web analytics

Category: Hans F. K. Günther

Categories
Hans F. K. Günther Racial right

Günther’s father

Hans F. K. Günther’s essay ‘The dissolution of Germanic racial care by medieval Christianity’ is now available here.

As I have said countless times, German National Socialism was in every way superior to the American white nationalism we suffer from today. It is striking how this essay by a Nordicist who flourished in the Third Reich is still far more relevant than what, on this Monday before Christmas Eve, we can see in any racialist webzine today, for the Aryans of the time had not degenerated.

I have been watching and listening to some of my favourite pieces by Modest Mussorgsky and Richard Wagner on YouTube. I was impressed to find several non-white musicians in a performance of the Berlin Philharmonic playing Wagner. A Polish orchestra, on the other hand, was composed only of young white musicians. At least in both orchestras, people continue to dress as orchestral musicians of the last century did: as Günther dressed above, whose father was a musician, by the way.

What the contemporary racial right ignores is that we must transvalue all values, including musical values and dress, to how we were in the past. Racial realism awareness, and JQ awareness, are just a couple of decent facets among many other decent facets of cultural preservation. Alas, as long as, because of their ersatz Christianity, whites continue to behave like that crazy ascetic I saw in Ripley’s Believe It or Not the day I fled San Francisco—mea culpa! mea culpa! mea culpa! mea culpa!—they will be unable to save their race from the extinction still underway.

Categories
Goths Hans F. K. Günther Miscegenation

The dissolution

of Germanic racial care by medieval Christianity (5)

by Hans F. K. Günther

Jan Luyken’s 1698 engraving of the quintessential subversive Jew, Paul, dictating his famous Letter to the Romans to his scribe.

Baher also saw the price of poverty, which must have seemed to the hard-working German peasant the price of inability to work at a time when there was still enough free land to clear and cultivate. For him, poverty was the appropriate fate of the incapable, not the state in which a person was closer to the Kingdom of God. Baher is the price of the weak and sick, the suspicion found in appearance as a sign of spiritual contamination (see p. 377). In the Epistle to the Romans (12:16) Paul warns: Do not aim at high things, but lower yourselves to the lowly – this was the negation of Indo-Germanic values such as pride, the drive for power, the joy of owning land, of competing with all the forces of the region. The medieval pious person was led away from these Indo-Germanic values to values of courage, i.e. according to the root of the word (serve): of being a servile person, of being homeless, celibate and without possessions.

This transformation of values through the ecclesiastical teachings of the Middle Ages was characterized by one of the best experts on pagan Germanic culture, Andreas Heusler:

It is deeply unscriptural that one openly and joyfully admits to pride and the drive for power. Anyone who has what it takes should want to be the first in their region. The sentence that he who humbles himself finds no place in these hearts. The will to power has the affection of the narrator and the listener. With compassion one follows the self-confident man who is bowed down by fate. Something new in the Christian stories is the look of satisfaction that touches the fall of the powerful. To the extent that bias and malicious joy prevail in the sagas, it is directed less against the tyrant and oppressor than against the coward and the quiet, even against the upstart.

The teachings of the medieval church thus dissolved the Germanic focus on a human image of spiritual perfection and a noble lifestyle, and instead taught the characteristics of those who had been described by the Germanic people as litilmenn, as people with small souls. The new doctrine thus eliminated the original model of the volatile, noble and beautiful person. This had to have an effect over the centuries and, together with other historical forces, resulted in us Germans being racially and genetically different from the Germanic peoples.

The racial history of the Germanic people as such ends with the conversion of the Germanic people to Christianity. It begins with the period between the 9th and 11th centuries when the barrier between the free and the unfree, here earlier, there later, at the latest in Lower Saxony and in Scandinavia, there only completely in the 14th century, the mass history of the individual Germanic-speaking tribes, in Germany the racial history of the German people, fell. The German people of the later Middle Ages and the modern era already presents itself as a selection result of those centuries in which the racial breeding of the Germanic people, which had returned to Indo-Germanic roots of the Neolithic period, had been dissolved.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s 2 ¢

As far as the last paragraph is concerned, since I have Spanish ancestry it came to my attention in William Pierce’s Who We Are and Arthur Kemp’s March of the Titans that the Visigoths of ancient Hispania only began to interbreed after the introduction of Christianity. A century before the Moors invaded the peninsula, these pure Aryans had terrible punishments for the mixed couple who dared to procreate a mongrel baby. Why are these historical facts that Hans Günther and others talked about not mentioned in the forums of the American racial right?

I think we already know the answer…

Categories
Hans F. K. Günther Metaphysics of race / sex Women

The dissolution

of Germanic racial care by medieval Christianity (4)

by Hans F. K. Günther

 
For the racial cultivation of the Germanic peoples, the medieval church teachings not only abolished the barrier of oppression between free and unfree, but above all degraded marriage, which had represented something particularly venerable within the divine order of Indo-European culture. According to Paul (1 Corinthians 7:2), marriage was there to help avoid the souring of people; but more sacred than married life was celibacy and mortification of the senses (1 Corinthians 7:1). This degradation of marriage can be traced from the early medieval church fathers through the entire Middle Ages. The rites of monks and nuns were considered the highest morality, and a doctrine of the ‘immaculate conception’ – even if this doctrine was not as easy to interpret as the layman thought it would be – could mean nothing other than that, conversely, every conception by a woman of his people was to be regarded as tainted. An exception in the evaluation of marriage is Clement of Alexandria (died around 220), who, for the first time after the spread of Christianity, again established marriage as a duty towards the people and state, as it was among the peoples of the Indo-European language, and who even saw the purpose of marriage as the procreation of well-behaved children, the euteknia. But here, and partly in Tertullian’s views on marriage, Indo-European thought still comes to the fore in an indirect and weakened form, the Hellenic and Hellenistic spirit of the Stoa and the writings of the Hellenic Plutarch, who was still essentially Indo-European in his views.

The degradation of marriage was logically linked to the degradation of women. It has often been claimed in the past that Christianity was the first to teach the Germanic peoples respect for women. In 1913, the church historian Boehmer attributed things to the Germanic peoples such as various kinds of fornication, respect and enslavement of the female sex and other shameful acts – all of which were traits of human behavior that were demonstrably only introduced into Germania from the south and east. An expert on the Germanic world such as Neckel was right to reject such opinions as untenable in his work Love and Marriage among the Pre-Christian Germanic Peoples (1934). In fact, medieval Christianity caused a wave of denigration of the female sex, while the woman as mistress of the house (déspoina, domina, matrona) had occupied a low position among all Indo-Europeans, as long as the Nordic racial soul was dominant in their peoples, in the reality of everyday life a much more respected position than the various legal records of the peoples of the Indo-European language would suggest. Among the Germanic peoples there was also the view that women had ‘something sacred and prescient’ (Tacitus: aliquid sanctum et providum). ‘They do not disdain their nature and pay attention to their answers,’ is how Tacilus (Germania, 8) describes the respect that Germanic men had for women.

In church doctrine, this is opposed by the mulier tacent in eeclessin (1 Corinthians 14:34/35) and the duty of women to cover their heads during church services, because otherwise they could arouse lust (1 Corinthians 11:5 and 6). For both church fathers, woman, to whom Paul (1 Timothy 2:14) had ascribed the origin of sin, appears as a templum aedificatum super oloacum, as the ‘mother of sin’ and ‘source of sin’, and the Council of Macon, which was held in the 7th century under the Merovingian Frankish kings, discussed whether woman should be regarded as a human being at all. How much abomination the counterhammer, judging according to medieval church doctrine, ascribes to the female sex can be read in this legal document.

The innate veneration of women by the descendants of the Germanic tribes of the early Middle Ages was able to have an impact in the High Middle Ages in the veneration of the Virgin Mary, and from such expressions of the veneration of women it found its way into lovemaking and into that dolce stil nuovo, of which Dante’s poem Vita Nuova may be the finest example. Here the blonde Dante sang of the blonde Beatrice out of a characteristically Nordic feeling of love. The veneration of women that broke through again could now hardly be expressed as simply and grandly as it had been among the Germanic tribes, but rather took on a more or less affected character or experienced a certain romantic exaggeration; but above all: this veneration of women was on the edge of an abyss, the aroused feeling of sin, the fear of the air of the flesh, which for church teachings constituted the essential aspect of the relationship between the sexes. Hence, among the minnesingers, who in their youth had sung of the joy of ‘this world’ and of love between the sexes, so often in all of them the fearful change to the rejection of ‘Lady World’. In church art, ‘Lady World’ was represented as a woman, alluring from the front, tempting to sin, and full of noble animals behind. When the world (for the Germanic people Midgard, the cultivated homeland, the field of all the nurturing industriousness of man and of all the national struggle with the god against Utgard, the epitome of everything anti-divine) as the world understood by the Germanic people as Midgard, was represented by the church as this ‘Lady World’, when Luther also saw in nature only a devilish power that seduces and mocks man, a ‘woman of honor who may bark against her god’, the source of that feeling of life from which the Germanic racial cultivation had sprung.

The Jewish-Christian world of faith thus attempted to separate the Germanic people from the context of the world order and relegated them to an afterlife in comparison to which ancestral ‘earthly values’ lost their meaning. Little by little, the whole attitude to life of the medieval West was thus reduced precisely in those who were capable of absorbing spiritual values and were willing to live according to these values. The coarser-minded people lived without deeper struggles of conscience in the various compromises between church doctrine and inherited nature that were possible and tolerated by the church. However, a decline in the overall attitude to life in the Middle Ages is undetectable and continues until, in the humanism of the Renaissance, the best of the Western peoples sensed the ancient Indo-European attitude to life again through the testimonies of Hellenic and Roman intellectual life, and until later, in the era of Winckelmann, Goethe, Schiller and Wilhelm von Humboldt, the Indo-European spirit was once again ignited by the great testimonies of the past, and until finally, with the Romantic era, native Germanic culture was rediscovered. But at the time of the revival, the Indo-Germanic and Germanic sense of what is humanly noble was no longer valid in the West, as a result of church teachings, no longer the focus on the noble, the will to improve life, to cultivate all growth values, but rather a tendency towards a stunted life prevailed in all spiritual expressions, precisely because a stunted life was a better preparation for the afterlife in this world of afflictions. According to such teachings, people should not feel at all secure in this world.

Categories
Christendom Hans F. K. Günther

The dissolution

of Germanic racial care by medieval Christianity (3)

by Hans F. K. Günther

 

The most popular book of the Middle Ages. Note the devils behind the naked women and remember Nietzsche’s aphorism: ‘Christianity gave Eros poison to drink; he did not die of it, certainly, but degenerated to Vice’.

The church’s devaluation of all earthly life extends to all parts of the meaningful order. Sexual life was desecrated because it now belonged to the respected ‘flesh’. The woman, the mistress of the house as guardian of the racial heritage, became an object that could ignite carnal desires. This dissolved the order of procreation described above. Those who had become circumcised for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven were considered particularly pious (Matthew 19:127). Origen, the great teacher of the Church, had castrated himself. The degradation of the body, which was so contrary to the Indo-European veneration of the body, went so far that Athanastus (born around 297 in Alexandria) praised the Egyptian Antonius, a saint, because he no longer washed his feet, and Saint Agnes (in the 4th century) so disrespected her body for the sake of her soul striving for the afterlife that she no longer took a bath. The Indo-Europeans had always valued physical and mental health as a great asset. Wholeness, health and joy of life were wished for in the greeting: Heil (in English whole, entirely ‘vale’ or ‘chaire’). Saint Steronymus (340-420) taught: ‘One should conquer the flesh! A face radiant with health is the sign of a defiled soul. Health should be a danger to the soul, physical beauty, an expression of refined nature, a work of the devil to incite the flesh to fornication’.

Of course, such teachings never took hold of the entire Germanic people, as they were too deeply rooted in the aristocratic peasant nature and the everyday life of the peasant warrior. Only a few people completely fell for the church teachings, which always proclaimed a monastic life rather than a truly Christian life. But these teachings did dissolve the high-minded and ultimately ignoble beliefs of the Germanic people, so that some of the Germanic customs could only continue to exist as a tolerated secular tradition, while this customs before the conversion were actually an expression of Germanic piety. Nowadays, much of the tradition was considered ‘pagan and reprehensible’ and gradually dissolved in the course of the medieval centuries or became a class tradition of the nobility alone, which increasingly lost its original, biological meaning based on the laws of life.

The Midgard concept, which included the order of procreation that was so significant in terms of life law and race, and all the noble peasant values described by Neckel, was bound to be quickly disintegrated by the church teachings; the security of the world was bound to dissolve. This disintegration extended to the value of home, which was at the core of the Midgard idea. In his book Usketische Heimatlosigkeit (1930), Campenhaufen described the church value of xeniteia, the turning away from home and the holy emigration to foreign lands, which was opposed to the idea of home, the peregrinatio, as this turning away from home was called in the West. The value of homelessness as a means of healing the soul emerged above all in Irish-Anglo-Saxon Christianity. In the rest of the West this teaching later faded into the background, but peregrinatio was still practiced and practiced as a particularly sanctifying form of feudal conduct in the High Middle Ages. But the church’s devaluation of the homeland struck the heart of the Midgard concept. The monk Otfried von Weisenburg (in Elfass) wrote his Gbangelienbuch in 868, in which he explains (I, 18) that our homeland is paradise, that we humans live on this earth like outcasts in a foreign land because of our sins, and that only through repentance and turning away from the world can we regain our true homeland.

This was the exact opposite of Germanic belief – aversion to home and clan had become a sign of the greatest piety. For the Germanic people, maintaining clan ties was the safeguarding of peace that created prosperity. The word peace originally meant the prosperity of all growth in clan settlements through clan order. The most sinister thing for the Germanic people was clan division. Grönbech has convincingly demonstrated this. Therefore, even with the most appropriate interpretation, a word from Jesus such as that recorded in Matthew 10:35 must have seemed outrageous to the Germanic people, who still thought in terms of clanship: I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be his own household. For the church, such a word was confirmation of the spiritual value of turning away from the world. However, such a turning away from the world also meant a turning away from the idea of ancestry and clan care.

The idea of descent from noble peasant ancestors of one’s own tribe was further opposed as church teaching by the idea of a connection, at least of the souls, to the ancestors of the Jewish people. In Paul’s letter to the Galatians (3:27) it was taught: ‘But if you are Christ’s, you are Abraham’s seed. The Jews were now to be regarded as the chosen people from whom salvation comes’ (John 4:22), as the people chosen by God, because Old Testament terms such as Elohim or Jahn (ehoba), terms for the special god of the Hebrew tribes, were translated by the Holy Scripture, the Bulgata, as dominus or deus, as ‘lord’ or ‘god’, thus no longer with the designation as a special god, but as a one and only god and all-god who encompasses all peoples and obliges all to his commandments. It is precisely in this tacit equation of Hebrew names for gods with names for the all-god himself that the ‘great deception’ that was disastrous in the history of faith and to which Delitzsch has pointed out emphatically is touched upon.

Categories
Hans F. K. Günther Miscegenation Racial studies

The dissolution

of Germanic racial care by medieval Christianity (2)

by Hans F. K. Günther

 
In many areas of Sweden and Norway the racial barrier between free and unfree fell much later than in southern Germania, because Christianity penetrated there much later. In Sweden there were many unfree servants who had been imported from Finland, from areas of predominantly non-Nordic race. Sweden seems to have had the largest number of unfree people around 1200, although by then many people had already been freed under southern Christian influence. But there were still many unfree people in Sweden up until the 14th century, most of them probably in Uppland, the region opposite the Finnish coast, where the need for servants was greater due to the seat of the kingdom and the estates of the powerful large farmers. In some areas of Uppland there are today relatively many short-headed people with broad faces, pronounced cheekbones and features of the Baltic race, which are more common in Finland. When the serfs in Sweden became free around 1200 and later, these people moved to the undeveloped and inhospitable areas, as there was still enough cultivated land. In many cases, the names of settlements and villages indicate that such places were cleared and founded by freedmen. But in these areas, the people are mostly darker in skin, hair and eyes than other Swedes, and at the same time more shy, simple, distrustful and religious in their souls, and not as open and frank as other Swedes. Thus, according to research by Rihtén, despite some later mixing of the populations, there is still a racial difference between the descendants of former freemen and those of former serfs.

Another abolition of the idea of ancestry and ethnic origin was brought about by the idea of redemption – this idea itself was such a characteristic idea of the Near Eastern racial soul that Claus combined the spiritual traits of the people of the Near Eastern race to form the image of the ‘redemptive man’. The redemption taught by the church should, however – and this is the essential difference compared to the traditional racial cultivation of Germanic culture – at the same time bring about a liberation and rejection of species, tribe, language and people, which here appeared as something restrictive and degrading. The ‘Revelation of John’ (5:9) taught that God had redeemed people through his blood from every tribe, every language and every people (ex omni tribu et lingua et populo et natione).

John of Patmos called to write the so-called Book of Revelation. Note how the Christian artist paints both the god of the Jews (or is he an angel?) and Johnny as pure Aryans.

A Jew of the Hellenistic-Roman era could, under certain circumstances, see his nationality as something repulsive and something to be discarded. There were many at that time who detested the Jewish people; there were also some Jews who saw their people as inferior to the Hellenes and Romans. Josephus, for example, the Jewish historian on the side of the Romans besieging Jerusalem, felt this way as a citizen of the world with a Hellenistic education. But now the Germanic peoples were supposed to see their tribe, their language and their way of life as something from which they had to be redeemed. Through priestly instruction, the spirit of the East now influenced the West.

In my work Piety of a Nordic Kind (1934) I tried to show why the idea of redemption in all its interpretations and effects must have seemed completely alien to Germanic culture at first: redemption from what evil and to what other life? Midgard, the world of sensible order, the cultivated homeland, was his evil, was in fact something divine, and Utgard, the power of the anti-divine, was to be fought on the side of the god. There could not be a better life than the combative life on this earth and in friendship with God. It was precisely as a pious person that the Germanic people possessed the security described above and, as a nobleman and descendant of select aristocratic peasant families, the certainty of good nature. Now Midgard was to become for him a scene of original sin and frailty in need of redemption, his very nature bound to the disgusting ‘flesh’ that leads to sin, something sinful from which a soul separated from the body must strive for an afterlife. All human nature was corrupted in its infancy, ‘evil from birth’ (Genesis 8:2) and created from ‘sinful seed’ (Pyalm 51:7). According to this doctrine, it was no longer possible, as it seemed to the Indo-Europeans, that something divine could manifest itself in human races; rather, everything human was inherited, unworthy before God and therefore dependent on redemption, redemption through a blood-stained head.

For the reasons stated above, no evidence has survived of the effect such teachings had on the Germanic mind. This mind probably opposed them with a similar resistance to that felt by Goethe, who rebelled against the doctrine of original sin and wanted to see certain phenomena recognized as an ‘inherited virtue.’ We also know of Goethe’s indignation at Kant’s idea of ’radical evil’ in man – Goethe was certainly too good a connoisseur of reality to overlook the fact that the majority of his contemporaries could probably provide examples of something ‘radical evil.’ but he refused, out of what one might call an Indo-European feeling, to understand this ‘sad evil’ as something necessary and essential to the human species and to all types of people, and believed that Kant had introduced this view into his teachings in order to attract Christians to his philosophy as well, as he wrote in his letter to Herder on June 7, 1793.

The Germanic peoples may have felt something like this in relation to the medieval church teachings. An idea such as that expressed by Luther in his baptismal book (1526), that the child before baptism is possessed by the devil and a child of the devil; further an idea such as that expressed by the Augsburg Confession (Confessio Augustana) and the Formula of Concordia (Formula Concordiae), the obligatory foundations of the Germanic Church, that a person conceived and born of the devil cannot have a true faith in God by nature; that there is nothing found and uncorrupted in the body and soul of man and that he is therefore not only unwilling but completely incapable of doing good and that his whole nature, person and being is completely corrupted by original sin. Such ideas, in contrast to Germanic-Indo-Germanic thinking, can only have entered the minds of the descendants of converted Germanic peoples after centuries of appropriate interpretation. Individual Germanic tribes have certainly tried to interpret the church teachings in a native sense; one such attempt, which may have seemed strange enough to most Germanic tribes of the time, is represented by the Old Saxon Geltand-Bichtung of the 9th century. The sober-minded among the Germanic noble farmers – and sober thinking was always widespread among the farmers of predominantly Nordic origins – may have initially perceived the church teachings somewhat in the same way as Frederick the Great did according to his living will of 1768.

Categories
Hans F. K. Günther Miscegenation Racial studies

The dissolution

of Germanic racial care by medieval Christianity (1)

by Hans F. K. Günther

 
In the following, we will not examine whether the church teachings to which the Germanic peoples were to be converted could still adequately represent the pure teachings of the Galilean Jesus. This original teaching, as scientific biblical criticism has shown, can hardly ever be adequately understood. In any case, Christianity came to the Germanic people as an essentially alien, oriental teaching. That it was intended as a teaching for orientals is perhaps already shown by Jesus’ words that he had not come to abolish the Jewish law, and may also be indicated by words such as Matthew 10:5 and 6; 15:21; 15:26, which indicate that Jesus only wanted to address his preaching to the Jews. (The words ‘Go and teach all nations’ have been shown to be inauthentic, a later addition.) The question of the rapacious direction of Christianity can, however, remain undiscussed here, since we shall only consider how the church teachings – which are by no means the same as original Christianity – must have influenced the Germanic racial cultivation since the age of the Frankish wars of apostasy against the pagan Germanic people.

Since the zeal for conversion, which stands for a faith as an oriental phenomenon, eradicated as far as possible all evidence of the pagan past in contrast to the characteristically Nordic tolerance of the Indo-European form of faith, hardly any evidence has survived about the effect of the collision of church teachings with Germanic tradition on the Germanic racial cultivation. It is therefore necessary to attempt a fundamental comparison of both religious worlds with regard to this racial cultivation, a comparison which, in the interests of brevity, must be somewhat rough and schematic, especially since the reality of human life can also combine ideas from contradictory spiritual worlds with one another to form the most diverse balances. In reality, the struggle between the spiritual worlds described continues to this day, and the Christianity of both major Christian denominations is no longer the Christianity of the early Middle Ages preached to the Germanic peoples and its adherents in the then ‘racial chaos of the Mediterranean countries’.

Medieval Christianity initially opposed the barriers between peoples and avarice as being contrary to God: here there is neither Jew nor Greek, here there is neither slave nor free, as Paul said in Galatians 3:28. This was certainly said in relation to otherworldly values: towards God there is neither lord nor slave, neither free nor unfree. The New Testament is also indifferent to the slave question, and this is due to logical thinking, because all earthly circumstances are of no importance compared to otherworldly values, except that wealth can detract from otherworldly values. Furthermore, the slavery question and the class question could not gain any significance in an eschatological otherworldly belief, i.e. a belief in an imminent end to the world and the coming of the Kingdom of God. But when this end of the world did not occur, a worldly conclusion was drawn from such statements as Paul had expressed: the abolition of national and racial barriers, of the barriers between free and unfree. Paul taught the Athenians (Acts 17:26) that all people were created from one blood: ex uno sanguine, as the Bulgata translated, the wording of which became binding Holy Scripture for the Germanic peoples through the conversion in the West.

Paul at the Areopagus of Athens

In Athens, this message of equality was not a new doctrine, for the late Hellenes, a confused, degenerate mixture, thought the same way for the most part. They were, at least in the cities, also mostly descendants of slaves of the earlier, now extinct Hellenes and descendants of the immigrated foreigners (Metoics), and such populations always tend towards the doctrine of equality, which is intended to justify or conceal their descent. Likewise, the Jews, from whose spiritual training Paul came, in Hellenistic and Roman times liked to spread doctrines of equality wherever they were opposed by a traditional consciousness of the other’s species. Jews in particular were involved in the reinterpretation of a term of Indo-European origin such as humanitas from a goal concept of full humanity and success in a national sense to a catchphrase concept of a ‘humanity idea’ that abolished all differences in ancestry. However, the ex uno sanguine was now preached to the Germanic peoples who still lived entirely in the racial tradition of the Indo-Europeans, and indeed as a religious obligation written down in the Holy Scripture.

The grave finds may well give the impression of a rapid racial cross-breeding; but, as always in such cases, the tradition of a certain racial separation, only gradually fading away, probably continued for several centuries, even though church doctrines rejected such a separation. First of all, the occurrence of non-Nordic forms in the graves could only indicate an equally careful burial of the free and the unfree classes, whereas previously only the free had been buried more carefully in the row graves. Gölder also suspects such a process before the actual racial cross-breeding: With the introduction of Christianity, a change of this kind began in all graves in Germany, which can only be explained by the fact that the brachycephalic (short-headed) people, who had long existed alongside the non-Germanic type as serfs and servants, were gradually no longer buried separately. In pre-Christian times, unfree people and foreigners were buried separately.

The church often made serfs into clergy, thereby raising them to the status of free men. Some bishops appear to have admitted serfs into the clergy precisely because of their greater docility. B. Hölder refers to chapter 119 of the decisions of the Synod of Aachen in 816-17 to support this assumption. In the Frankish Empire: priests were mainly taken from the serf class, because a free man could not become a priest without the king’s permission. In the 11th and 12th centuries, however, celibacy among the lower clergy became the norm, which again inhibited the reproduction of the families raised to the status of free men.

Categories
Film Hans F. K. Günther

Another quote

Editor’s Note: Last month I quoted some translated passages from Günther’s Der Nordische Gedanke unter den Deutschen. Now I would like to quote a passage from another section, ‘The Nordic Movement: A Word to its Leaders’.

 

______ 卐 ______

 

It cannot be denied that all of these ‘standpoints’ were led to correctly understood ideas, that in the confusion and opposition of such views there may well be something of the Nietzschean ‘chaos’ that is supposed to give birth to a ‘dancing star’. But the Nordic movement could not be promoted by emphasizing the exclusivity or even the incompatibility of such ‘standpoints’. The Nordic movement is something in itself and requires goals from its own nature…

Since the ring of this world enterprise will close inexorably, it is the task of the All-Nordic Movement to strive for control over this world enterprise. In the present age, only two races are contending for control of the earth: the Near Eastern (through Jewish banking capital and Bolshevik recruitment among all the peoples of the earth) and the Nordic (through the creative capital of the Germanic-speaking peoples). One of the two will gain control—if both do not bleed to death in the competition—because the Jewish birth rate is also falling. In Germany, 2.7 children are born to a Jewish marriage of the Mosaic faith; only immigration from Eastern Europe keeps increasing the number of Jews.

Note of the Editor: In the 1971 film Fiddler on the Roof we can hear Jewish music at the beginning, then Russian music, and when the Jew Tevye starts dancing with the Russian guy the music begins to mix between both musical genres: an unusual scene where Russian Aryans and Jews broke cultural barriers to dance together!

The urge to rule characterises both the Nordic and Near Eastern races—each seeks its own form of rule in its own way. If the birth rate of the Germanic-speaking peoples and the Jewish people continues to fall, the Chinese will finally take over all earthly inheritance through a silent victory of births. It is said that Chineseness arose from about 500 families. Today it already makes up a quarter of the total number of people.

The question of the fate of the Nordic race is therefore this: will the Nordic race be the ruler or the ruled of the world enterprise that is developing inexorably? But it will only be the ruler when its rule is also a birth victory. The Nordic race cannot follow the Chinese path, that of birth victory alone, because it is animated by the Nordic soul, while the inner Asian soul is at work in the Chinese people.

The Faustian urge to conquer the world physically and spiritually is the urge of the Nordic soul.

Categories
Hans F. K. Günther

Tower

Some passages and quotes from Hans F.K. Günther in his book The Religious Attitudes of the Indo-Europeans reminded me of what we said on March 21 about the impossibility of ‘denazifying the Gods’: what today’s crazy Westerners want most, their new religion:

Si fractus illabatur orbis,
impavidum ferient ruinae.

Translation:

If the world were broken,
fearless fall will strike.

What will happen to the West in the coming years reminds me of the Tarot card The Tower which symbolizes punishment for the proud. Günther adds a passage from Geibel’s Brünhilde:

If there’s anything more powerful than fate,
Then it’s courage, which bears fate unshaken.

And this reminds me, naturally, of the first chapter of Savitri’s Memoirs: ‘The Religion of the Strong’, that is, National Socialism.

The trick for us priests is knowing how to wait for the lightning bolt to strike the Tower of Pride so that we can be the providers of the story of the next Era.

Categories
Aryan beauty Hans F. K. Günther Nordicism

The Nordic ideal

Editor’s note: A correspondent sent me these translations of Hans F. K. Günther’s Der Nordische Gedanke unter den Deutschen with a note: ‘This will put white nationalists in their place and perhaps grant more moral and social legitimacy to the Nordic movement’. Those who want to delve deeper into the matter can use Google translator to read this article that Eduardo Velasco wrote on his webzine Evropa Soberana.

 

______ 卐 ______

 

Complaints against the Nordic idea

The Nordic idea is a consequence of the recognition of the importance of the Nordic race for the life of the Germanic-speaking peoples and therefore presents the image of the healthy Nordic person as the model for the selection of the German people. The Nordic idea thus aims at the birth victory of the Nordic person within all German tribes: at the higher number of children that can be achieved by the predominantly Nordic people of all German tribes after appropriate choice of spouse…

The opponents of the racial idea are now less concerned about the alleged incitement of people than about the ‘destroying intention’ of the racial idea. One would like to accuse the Nordic idea of causing a rift in the German people: on this side the Nordics, on the other the non-Nordics.

This accusation cannot apply to the Nordic idea, simply because the reality is quite different: the racial rift does not run through the German people but through almost every single German. It is a rift that brings every single German the unease of having to decide: for or against the select model of the Nordic people. By pointing to a rift in the German people that must separate Nordic Germans from non-Nordic Germans, the opponents of the Nordic idea were unable to arouse any effective resistance to the emphasis on the importance of the Nordic race, because just as the number of purely Nordic people in Germany is relatively small, the number of people without a Nordic influence is also relatively small. Moreover, it would not be possible to ‘organize’ a unity of all non-Nordic Germans because these non-Nordic people would have to be gathered from the most hostile circles and camps of the German religious denominations, classes, parties and tribes: an impossible undertaking…

It is difficult to understand how the Nordic idea can have a ‘completely disruptive’ effect if it praises the importance of a race that has proven itself to be the creative one among all German tribes. The Nordic-minded Germans will not be able to become ‘destroyers of the people’, as they have been accused because they emphasize the unity of the German tribes through the common Nordic blood, the creative blood in the German national body. They will not divide the German people as the political parties do, which emphasize class differences – the high number of children of a found Nordic working-class couple will be more important to them than the high number of children of a non-Nordic noble or rich person.

The Nordic movement will not divide the German people as the religious denominations do, which erect barriers between Germans and Germans that go beyond their matters. The Nordic movement does not want to achieve its goal through the means used by churches or parties, but through the higher birth rates of the predominantly Nordic Germans—a means that will not harm any of our fellow countrymen in any way. Just as the non-Nordic Germans are not blamed for having a higher number of descendants than the predominantly Nordic ones, we German Protestants do not blame the German Catholics for having a higher number of children (birth rate in Prussia per marriage in 1912: 47 for Catholics, 2.9 for Protestants)—neither can the predominantly Nordic people be blamed for having a higher number of children.

The ‘butterfly victory’ of the Catholic Church will serve as an example for the Nordic movement. All the arguments against the Nordic idea reveal again and again that the fact that this idea is new has a downright confusing effect on most observers. It is confirmed once again: most people who consider a new idea try to fit it into the traditional set of ideas of the time. But here we must once again demand that the idea of a re-Nordization can hardly be fitted into any one place; from its perspective, it will have to demand a completely new order, a thorough relearning…

While the theory of hereditary health (racial hygiene) shows the means to increase the higher-value genetic makeup in general and thus aims to benefit all peoples and all races represented in the nations, the Nordic idea is primarily aimed at increasing the higher-value genetic makeup of a race represented in the German people, in fact in all its tribes: the Nordic. It therefore wants to first stop the ongoing counter-selection of the Nordic blood component of all German tribes and then help this Nordic component to have higher numbers of children…

The promotion of the reproduction of hereditarily capable people regardless of racial affiliation will not meet with resistance in the long run. But the special promotion of the reproduction of hereditarily capable people of a certain race—this goal, which is precisely what makes the Nordic movement unique—will still bring this movement a lot of opposition… The promotion of the Nordic race, so that it achieves not only the same but higher numbers of children than the other races, will only ever be taken up as a task by a fraction of the people. But a fraction is enough to fulfil the task. If only he achieves the higher number of children from his circles, this fraction will always be proportionally satisfied. That is the nature of the birth rate.

Once that has been achieved, the Nordic movement has the task of monitoring the selection and number of children in its circles, supporting economically weakened, capable clans so that they can have a large number of children, etc.

Ultimately, the Nordic idea seeks to convince people through the fact of its existence and through the way of life of its adherents…

The knowledge of the value of the Nordic race for the German people will never be directed against an individual, but it will have to clearly distinguish between desirable and less desirable childbearing—this distinction seems indispensable. Everything must be done to increase the birth rate of Nordic and more Nordic people in Germany.

Categories
God Hans F. K. Günther Hitler's Religion (book) Martin Bormann Nature 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.