fighting against Jews as part of a religious battle that had been waged for centuries. Even though Hitler did not overtly appeal to Christianity in this statement, his use of the terms “Almighty Creator” and “Lord” would have been understood by many of his contemporaries (and those who currently ignore Hitler’s many anti-Christian utterances) as the Christian God. Anti-Semites in the Catholic or Protestant churches would have applauded him for doing “the work of the Lord.”

Nonetheless, there are major problems with suggesting that this statement indicates Hitler’s Lord was the Christian God. The aim of Hitler’s anti-Semitism—the “Lord’s work” he thought he was doing—was radically different from the goal of traditional Christian anti-Semitism (as mentioned in chapter six). The context itself suggests Hitler had some other kind of God in mind. Hitler was fulminating against the “Jewish doctrine of Marxism,” which he thought “rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature.” In the sentence immediately preceding his famous quotation about doing the work of the Lord, Hitler stated, “Eternal Nature inexorably avenges the infringement of her commands.” Four important points emerge from this. First, Hitler personified nature in this passage, ascribing to it characteristics that would normally be associated with God. Second, Hitler called nature eternal. If he thought nature existed forever, as this statement indicated, then the God he believed in could not have created nature sometime in the past. Thus Hitler’s God was not even a deistic, much less a theistic, God. The “Almighty Creator” he mentioned in the following sentence could not have created nature, making it highly probable that Hitler’s “Creator” was nature. Third, Hitler believed that nature’s commands defined morality, since he claimed nature issues commands…

Thus, the “Lord” on whose behalf Hitler was fighting the Jews was none other than nature deified. Samuel Koehne seems to agree with this interpretation, stating in a recent article, “At times he [Hitler] conflated this ‘divine will’ and ‘Nature,’ or the ‘commands’ of ‘Eternal Nature’ and the ‘will of the Almighty Creator.’” When Hitler called nature eternal in Mein Kampf, this was not just a slip of the pen (or typewriter). He referred to nature as eternal on several occasions throughout his career…

I am not, of course, the first person to conclude Hitler was a pantheist. In 1935, a religious commentator George Shuster placed the dominant German religious beliefs in the 1930s into five categories: Catholicism, Lutheranism, Judaism, neo-pantheism, and negativity toward religion. Though Hitler was influenced by the first two, his deepest cravings evinced pantheism, according to Shuster. Pius XI did not specifically mention Hitler in his encyclical Mit brennender Sorge, but he did combat therein the “pantheistic confusion” he saw in Nazi ideology. Shortly after World War II, the German theologian Walter Künneth interpreted Hitler’s religion as a form of apostasy from Christianity. He argued that when Hitler used terms like God, Almighty, and Creator, as he was wont to do, he redefined these terms in a pantheistic direction. Künneth stated, “In proper translation Hitler meant by ‘Creator’ the ‘eternal nature,’ by ‘Almighty’ and ‘Providence’ he meant the lawfulness of life, and by the ‘will of the Lord’ he meant the duty of people to submit themselves to the demands of the race.”

Robert Pois argues not only that Nazism advocated a religion of nature, but that it was central to the Nazi project. Their “religion was one which could and did serve to rationalize mass-murder,” he asserts. He only spends a few pages discussing Hitler’s own religious views, but he does portray Hitler as a pantheist who exalted “pitiless natural laws” above humanity. “What Hitler had done,” according to Pois, “was to wed a putatively scientific view of the universe to a form of pantheistic mysticism presumably congruent with adherence to ‘natural laws.’” In Pois’s view, Hitler’s pantheistic perspective was part of the Nazi revolt against the Christian faith and its values. Hitler “had virtually deified nature and he most assuredly identified God (or Providence) with it.” Pois might overstate the role played by the “religion of nature” in the Nazi Party, but he does demonstrate that it was not uncommon. André Mineau argues that the SS was inclined toward pantheism, stating, “The SS view of religion was a form of naturalistic pantheism that had integrated the biological paradigm.”

A number of other scholars who have analyzed Hitler’s religion concur it was pantheistic… Thomas Schirrmacher, in the most extensive and thorough analysis of Hitler’s religion to date, emphasizes the anti-Christian character of Hitler’s theology. However, Schirrmacher interprets Hitler as a non-Christian monotheist, specifically rejecting the idea that Hitler was a pantheist or deist. Oddly, however, Schirrmacher admits Hitler used the terms God, Almighty, and Creator synonymously with the rule of nature and the laws of nature.

Before I explain Hitler’s pantheistic religion in greater depth, it is important to understand that pantheism was an influential religious perspective in German-speaking lands (and elsewhere in Europe) before and during Hitler’s time. By the early twentieth century, two forms of pantheism had emerged, which I will call mystical pantheism and scientific pantheism. Mystical pantheists believed that the cosmos had a mind or will that was supreme, while scientific pantheists stressed determinism, i.e., the strict rule of natural laws. According to scientific pantheism, the laws of nature are an expression of the will of God and thus inescapable and ironclad. Mystical pantheism disagreed with this view, denying that science could fathom the mind of the universe. Mystical pantheism sometimes had affinities or even overlapped with animism, polytheistic nature-gods, or occultism. Scientific pantheism, on the other hand, shared similarities with atheism…
 

______ 卐 ______

 

Editor’s note

This is central to understanding what I call the religion of holy words, and only those philosophers who have speculated in astrophysical mysteries, as Roger Penrose has done, would understand anything. I mean how the beauty of the alphabet with which God created the universe (mathematics), to quote Galileo, is related to the beauty of Nature and the Aryan race in particular.

To defend Aryan beauty is to defend the emerging God that is being born with the pure, unpolluted Aryans, as can also be seen in this new series of images on European beauty that I have started in the new incarnation of this site. He who doesn’t feel beauty to the extent of wanting to preserve it, has not been initiated into the mysteries of our religion.

Weikart continues:

______ 卐 ______

 

Some forms of anti-Semitism in the late nineteenth century favored pantheism as an antidote to the supposedly Jewish features of monotheism. For instance, Eduard von Hartmann, who is sometimes regarded as a forerunner of Freud because of his philosophizing about the unconscious, promoted pantheism as a replacement for Christianity in 1874. He believed Christianity was in its death throes. Hartmann was a popularizer of Schopenhauer’s philosophy, though he blended it with Schelling’s pantheism. Hartmann praised pantheism as the original religion of the Aryans, while denigrating monotheism as an inferior Semitic religion…

(The NS regime honored the German Darwinian biologist and pantheist Ernst Haeckel by including his portrait in the 1936 “Exhibition of Great Germans” in Berlin.)

Another early twentieth-century figure who shared many affinities with Hitler’s religious views was Hans F. K. Günther, whom Hitler admired for his writings on Nordic racism. Hitler was so enthusiastic about Günther’s work that he pressed Wilhelm Frick to appoint him to a professorship in social anthropology at the University of Jena in 1930, and Hitler attended his inaugural lecture. When Hitler instituted a Nazi Party Prize for Art and Science at the 1935 Nuremberg Party Rally, he bestowed the first prize for science on Günther. In 1934, Günther discussed Nordic religion in his book Piety of a Nordic Kind. (The copy of this book that I examined was owned by the Adolf Hitler School, an elite Nazi educational institution, so, clearly the Nazis approved of this work.) In this book, Günther examined the religiosity of the Indo-Germanic people, not the specific content of their religions, yet he admitted that pantheism or some kind of mysticism is more compatible with Nordic religious inclinations than theism is. Like Hitler, he believed that the world is eternal, and he dismissed as an “Eastern” invention the idea that God created the world (“Eastern” likely meant Jewish in this context—it clearly was not referring to South or East Asian religions.) He also denied body-soul dualism, the need for redemption, and the existence of an afterlife, claiming instead that true religion should focus on this world…

Martin Bormann’s outspoken pantheistic views also seem similar to Hitler’s religion, and though he probably did not influence Hitler, he was able to disseminate his views to other Nazi Party leaders. In June 1941, Bormann, the head of the Nazi Party apparatus and one of the most powerful figures in the final four years of the Third Reich, issued a statement on the relationship between National Socialism and Christianity to all the Gauleiter. He told them that Nazis do not understand God as a human-like being sitting somewhere in the cosmos, but rather as the vastness of the universe itself. He continued,

“The force which moves all these bodies in the universe, in accordance with natural law, is what we call the Almighty or God. The assertion that this world-force can worry about the fate of every individual, every bacillus on earth, and that it can be influenced by so-called prayer or other astonishing things, is based either on a suitable dose of naiveté or on outright commercial effrontery.”

Bormann then equated morality with the laws of nature, which are the will of God. Though Rosenberg was critical of Bormann’s style, even he noted the content of Bormann’s missive was similar to Hitler’s ruminations during his Table Talks.

Bormann also equated God with nature in his private correspondence. In February 1940, he wrote to Rosenberg and encouraged him to help develop a handbook of moral instruction for the youth, so they could replace religion classes with moral education. One of the moral laws that Bormann wanted included was “love for the all-ensouled nature, in which God manifests himself even in animals and plants”…

When we examine Hitler’s religious statements in depth, we find that he often expressed views of nature and God that seem closer to pantheism than to any other religious position. Also, his friends and associates noticed that he had an extremely intense love of nature. His boyhood friend August Kubizek noted that Hitler loved nature “in a very personal way. He viewed nature as a whole. He called it the ‘Outside.’ This word from his mouth sounded so familiar, as though he had called it ‘Home’”…

Wagener also recalled Hitler discussing the celebration of Christmas. After noting that Christmas had originated as a pagan ceremony at the time of the winter solstice, Hitler indicated his approval for celebrating Christmas, but not in honor of Jesus’s birth. He asked, “Now, why shouldn’t our young people be led back to nature?” He hoped that Christmas festivities could lead children away from the church and “into the great outdoors, to show them the powerful workings of divine creation and make vivid to them the eternal rotation of the earth and the world and life.” He desired the Hitler Youth to introduce Christmas traditions in which “the young people should be led back to nature, they should recognize nature as the giver of life and energy. It is only in the freedom of nature that a human being can also open himself to a higher morality and a higher ethic.” Thus, Christmas Hitler-style would draw young people away from the church while fostering veneration for nature as the highest entity…

In a monologue in February 1942, Hitler discussed his plans for the observatory and planetarium he wanted to erect near his former hometown of Linz, Austria, which he intended to turn into a cultural capital of his Third Reich. Perched on a hill above Linz, the planetarium would replace the Catholic baroque pilgrimage church currently located there.

The church —this “temple of idols,” Hitler called it—would be torn down to make way for the observatory, which would become a Nazi pilgrimage site. The slogan on the observatory would read, “The heavens proclaim the glory of the Eternal One.” Hitler dreamed of tens of thousands of visitors flowing through this planetarium every Sunday, so they could comprehend the immense vastness of the universe. Thus Sunday would be a time to venerate nature, not the Christian God. Hitler hoped this contemplation of nature would instill in Germans a kind of religiosity that would replace the “superstition” of the churches.

He wanted people to be religious, but in an anticlerical (pfaffenfeindlichen) fashion. “We can do nothing better,” he said, “than to direct ever more people to these wonders of nature.” At the observatory, Hitler thought, people could learn, “A person can comprehend this and that, but he cannot dominate nature; he must know that he is a being dependent on the creation.” Hitler envisioned this observatory and planetarium as the new temples for the worship of nature. He was so serious about building the observatory that he had one of his favorite architects, Professor Gieseler, begin drawing up plans for it in 1942.

Another way that Hitler endowed nature with the attributes usually associated with God was by portraying it as the source of morality. In Mein Kampf, Hitler argued humans can never master nature but have to submit to its laws. An individual

“… must understand the fundamental necessity of Nature’s rule, and realize how much his existence is subjected to these laws of eternal fight and upward struggle. Then he will feel that in a universe where planets revolve around suns, and moons turn about planets, where force alone forever masters weakness, compelling it to be an obedient slave or else crushing it, there can be no special laws for man. For him, too, the eternal principles of this ultimate wisdom hold sway. He can try to comprehend them; but escape them, never.”

Nature dictates moral and social laws to humans, just as it controls the physical laws of the universe. Hitler reiterated this theme of nature being the source of morality several times in Mein Kampf, including passages discussed earlier in this chapter…

According to Hitler’s secretary Christa Schroeder, Hitler often discussed religion and the churches with the secretaries. She testified, “He had no kind of tie to the church. He considered the Christian religion an outdated, hypocritical and human-ensnaring institution. His religion was the laws of nature.” Schroeder confirmed what seems obvious from reading through Hitler’s monologues: he rejected Christianity and worshipped nature…

Hitler had little or no reason to pose as a pantheist, because this would not have appealed to a very large constituency. However, he had very strong political reasons to pose as a believer in a more traditional kind of God. Savvy politician that he was, he wanted to appeal to Germans of all religious persuasions, so he used more traditional God-language to win popular support. This is consistent with his own statements about the relationship between religion and propaganda, and it squares with what we know about his hypocritical use of Christian themes.

Another strong possibility is that Hitler’s view of God was not pantheistic, but panentheistic. Friedrich Tomberg argues this, claiming that Hitler embraced a panentheism that believed “everything is in nature, but nature is in God.” This would allow Hitler to equate nature with God, because panentheists see nature as divine. However, they also see God as having an existence beyond nature, too. A panentheist could construe God as intervening in history in some ways, though usually not in miraculous events. This could correspond roughly with the way Hitler described God blessing or favoring the German Volk.

Categories
Darkening Age (book) God

Darkening Age, 22

Editor’s note: Yesterday I saw a clip of Kevin MacDonald and Richard Spencer, in which both talk about the Jewish question. It might be very strange to say what I’m about to say: but he who, unlike MacDonald and Spencer and their purple pills, is fully aware of the Judeo-Christian question, has taken the red one.

Below, Catherine Nixey talks about the great metamorphosis in the Aryan psyche that occurred when they not only destroyed the white religion (white gods-statues, temples, Greco-Roman texts, laws and culture), but when all whites had to submit to the psyop of the god of the Jews—a programming to the very core of their beings.

Those who have not rejected monotheism with my vehemence are not fully awakened.

______ 卐 ______

 
As the world’s first century of Christian rule drew to a close and the fifth century opened, the effects of this conquest were everywhere to be seen. In Italy, Gaul, Greece, Spain, Syria and Egypt, temples that had stood for centuries were falling, shutting, crumbling. Brambles began to grow across disused ruins, as the mutilated faces of gods looked on silently.

An entire way of life was dying. Writers in the ancient world who had held out against the Christian religion struggled to put their feelings into words. In a bleak epigram Palladas asked, ‘Is it not true that we are dead and only seem to live, we Greeks… Or are we alive and is life dead?’ Their old society was being swept away. The banner of the cross, in Gibbon’s resonant phrase, was being erected on the ruins of the Capitol in Rome.

But, according to some of the most famous preachers of the time, even this was not enough to satisfy the Christian God… He wanted—He demanded—the hearts and minds of every single person within the empire.

And, these clerics threatened, He would know if He didn’t get them. As preachers in the fourth century started to warn their congregations, God’s all-seeing gaze followed you everywhere. He didn’t only see you in church; you were also watched by Him as you went out through the church doors; as you went out into the streets and as you walked round the marketplace or sat in the hippodrome or the theatre. His gaze also followed you into your home and even into your bedroom—and you should be in no doubt that He watched what you did there, too.

That was not the least of it. This new god saw into your very soul. ‘Man looketh on the face, but God on the heart,’ thundered Cyprian, the Bishop of Carthage. ‘Nothing that is done is hidden from God.’ There was, congregations across the empire were warned, no escape: ‘Nothing, whether actually done or only intended, can escape the knowledge of God’—or His ‘everlasting punishment of fire’.

Many Roman and Greek-intellectuals had shown profound distaste for such an involved deity. The idea that a divine being was watching every move of every human being was, to these observers, not a sign of great love but a ‘monstrous’ absurdity…

No, declared the Christian clerics. His attention was a sign of His great love for man. As too was His punishment. For make no mistake, God was not merely a disinterested observer of men’s souls. He would judge them—and He would punish them.

Categories
Der Antichrist (book) God

God – postscript

It has been two months since I reproduced the entry ‘God’ in which Jung analyses the god of Judeo-Christians. It is so important that I will include it in the 2018 edition of Day of Wrath (the present edition of the book is from December 31, 2017).
I would like to say something about what is being discussed in one of my recent entries about the Shroud of Turin, especially what the Catholic Gaedhal says.
It is good to follow Jack’s advice in that thread of discussion: get acquainted with what I have translated for this site authored by Manu Rodríguez. I’m not sure why: but freethinkers who have roots in Spain are somewhat more aware of the calamity that Christianity represented than the English-speaking freethinkers. I have translated a lot of the other Spaniard, Evropa Soberana; but I should translate a little more of Rodríguez; and it is amazing how three Spanish speakers if I count among them, have maintained very similar views about Christianity.
The crucial thing is that the very idea of ‘God’ is toxic and deadly for the Aryan. Nietzsche saw it very well in the final words of his best book:

Sixth article.—The ‘holy’ history should be called by the name it deserves, the cursed history; the words ‘God’, ‘saviour’, ‘redeemer’, ‘saint’ should be used as terms of abuse, to signify criminals.
Seventh article.—The rest follows from this.


The point is that, as Constantine and the other Christian emperors dedicated themselves to erase all traces of the Aryan gods, and in their place implanted in the white psyche the god of the Jews with incandescent neon letters, every time someone revolts against the implant a ‘bug’ arises, so to speak, in those who unconsciously continue to defend Western Christian Civilisation instead of salivating for its collapse.
It was Nietzsche who saw ‘God as a spider’—his words—which is what Yahweh really is for the Aryan mosquitoes that fall into his net. If we are to win the chess game to the Jews, the first thing we must do is checkmate their god. It’s amazing that white nationalists fail to see something so obvious. The Covingtonistas that on Twitter are puzzled why the Aryan does not defend himself should begin to think that the cause is that he has a major bug in his mind, the god of the Jews.
If one visits the blogs of a typical white nationalist it is apparent that none promotes an internal Jihad. They want to save the race by means of slight changes, such as deleting and adding programs instead of the radical change of the Operating System itself (changing from PC to Linux in their spirit, so to speak). It is precisely for this reason that, although many believe that they have left Christianity and the Jewish god behind, they continue to say neo-Christian things, just as I mention in my last quotation from Linder, instead of hating the enemy more ferociously than loving one’s life.
If only hatred for the enemy can save the Aryans, God is a Spider: but a spider for whites only (ethnocentrism for me—Old Testament—, universalism for thee—New Testament). What Gaedhal proposes is, basically, to continue to honour the Spider and put on it a cosmetic Aryan garment without killing the monster behind it.
That, as have seen the two Spaniards mentioned above, is impossible.
I have complained that what is killing whites is what I call ‘partial apostasy’ when what we need is a ‘total apostasy’. The only way to transvalue all values, as Nietzsche says, is to start weaponizing the sacred words of Judeo-Christianity as insults to the unredeemed Aryan, which includes quite a few white nationalists. Wanting to save the Aryan race from extinction without purging the alien—the very idea of God—is similar to Ridley Scott’s Alien in that they didn’t remove the arachnid-like parasite stuck in Kane’s face.

Categories
Evropa Soberana (webzine) God Jesus Karlheinz Deschner

On Christian nationalists

Because Amazon is already printing my books, and in another account The Fair Race will even be available, I removed the ads from my books that I had on the addendum to this site. I had titled it Daybreak Press but recently I modified it to, in my mother tongue, criticise Eschatology: a cult derived from Christian Science in which I was alienated throughout my twenties.
The founder of that sect, one William Walter, had crossed by a great agony in his youth to expurgate from his mind the idea of a personal god. Even during my perdition in Walter’s sect, I had already abandoned theism, as the idea of ‘God’ for the eschatologists is similar to that of the New Age in which each individual, not only Jesus, is Vere homo, vere Deus.
Although on the Addenda I now criticise Walter’s cult, his new vision of divinity is a clear advance compared to the idea of the volcanic demon worshiped by the ancient Hebrews: an idea that whites internalized with extraordinary ferocity since Constantine and his successors, except Julian, destroyed the classical world. Thus, the beautiful gods of the Hellenes were replaced by an exceedingly proud and primitive god, in whose Talmud it is said that the best among the Goyim must be exterminated.
But the idea of the providence of the ignorant Walter was not really new. It resembles, in a way, the new understanding of God of German philosophers such as Schelling and Hegel. Thanks to their philosophers, when Hitler created National Socialism, some Germans already had not only an idea of the divinity much more mature than the tribal god of the Hebrews (and of traditionalist Americans). The Germans also had a long history of exegetes who had subjected the New Testament to the highest possible scrutiny that one could imagine.
(Reimarus, who restarted the criticism on the historicity in the gospel narratives since the subject had been suppressed when the Christians burned Porphyry’s books.)
On this site I have criticized Albert Schweitzer for having migrated, as a good neo-Christian, to Africa to help blacks after abandoning traditional Christianity. However, his book, in which he reviews the long history of German exegetes who studied the gospels, is a classic. Many, like Schweitzer himself, had no choice but to abandon traditional dogma after such an undertaking.
Culturally but not geographically, I am closer to Europe and National Socialism than to the United States. For the same reason, every time I approach the new posts of pro-white sites in America, I am astonished to see how backward they are compared, say, to Hitler’s anti-Christian table talks (whose excerpts I find myself moving to Ex Libris). Hunter Wallace of Alabama, for example, concludes his entry today with these words ‘The solution to all this is found in Jesus the Christ’.
Compare his words with what I recently said in Pilate or Jesus?: ‘You do not realise that, with that admiration [of Jesus], you, like so many white nationalists who are still clinging to their parents’ religion, are doing something harmful to the white race’. It was in that same post where I added: ‘It is this kind of thing that produces a tectonic earthquake, it opens a grand canyon so to speak, between me and the [American] nationalists’.
Years ago, it seems to me that on Radio Free Mississippi, Wallace discussed with Alex Linder the theme of Christianity throughout the podcast. But Linder is monolingual: he did not know, at least when he argued with Wallace, the Spanish texts of Evropa Soberana and Karlheinz Deschner in German that we have been translating for this site. As I have said elsewhere, the masthead of this site is Soberana’s essay; what the ten volumes of Deschner provide is a huge bibliography that validates Soberana’s claims.
I do not harbour any illusions. I know that pro-white Americans will die addicted to the Judeo-Christian drug until their race finishes dying. But perhaps my work may be of some use to those who, as Walter and I suffered while repudiating the volcanic demon, are in the process of apostasy.

Categories
¿Me Ayudarás? (book) Alice Miller Autobiography Bible Carl Gustav Jung Day of Wrath (book) God Psychology

God

This text appears in Day of Wrath

______ 卐 ______

 
As I said in Hojas Susurrantes, in California I suffered an internal persecutor: a Christian fear of damnation caused by my father’s miserable introjects. On May 24, 1988, a few months after returning from California still carrying in my soul a legion of dementors, I dined with my parents in a restaurant [I wasn’t living with them]. From the street, three days before I had seen the dry branches of my tree and I believed that the tree would die so, in penance, I shaved my beard the next day after having let them grow for a few months; the only time in life I let them grow.
 
Saint Augustine
Before telling what happened in the restaurant I must mention that throughout my childhood I lived under the shadow of the figure of St. Augustine; as I recall, the favorite saint of my father when we lived in San Lorenzo (as we know, Augustine’s ideas had been one of my greatest dementors in California). At dinner with my parents, barely convalescing from the idea that tormented me, I jumped when (my mother?) mentioned the aforementioned saint. I exclaimed that Augustine had rationalized the eternal fire for unbaptized infants… More than convalescing, the psychic wounds of my family’s religion were still open, though not as maddeningly as the suffering in California. My parents felt the vehemence of my words, but not my agony behind them. What my father answered deserves to leave a record and it is worth saying that I wrote it down not in my diary, but in a single sheet. (When planning this volume I had to order my correspondence, documents and loose sheets in dozens of labeled envelopes.) According to my notes, my father answered me:
—Those [Augustine’s views] are people’s mistakes; human failures. I go to what Jesus says.
When I answered that the Gospel of Matthew put Jesus talking about the gnashing of teeth of the damned, he said:
—I do not see [emphasis in his voice] the anathemas of Jesus. I prefer to see the lilies and the birds; come and they will be given food, dressing be added.
On my single sheet, the following day I addressed myself: “Where is the Augustinian father of San Lorenzo? I am reacting—my Epistle [first book of Hojas Susurrantes] and anti-Christianity—against a father and a mother who no longer exist!”
I wrote that, as I said, in 1988. Today, twenty-seven years later, the dementors still persecute me somehow, although in a very much attenuated way compared to my youth. What I want to get is that, if the perpetrator does not recognize his fault, the mental virus transferred to the adult child goes out of control. If my father had been like, say, my very Catholic friend Paulina (who almost daily goes to church), another would be my story. It is not enough to point out the beautiful verses of Matthew to counterbalance the threats of Jesus about Gehenna in that same gospel. It is necessary to recognize that one committed an outrage when “educating” the son in the Christian doctrine of damnation. In one of her letters that she sent me to England by the end of the century, Paulina wrote to me: “Also, since you are not a believer, and you feel that religion was the first reason for your father to crucify you [my emphasis], you must hate religion. And I understand you. And for you it does not make sense to go to church, to say things you do not believe. And that also caused you harm (hell, torture, sadism).”
My father is not like my humble friend. In a dream I had my unconscious caricaturing him, putting in his mouth these words: “I am very Catholic because I only think of my salvation.” To understand the parental egotism that affected me so much, the religious mechanism with which he defended himself from his early sufferings must be analyzed.
 
God for Miller fans
When I returned from California in my twenty-ninth year, I was not only an extremely damaged young man but also extremely naive. I left in the television room [of my parents’ house] a number of books in English that I had brought in such a way that their covers wore the face of Jesus so that my father could see them. At that time I still believed that it was possible to negotiate my father’s faith with solid arguments.
Let us take into account that with the words of Jesus it “sufficed him,” and what he would tell me during the confrontation of the crucifix [recounted in a previous chapter]: that the fact that the miracles were interwoven with the teachings of Jesus implied that the story was true. I arrived in Mexico in February 1988. By the end of 1989 I began to familiarize myself with the skeptical criticism of the allegations of the paranormal by writers whose magazine I subscribed to, The Skeptical Inquirer. It was thanks to these skeptics that I saw clearly that reasoning like those of my father was fallacious. For example, that the (supposed) goodness of the teachings of Jesus demonstrates the historicity of his miracles cannot be sustained. “Logical systems get in trouble,” I paraphrase now from one of the articles in The Skeptical Inquirer, “when they are forced to show their own logic to demonstrate its claims self-referentially.”
When on another occasion I confronted my father with what I had read in those books whose covers he saw, I argued that the killing of the innocents could not be historical, as the historian Josephus, who belonged to the Hebrew priestly caste, does not mention it. (This historian of the 1st century did not silence any of Herod’s authentically historical cruelties.) My father got angry, but he did not answer my argument. While it is more reasonable to assume that the verses of Matthew and Luke about the killing of the innocents are literary fiction, by pure reason I would never get to communicate with him. However, the writers of the CSICOP (acronym of Committee for the Skeptical Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal), as this group was then called, had a great limitation. Those who helped me overcome my belief in the miraculous narrative did not reach the core of the problem: the defense mechanism. If my grandfather and the elementary school [in the early 1930s] had not tormented the child César [my father], the adult César would not have clung to the idea of a dad God with the impregnable faith that he did. For Alice Miller, a child whose childhood was lived in an atmosphere of respect is perfectly capable of developing his self without needing the idea of a personal God; preferring, instead, human models. The child destined to be my father could not develop his psyche with worldly models. He had to project the parental luminous side onto the deity of the same religion that his parents taught him.
About five years before I wrote the Epistle [ca. 1983], my father had confessed something important that I picked up right there in the old epistle. He was in his youth completely devastated by something terrible that had happened to him, that he did not specify. He opened the gospels and, according to his words, saw the passage “Come blessed of my father…!” If, for theists like my father, a kind Father has replaced the failed human father, we should not be surprised if they experience great fear upon discovering that this substitute Father also has a dark side. My father does not know English and he did not read what I brought from the United States, but from my Spanish books he borrowed without me knowing Respuesta a Job (Answer to Job) published in 1952 by Carl Jung, of which he told me “I read everything.”
At his late seventy-six years, the Swiss psychologist had dared to uncover the dark side of the God of Hebrews and Christians. The same year that I wrote the Epistle I wrote down in Answer to Job that my father had exclaimed: “A terrible book!” with great emphasis on his voice when pronouncing “terrible.” Jung’s essay had disturbed him so much that he had to read a pious text about Job to console himself. What Jung said about the Judeo-Christian deity is valuable to those who have entered the underworld whose door Miller opened. In May of 1991, three years after the anecdote recounted above, I noted down on the back cover of Answer to Job: “This is the only book I know of that does not criticize religion or Christians or the church: it criticizes God itself.” I could not say it better today, almost a quarter of a century later. Later that year I noted down that Jung had tried to psychoanalyze God. Much later, in my rereading of 2005, I wrote down:

It is amazing how Miller-like this book can be if we only know the ABC of the mind that Jung did not know. Just replace “Yahweh” with “father” and “God” with “mother” and see what you find.
Read for example pages 25f (“Who is this that darkens counsel by words without wisdom?”). They remind me of the conversation I had with my sister in 2000, the day of the cut tree, about dad: “And who are you to…?” he said to my sister. And page 28 (“Yahweh shows Job his omnipotence with so many thunder and lightning”) seems to portray how he treated me in my last confrontation, in 2004 [recounted in my book’s previous chapter]. On page 31 Jung says what for a long time I have said: pride is the other side of infantilism.

Pride is the other side of infantilism. How many times have I told myself this when diagnosing my father! Almost at the beginning of his essay, Jung observes something that could be applied to my initiative to confront my father for what he did, citing the Bible: “Job ‘wanted to reason with God’ (Job, 13:3). Job says ‘I will defend my ways before him’ (13, 15).” Nice phrase, which could summarize what I have written in hundreds of pages: defend my ways before my parents and their witch doctors. Precisely as it was extremely naive of me to hope that whoever destroyed me could, at the same time, listen to my complaint, that same ingenuity had been committed by Job on another level. (Actually, on the same level if we consider that the theistic narrative is nothing but the internal struggle with the parental introjects.) In the context of the supposed goodness of Yahweh, observes Jung: “From a man who does us evil we can not wait that helps us at the same time,” and already openly psychoanalyzing God he adds something that we could impute to either of my parents: “The dependence of the object is absolute when the subject does not possess self-reflection, and, consequently, does not have any vision of oneself.” Like any toxic parent—I would say—, about our parental deities Jung writes: “But Yahweh is too unconscious to be ‘moral’. Morality presupposes conscience.”
What better indication that the idea of God is nothing but the projection of our unresolved, attachment system with our parents! (keep in mind Colin Ross’ class). From this angle, the idea of providence is a parental shadow insofar as it is so full of the dark side that we see ourselves in the need to project it outwards: something that Jung himself was afraid to say. Nevertheless, the Swiss dared to write: “It was natural that humanity, superior to God in certain aspects, should remain unconscious”—unaware of the ultimate nature of the deity. The dissident disciple of Freud wrote the following in the text that scared dad: “Yahweh does not show signs of doubt, repentance or compassion, but only of cruelty and disregard. Yahweh cannot come here with the excuse of unconsciousness, for he flagrantly violates at least three of the commandments that he himself had promulgated at Sinai.”
This brings back to me the fact that my moral was founded on the moralistic tablets of my father. Recall the [1960s] anecdote of Hojas Susurrantes about the “instantaneous introject” when a swarthy boy threw a stone at a helpless crab on the beach. Unfortunately, and parallel to how my father did not regret what he was doing to us, on the next page Jung writes: “Yahweh does not think… of giving Job at least some moral compensation.” And two pages ahead what he says seems to be a reflection of the mentioned speech to Germancito [my nephew], when my father blamed me for my sister’s behavior: “Yahweh puts things backwards, so to speak, and blames Job for what he himself does: man must not be allowed to have any opinion about God.”
Shadow projected to the deity: “Parents should never be judged,” my mother has told me several times. And it is that “Yahweh pays so little attention to the person of Job… that it is not difficult to see that he is totally occupied with himself,” which brings back the penetrating observation of Pedro Martín Moreno and Scott Peck about evil. Later Jung speaks of the “fear of Yahweh to become conscious,” which also brings back the fear of parents like mine to see their behavior.

Yahweh can project, without frowning, his face shadows on man, and remain unconscious at the expense of him…
Job knew Yahweh only of “hearsay.” But now he has experienced the reality of Yahweh even more than David himself. This is an important lesson, which should not be forgotten. Job was once a simpleton; he had come to dream of a “good” God… he believed that God was truthful and faithful…

But to his horror, Job has seen that Yahweh is not a man, but that, in a certain way, he is less than a man, and that he is the same thing that Yahweh says of the Leviathan: “He is king over all the proud” (Job, 41:34).

The mistreated son by his father must not expect moral satisfaction from an intrinsically unconscious being. “I am an amoral natural power, a purely phenomenal force, that does not see its own back.” Job, the son at the complete mercy of the Father whose voice of thunder crushes him when he dared to confront him, becomes, secretly, judge of the divinity.
The author of Answer to Job closes the book’s chapter with these words: “The drama has been consummated for all eternity: the double nature of Yahweh has been revealed, and someone or something has seen and recorded it.”

Categories
Ancient Rome Autobiography Christendom God Jesus New Testament

Johmann’s brief analysis


My correspondent Kurt Johmann asked me to say something about ‘A Brief Analysis of Christianity’, a section within his book A Soliton and its owned Bions (Awareness and Mind) which subtitle reads ‘These Intelligent Particles are how we Survive Death’.
As to the origins of Christianity, Johmann relies heavily on Joseph Atwill’s 2006 Caesar’s Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus. I don’t claim to have read Caesar’s Messiah, but the book has become so popular that Wikipedia has an article about it. In the last couple of years I’ve seen mentions to Atwill’s book in white nationalist forums as if it was a great discovery on the origins of Christianity.
As can be gathered from the book reviewers, Atwill tries to persuade the reader that the New Testament was written under the direction of 1st-century Roman whites. Those who know the new masthead of this site, Evropa Soberana’s essay on Rome and Judea, will find it strange that Atwill would not blame the Jews for creating Christianity. He blames an emperor of the Flavian dynasty.
A Roman fraud written by a Jewish traitor in the emperor’s pay? Really? Are we to believe that the Aryan Romans really cared about the primitive literature of distant Semites enough to go through the trouble of using the Septuagint to elaborate the New Testament, with fake Pauline and non-Pauline epistles, numinous gospel narratives and even a book of revelation that craves for a New Jerusalem right after the emperors destroyed Old Jerusalem? Is this credible taking into account that this John of Patmos was so anti-pagan that in the final book of the Bible he introduced the idea of eternal torment for non-Judeo-Christians in a lake of fire?
As can be seen in the recent entries of this site, our working hypothesis is that the authors of the New Testament were either non-Aryan Judaized gentiles or, like this John of Patmos, Hellenised Jews whose hatred for white Rome was infinite.
Also, Atwill’s assertion that Jesus was a totally a fictional character is only a possibility. I am open to such possibility, as can be seen in this article by Joseph Hoffmann. However, another possibility is that a historical Yeshua existed and a lot of literary fiction was later added onto an original, bare, all too human story that is now lost forever (e.g., what Soberana speculates about the historical Jesus in his essay).
Johmann writes: ‘Although Christianity was originally contrived and constructed [by Romans] to domesticate the recently conquered population of Judea…’ According to our recent quotations of Nietzsche in this blog it looks the other way: Christianity was originally contrived and constructed by Jews to domesticate those who recently had conquered their population of Judea.
In his brief analysis of Christianity’ Johmann also wrote:

Instead of having to accept the reality model of Christianity or of any other religion to have a good afterlife, the reality model presented in this book says that what one consciously believes about the afterlife during one’s physically embodied life has no substantial effect on what one’s afterlife experiences will be, during what will be an afterlife measured in years or many years (not Christianity’s eternity) before one reincarnates, most likely reincarnating as a human again.
Regarding Christianity’s position on sexual matters, Christianity has a long history of being hostile to sex for any purpose other than the production of children. Thus, given this emphasis on having children, Christianity, in general, has a history of being against birth control, abortion, infanticide, and homosexuality. The reason Christianity has these attitudes is because Christianity wants its current believers to have many children…

The first paragraph postulates the existence of reincarnation.
In the late 1980s and early 1990s I was heavily involved in the field of parapsychology and even published my stuff in the journal of the Society for Psychical Research. I am pretty familiar with the literature arguing for evidence of reincarnation, for example the work of Ian Stevenson. With time, after meeting in person the main intellectuals of a sceptic organization, subscribing their journal, and purchasing many books published by Prometheus Books, I became sceptical of such claims, including reincarnation.
In a blog post I cannot narrate the spiritual odyssey from my credulity in such phenomena to my apostasy: I would need a whole autobiographical book recounting my inner experiences from December 1978 to May 1995. Suffice it to say that I am familiar with the work of Sue Blackmore. Sue has written a lot about out-of-body experiences, that Johmann mentions elsewhere in his book. She says such experiences may have a more prosaic, parsimonious explanation than the paranormal one (incidentally, in a Seattle café I sat with Sue and other attendees during one of the sceptical conferences that we all attended).
As to the second paragraph by Johmann cited above, not only Christianity has been hostile to sex for any purpose other than the production of children. Other cultures and religions, even the Nazis, had a history against Aryan birth control, abortion, infanticide, and homosexuality.
This said, I basically agree with the last paragraph against Christianity in Johmann’s text: that prayer is silly because, as Johmann put it, ‘is only “heard” by one’s own unconscious’, and that trying to solve our problems with prayer, begging the god of the Jews to help us, only forfeits our duty of hard, Aryan work in the real world.

Categories
Ancient Greece Ancient Rome Feminism God Miscegenation

National Socialism

eagle-and-swastika-reichadler-und-hakenkreuz-national-socialist-posters-third-reich-deutschland

At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to state this or that or the other, but it is “not done.” Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals.

—George Orwell

Excerpted from “National Socialism:
The Biological Worldview”
by Povl Riis-Knudsen:

 
As a National Socialist you constantly experience the difficulty in carrying on a meaningful conversation with a non-National Socialist. You often feel that such a dialogue is outright impossible and that you live in two totally different worlds. Partly, of course, the reason for this deplorable situation lies in the propaganda image of National Socialism as the culmination of human viciousness that our enemies have created in the public mind.
As opposed to today’s carefree relativism, where all ideas—in principle at least—are equally acceptable and valid, National Socialism represents the unremitting effort to find the absolute truth and to make this truth the foundation of human society. Unlike the nebulous ravings of inane armchair philosophers and oriental mysticism, however, National Socialism is based on common sense, and it seeks its arguments in the real world, where the difference between truth and lie and between good and evil is determined by facts and not by wishful thinking and theoretic reveries.
In this light, it is obvious that National Socialism must reject the conceptions and moral norms of all the ruling ideologies, and this, naturally, leads to a comprehensibility gap that is difficult to bridge—simply because there is no common frame of reference between National Socialists and people whose thinking is determined by the ideas of the present order. National Socialism simply means an absolute, irrevocable, and uncompromising fight against the very philosophical foundations of the entire ruling world order.
Unlike other philosophies, National Socialism has never been invented—it has been derived from the eternal Laws of Nature, which have existed as long as the universe and which have governed all life since the first primitive organism came into existence. This has been expressed beautifully and clearly by Savitri Devi, the famous late National Socialist philosopher, in her book The Lightning and the Sun:

In its essence, the National Socialist idea exceeds not only Germany and our time, but the Aryan race and mankind itself and any epoch; it ultimately expresses that mysterious and unfailing wisdom according to which Nature lives and creates: the impersonal wisdom of the primeval forest and of the ocean depths and of the spheres in the dark fields of space; and it is Adolf Hitler’s glory not merely to have gone back to that divine wisdom, but to have made it the practical regeneration policy of world-wide scope.

In other words, National Socialism was not invented by Adolf Hitler. It is the conscious expression of the fundamental Laws of Nature governing our lives. It is based on an infinite love of the creation in all its diversity, a deep, unconditional respect for the wisdom of Nature, and an ardent will to preserve life as it has grown out of this wisdom. The only way to do so is to organize the society of man in accordance with these fundamental Laws.
Thus being against National Socialism is just as absurd and illogical as it would be to oppose the law of gravity or the fact that the earth is round! National Socialism is really nothing but the application of physical and biological laws to the political, economic, social, and religious areas of human life in the same way as they are today applied to technology.
Of course, we might sometimes wish that some of these Laws had been a little different, but we must necessarily accept that it would be impossible to change them. Laws of Nature cannot be abolished or amended through a vote in the General Assembly of the United Nations, the US Congress, or any other national parliament! Perhaps everything had been easier if all human beings and all races had been created equal, and if there had not been any hereditary factors governing and limiting our individual possibilities of development. However, that is not the case, and there is absolutely no chance of changing this fact by wishful thinking, i.e., by doing as if these Laws did not exist. To build a society on such dreams is a deadly sin that can only have disastrous consequences.
These consequences are seen only too clearly when we take a look at the societies that have been built by our enemies in East and West. Unanimously, they refer to National Socialism as the “Gospel of Evil”—while they themselves rule over a world on the brink of economic and moral disaster, a world afflicted by inflation, unemployment, crime, senseless violence, drug abuse, pollution, pornography, corruption, hunger, and ecological catastrophes.
No wonder, indeed, that man lives in constant fear of what the next day has in store for him! Unfortunately, this fear and hopelessness is most widespread in the Aryan part of the world, where decadence and moral decay are most advanced. Here people have been totally alienated from all sound and natural values and made into mindless zombies, whose anxieties are soothed by material affluence—in a constant race against economic chaos.
In spite of all the material goodies of the modern world, these people are neither happy nor satisfied. They completely lack ideals and enthusiasm and they have lost all faith in the future. The Aryan is simply unwilling to bring children into this world. As he sees no future, he prefers the luxuries of the moment to the preservation of his race and culture. He tries to secure as comfortable a life for himself as he can in this cesspool, and his only hope is that the inevitable catastrophe will not occur in his lifetime. Thus, he passively watches the land of his forefathers being slowly but steadily taken over by aliens, who do not yet realize that the end of the white man means the end of all civilization as we know it.
This is the Golden Age our enemies promised the world in 1945—this is what they have been able to build in the seventy years they have had absolute power. Under these circumstances, the prospects for the future sure are gloomy. However, it does not have to be this way. That the world is in such a sinister condition is solely the result of man’s total disrespect for the Laws of Nature.
As a National Socialist you inevitably feel like someone from another planet when you have once realized the nature of the present order. You can have no part in this system and the very daily struggle to keep alive within the framework of this society must seem like a futile waste of time.
As National Socialists we envisage a totally New World Order, based on the “unfailing wisdom according to which Nature lives and creates.” Only within such a new world order can life survive on this planet in the long run. However, to establish this New Order man must accept that he is not elevated above Nature. Man is not the master of creation but an integrated part of the totality of Nature, and he is subject to exactly the same laws as all other living organisms.
Likewise, he must also accept the scientifically proven fact that the races of man are different—not only in their outward appearance but also with regard to their mental and intellectual characteristics—and, finally, that all human beings are individuals created unequal, and that their lives are mainly determined by hereditary factors and not by their natural environment. This may, of course, seem “unjust,” but one of the things man must recognize is that in Nature there is no concept of justice in the sense we normally apply to this word.
The enemies of National Socialism often claim that the biological conception of human nature, which is the very basis of National Socialism, is “unethical.” To this we can only reply that it is the so-called “ethics” of these opponents that are immoral, because they are based on norms and values that are not founded on Nature. For National Socialists there is only one truth: the Laws of Nature, and anything that is not in full accordance with this truth is absolutely wrong!
 
Christianity
This, of course, means a total rejection of Christianity, whose unnatural dualism is the very basis of the predominant “moral” code—also where this code is disguised under a liberal / humanistic or a Marxist label. According to Christianity, man enjoys a very special position among all creatures by having a divine soul. This soul is universal and unbiological.
Thus, Christianity is characterized by a distinct contempt of life and Nature. It is a religion for losers and dreamers who cannot cope with the challenges of life but just vegetate along, trusting that “the last shall be first and the first shall be last,” as Christianity regards any criminal good-for-nothing and mentally deficient fool as a more valuable human being than the industrious and creative citizen.
It represents a set of norms and values that put the virgin above the mother, the monk above the father of a family, and the weak and suffering above the strong and victorious; indeed, the dead above the living. It scorns any pleasure in life and glorifies self-torture and self-abasement as positive indications that man fights his flesh and accepts that he is born as a vessel of sin because he is not all spirit.
No matter from what angle you look at it, Christianity represents a perverted and misanthropic attitude to life that can under no circumstances be tolerated in a healthy society. To put it bluntly, Christianity is a kind of spiritual AIDS that has destroyed our natural immunity against unbiological thinking. It is a contaminating disease of the mind and must be fought with all means.
Unlike the Christian, the National Socialist is supposed to live. He is supposed to expand his abilities and unfold his personality as much as he can within the boundaries of his biological nature—both physically and spiritually. He is not supposed to spend life on his knees in front of a Middle Eastern god, begging for mercy and forgiveness for the “sin” of having been born into Nature.
We want to see proud and harmonious people who are confident of themselves and their mission in life—not frightened and dejected products of misanthropic conceptions like “original sin,” which only leaves man one hope in life: that “God” will forgive him if he just believes and repents.
Nor do we want the diffident and despairing victims of the pluralistic worldview with its denial of absolute values. National Socialists are not atheists. We do believe in a deity, but our deity is an absolute contrast to the Jewish-Christian Yahweh. For National Socialism there is only one true deity: the inscrutable creative power that is manifested everywhere in Nature. This is the deity we pay our tribute to by showing veneration and respect for the wisdom of the Laws of Nature.
As National Socialists, we follow no other voice than the voice of Nature and no other ethic than the ethic of Nature, and we know only one mortal sin: to try to revolt against this ethic. This is not mysticism, as some claim, but pantheism—the idea that the divine is expressed through Nature and nowhere else.
Pantheism has its roots far back in history and is one of the foundations of German idealism and romanticism in the 19th century. It is the recognition that we owe our existence to a principle of life that is not just the sum of its chemical components. Thus, National Socialism sees life as more than the materialistic scramble for maximum consumption and self-gratification—life entails an obligation to protect the divine principle that we are part of. Some might call this a religion, but it does not need the establishment of a narrative based on superstition to sustain it—and it sure is not a “faith.” It is not based on belief, but on facts.
 
Sexual roles
To create sound surroundings for life to unfold we also need healthy families, where children can grow up in harmony and be happy. Another evil of the present order is that this kind of family is being destroyed by the usual unbiological thinking and the nonsense of women’s libbers. Just as the races are different, so are the sexes, and the idea that man and woman are biologically equal is a serious threat to the survival of man.
The differences between them are not the result of socially constructed “sex roles” but of biological roles! It is not a coincidence that it is the woman who gives birth to the children. She is not only biologically fit for this task, but also mentally, and as the mother of the new generation she has the most important role in society. The idea that she must “fulfill herself” by joining the labor force and getting a job at an assembly line, while her children are left to others, is criminal.
nsdap Women can only fulfill themselves within their biological role as mothers. Without a mother, the family crumbles. The children are left to themselves or to a state education. When they get home, nobody has time for them. They are not taught any ideals and they get their idols from television, bad music, and even worse literature. They live on fast food and fall victims to the worst kind of commercial materialism—that is, if the woman does not choose to avoid having any children at all either by using some kind of “birth control” device or by murdering the child if she gets pregnant anyway. Of course, the feminists claim that it would be just as natural for the man to look after the children and the woman to go to work. The fact is that if it had been just as natural, the man would have given birth, too.
 
Miscegenation
The most serious threat to the coherence of society is, without comparison, the biological race-mixing that has always either come hand in hand with the mixing of cultures—or even being its precondition. The disintegration of culture itself can be stopped at any time and a people can find its way back to its own cultural norms and values again—as long as the racial stock is intact. The mixing of the races, however, is irrevocable—and its consequences are incalculable and disastrous.
There are only too many opportunities to study the kind of societies we have as a consequence of race mixing. Latin America, India, and Egypt are all excellent examples, and so are Hellas and the Roman Empire.
Just as the Indian, Persian, and Egyptian cultures also the Greek and Roman civilizations were created and sustained by an immigrated minority of predominantly Nordic race. This higher developed minority first suppressed the original majority and their culture, but later they slowly succumbed to their subdued peoples’ numerical superiority.
Weakened by innumerous wars that had cost them their most valuable blood and subverted by Asian ideas of false humanitarianism, they gradually gave increasing numbers from the subdued peoples citizenship and brought new slaves and laborers from their colonies in Africa and Asia—who were then integrated and acquired citizenship in the next generation. This sure is a familiar picture, isn’t it? And it was this disintegration of the Nordic race that changed the proud state of Hellas into present day Greece and Rome into Italy—or put in another way: civilization into chaos!
In school you still spend at least some time teaching the children about the ancient cultures, but not one word is said about the people who created those cultures. It does not seem to puzzle anybody that the ability to organize a state can disappear so completely. The truth is that most of the people who masquerade as “Romans” today racially have very little in common with their mighty predecessors. Too many of their ancestors had their home south of the Mediterranean!
When speaking about racial biology today, you soon face a whole lot of taboos. Studying racial biology—that is, if it is the human races you want to study—has become something naughty and not even medical doctors or so-called anthropologists can be expected to know anything at all about this matter. Even to want such knowledge is damaging to your career, so why care?

* * *

We do not have any time to lose. Would you care to join us? Not for our sake—but for the sake of your children.
Can you imagine a world without White people and the civilization they have created?