web analytics
Categories
Aryan beauty Nature

Bad sci-fi

Drying the books that got wet gave me the opportunity to reread some pages of those I had read long ago. In the series “Sixteen Years Later” I talked about the texts in a binder I read when, starting in August 2009, I discovered a healthy white nationalism that hadn’t yet suffered the regression of today. Now I would like to discuss one of the books I read before my racial awakening.

As an anecdote, the books that were most damaged were the science-fiction paperbacks I bought in the 1980s and 90s. Since the task of drying them is enormous, and it is difficult for me because the sun rarely shines during this rainy season, and above all, I must prevent the proliferation of mould on the pages that had become soaked, I decided to tear out the wet pages that didn’t have my footnotes. It is not difficult to acquire other copies of the books I have mutilated. What is irreplaceable are my footnotes. So, in my paperback copy of Isaac Asimov’s Foundation, which I read in 1994, I tore out almost all the pages to save myself the painful task of drying them.

Ever since I read it, Asimov’s science fiction has bothered me greatly. In another of my Asimov books, a non-fiction one, this Jew confesses that he loved living in New York. The room where this monk of letters wrote didn’t even have a window!

The difference between Aryans and Jews is that Aryans, being much more physically beautiful (see what I said about Éowyn in my post yesterday), have a religious calling to beauty that Jews lack (unless they have mixed genetically with Aryans, like Felix Mendelssohn). If we compare Asimov’s most renowned science-fiction work, Foundation, with Arthur Clarke’s The Songs of Distant Earth, the latter’s futurism even reminded me of Parrish’s paintings. The Jew lacks that call to beauty, at least to the religious level that I feel (cf. David Lane’s 14 words referring to the Aryan woman).

What bothered me about the first book in the Foundation series I read is that Asimov simply transfers his beloved New York to the capital of the empire, Trantor, with 40 billion humans: the centre of all intrigue and symbol of imperial corruption. Every day, fleets of tens of thousands of ships brought the produce of twenty agricultural worlds to the tables of Trantor. It’s a shame that Aryans like George Lucas have imitated Trantor with the city of Coruscant. Like Trantor, Coruscant is a kind of super-developed New York that encompasses the entire planet (in Lucas’ universe, Coruscant is also the seat of government). All of this is degeneration, obviously, and you have to read about what Thalassa was like in The Songs of Distant Earth to understand it.

In Foundation 25 million planets were inhabited in the Galaxy but the people that the novelist imagined were, from my POV, as Neanderthaloid as humans today. We can already imagine the sidereal level of unnecessary suffering that would exist in such a galactic nightmare!

But Asimov doesn’t see any of this. The city he imagines, covering the entire planet, lives under metal. People no longer saw the sky or the heavens. Not even the inhabitants knew what season it was outside the metal skin of the world—except for the emperor’s palace, nestled in natural land, full of green trees and adorned with flowers: a small island in an ocean of steel.

I have said it before, and it is worth repeating: the stars are not for man. Hitler himself believed that overmanhood could only arise on Earth. Even some YouTubers who speculate on cosmology are beginning to realise this; for example, what this guy says at the end of his video (yesterday I listened to that video in full, although without seeing the offensive images).

Even that vlogger fails because he succumbs to the YouTubers’ trend of saturating his videos with images of extra-terrestrial and space recreations and the like. Being faithful to Earth means attachment to earthly beings and landscapes; for example, the canvases of Romantic painters (Hitler tried, unsuccessfully, to be one of them). And knowing oneself. Only then can one know the universe and the Gods.

A scene like the one I embedded yesterday about Edoras tells me more than any of the hundreds of books Asimov wrote.

Categories
Nature

Might is right, 14

Man is part and parcel of the animal kingdom and (not withstanding Jefferson, Franklin, and Lincoln—Karl Marx, La Salle, and Liebknecht—Christ, Robespierre, and Rousseau—Hyndman, Tennyson, and Mazzini—Dr Adler, Bebel, George and Isaiah—Bellamy, Gronlund, and W. T. Stead) he cannot escape from the draconic ordinances that despotically govern that kingdom and environ his being like an atmosphere on every side.

Altruism, meek and lowly self-abnegation, upon any extended scale is among predatory organisms (and all organisms are predatory) impossible of practice on pain of wholesale felo-de-se.

Every man is under an obligation to fight and bear his own burden. If he cannot do so, others cannot do his fighting or his burden-bearing and their own at the same time with reasonable safety to themselves. He therefore who finds it impossible to carry his own burden, had better sink down and die in his tracks than impose an additional load upon the shoulders of his kind-hearted fellow strugglers. For then, they would be overloaded and consequently unable to fight successfully; so all might perish together.

Practical fraternal sympathy (upon any universal scale) has always had in the end a most destructive effect upon the internal structure of communities. Men will always love and cherish those that are near and dear to them; but when it is proposed to extend the circle of their ‘near and dear ones’ to all mankind, that is going rather too far. Indeed all must perish ignominiously if that foolish idea prevails. ‘All’ are even now enervating themselves, undermining their strength, by futile overexertion in that very direction. They are straining themselves to death, by endeavouring to carry an impossible load. The majority of men are born far too weak constitutionally for their conditions; and the few who do possess the necessary stamina and grit, will have quite enough to do in proving by deeds their fitness to survive, propagate, and possess. Many are projected—few are selected.

Yet altruism, wholesale self-renunciation—wholesale burden-bearing, for the sake of ‘Outraged and Suffering Humanity,’ is the maddening basis upon which ‘our good Lord Jesus,’ and his demented imitators have erected their sporadic sociology.

Does not simple business acumen whisper to us that every man’s chief occupation upon earth is to sustain himself. ‘I mean subsist at any cost; you shall want ere I shall—business is business.’ If men had sufficient personal initiative to think along these stern lines, there would be little use on earth for the theologian and ‘the reformer;’ those twin Mephistos who find their renown and grandeur, in the abasement of mankind. The battle of life would then be so grim, terrible, and realistic (so Trojan in fact) that those holy dissimulators and crafty deceivers would rapidly die off or be eaten off; for in the clash of naked interests, the best and bravest only could possibly survive; and no one would ever dream of including them among the best or bravest.

Categories
Nature Welfare of animals

Thaw

As some of my regular visitors know, what I fear most in the event of the Aryan man becoming extinct is the fate of the animals at the hands of the more primitive versions of humans that would survive him, which in my soliloquies I call ‘Neanderthals’.

I have been watching amazing videos of a whale shark asking for help (oh how can it do so without verbal language!) from divers to remove a piece of rubbish attached to her body. Yesterday I saw other similar videos of a whale that also had rubbish stuck to him and another one with some orcas that got entangled in a human net. The non-verbal way in which these creatures call for help is striking! It is obvious that they have an intelligence of their own; and the compassionate instinct to help an entangled animal, a task that cost divers hours of hard work, is absent in non-Aryans.

The rescuers of these animals are always Aryans. If the race disappears, we can imagine the fate that awaits the animals on a planet that only the coloureds would inhabit. For example, we can already imagine the Chinese inheriting the Earth if the Aryan suicide is consummated…

The catastrophes we have predicted will only affect human societies: the collapse of fiat currencies and the energy devolution resulting from the gradual depletion of oil fields. But I have not discussed global warming on this site.

Yesterday I was watching videos about the melting of permafrost across the Arctic (e.g. this one). The social catastrophes we have talked about would not exterminate Homo sapiens, let alone the Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. But if the permafrost in Siberian Russia, Canada and the rest of the Arctic melts, the methane that the microbes would expel into the atmosphere would cause the Earth to warm up to a runaway greenhouse effect.

So if the Aryan goes extinct, Nature itself could take care of exterminating the surviving Neanderthals.

That’s my Good News, my gospel! Remember that the four words are not only Gens alba conservanda est but Eliminad todo sufrimiento innecesario: whereas only the most psychogenically emergent Aryans have behaved nobly towards our biological cousins. If Aryan man sinned in repudiating Heydrich and Himmler’s noble project of ethnic cleansing, Nature herself would see it through.

As Savitri Devi observed, you cannot denazify the Gods.

Categories
Eduardo Velasco Feminism Nature Patriarchy Real men

Matriarchy

vs. Patriarchy, 3

by Eduardo Velasco

 

Matriarchy: Society and Idiosyncrasy

Matriarchy is distinguished by hedonism, promiscuity, concupiscence, indulgence, narcosis, passivity, laziness, drunkenness and an overloaded, opulent, baroque sensuality.

Everything is permeated with ‘free will’.

Spiritual influence belongs to the matriarchs. Women have a disproportionate influence on society through sexual suggestion and by monopolising the upbringing of children away from their fathers.

Things are kept quiet for fear of offending. Ambiguity and ‘political correctness’ are born.

Value is placed on material possessions and wealth.

Leisure time is mainly taken up with dances, feasting, parties, orgies, acrobats and dancers.

Embellishments, make-up, dresses, colours, luxury, well-being, spices and dyes are valued.

Matriarchy pampers the weak. Peaceful and weak collectivities flourish, too rooted in their piece of land and unable to conquer, explore, pioneer or endure uprooting and loneliness. The archetypal matriarchy is a timorous, docile, humanitarian, anti-heroic, pacifist and pusillanimous society. Peace is extolled and everyone fornicates with everyone. ‘Make love not war’ is a very typical neo-matriarchal slogan.

The spineless man is appreciated for his docility. The cowardly and weak are protected as one of the group. No one has the right to punish or reproach, authority is dissolved.

Everything that preserves life and tends to make life more bearable for the weak is valued. Harshness is removed, and everything is softened. The goal is the enjoyment of a long and pleasurable life.

In matriarchy one tends to enjoy quietly and uncompromisingly and catches pleasure on the fly as soon as it presents itself, in a rather pseudo-tropical mentality. The ‘playboy’, the ‘dandy’ and the fat man are typical products of the matriarchy, and impossible in a real patriarchal society. The pursuit of easy pleasure sets the tempo of matriarchal peoples.

All life is sought to be protected and preserved, even if it means isolating it from the harshness of the real world. Well-being and comfort are sought.

Greetings are elaborate and promiscuous. Manners are nervous, there is a tendency towards indiscretion, groping and getting too close to the interlocutor. Their voices are raised in absurd situations, but they are afraid to shout when the situation calls for it.

As Julius Evola said, matriarchy is a carrier of egalitarian social forms of anarchist or communist character. Ants and bees live in pseudo-communist matriarchies. The ‘Mother Church’, with its manhood-castrated priests, is another matriarchal figuration, however much it may shock the fans of The Da Vinci Code.

Dogmatic, utilitarian and materialistic rules and precepts are obeyed.

The lazy laughter of corrupt women and spineless men, the indulgence and the pampering, the mocking, sad and empty look of the weak, the coughing of the sick, the whining, the depressions, the inconstancy, the capriciousness of over-pampered children, the whining of the bereaved, the inbreeding, the wailing of the disconsolate, the aberration and neutralisation of powerful and vital instincts are characteristic of Matriarchy and a society deprived of order and the influence of fighting men.
 

Patriarchy: society and idiosyncrasy

Patriarchy is marked by effort, struggle, will, purpose and action, and is distinguished by asceticism, self-control and sobriety. Women are excluded from state or decision-making processes (see the Senate of Rome or the Germanic Thing), and it is the men who mould the new generations to their whim, although it is taken for granted that a man is usually not complete until he has a complementary female spirit by his side to inspire him and bring him some magic.

Everything is imbued with order, ritualism, severity and simplicity. In India, the Aryan invaders call their dark-bred enemies ‘those without rites’.

In patriarchy, the man dominates the family. There is always some sort of supreme patriarch, leader, king or emperor. Children are made to grow up with their duty in mind to take over power from their parents’ generation. The first-born predator of power is the hope of the future and gives character to his society. Social hegemony belongs to the young, vigorous, aggressively impulsive warrior who thirsts for power and to make his mark on the world.

Things are said up front and almost crudely (think of the modern Baltic and Slavic countries). Fights and duels of honour abound.

Value is attached to value itself, and material possessions are only valuable insofar as they express status (as arms, shields, armour, horse and plundered booty once expressed the position of the military caste). Likewise, great value is placed on that which is difficult to achieve, that which is within the reach of the select minority.

Leisure time is occupied mainly with sport, hunting, study, religious meditation and military training, resulting in people who are athletic, warlike, vigorous, spiritual, predatory and ready for anything.

Simplicity, coarseness, naturalness, austerity and toughness are valued. This results in Spartan lives of constant hardening.

Patriarchy pampers the strong and directly worships war, courage, daring, risk and heroism. Severe and aggressive societies flourish, tending to invade, conquer and possess new lands, under the mentality that ‘might makes right’. Patriarchy is thus the system capable of giving birth to heroes through a patriarchal life. Pioneers, explorers, restless and searching men, brimming with ambition and the will to power are forged.

The cowardly, the docile, the useless and the mannered are hated to death. Boys despise girls and girls fear boys.

Boldness, honour and courage are valued. Violence, harshness, force and even brutality are respected. It accepts risk with morbidity, plays with death and pain, and flirts with discomfort, stress, horror and fear, thinking that it strengthens men. A life of honour and glory is valued, even if it is very short (this choice is condensed in the brilliant Greek figure of Achilles). Heroism and sacrifice are worshipped, even if it means a life of suffering and toil. Eugenics, comradeship, the sacredness of the teacher-pupil relationship, mors triumphalis and euthanasia are ideals of the patriarchal mentality.

Pleasure and luxury are regarded with extreme suspicion and treated with great care, or even banished. Discipline, asceticism, self-control, will, training, haughty, rustic, aggressive and military character take their place. The phenomena of soldiering and militarism, as well as athleticism, are typical products of the long-term social action of patriarchy. This gives rise to imperialist peoples who glorify war. Feminist Marilyn French states (Beyond Power), not without some revulsion on her part, that patriarchy is a system that gives pre-eminence to power over life, control over pleasure and dominion over happiness. We might add that patriarchy also gives importance to control over emotions, feelings, suffering and pain (children are told that ‘men don’t cry’), and to power over the earth and matter.

It seeks to harden and strengthen life by exposing it to discomfort and thus shielding it against future bad experiences. The most representative phrases of this mentality are ‘it is for your own good’ and ‘you will thank me in the future’. Struggle and ascension prevail over the pursuit of pleasure.

In patriarchy, greetings are sober and simple. There is a tendency towards discretion, simplicity and static and solemn manners, almost martial in their runic rectitude. Patriarchy is influenced by the philosophy and way of doing things of the männerbunden (‘men’s societies’, or armies), which are one of its hallmarks and cornerstones.

Patriarchy carries hierarchical social forms of a fascist character, in which order decides everything. State and empire are originally patriarchal institutions. In the animal kingdom, just as ants and bees are close examples of matriarchy, wolves live in a quasi-patriarchal system, ruled by dominant males who renew themselves over the generations. The entire pack participates in the training and apprenticeship of the pups, and the fathers expel the offspring from the home once they have reached sufficient maturity to earn their living.

Principles and codes of honour are obeyed which have their origins in the world of spirit and ideas and which unquestionably have a long-term practical purpose. The best examples of patriarchy: the barbarian Aryan societies (such as the ancient Dorians or Germanic), the ancient Iranians, Vedic India, the Greeks, the Romans, the ancient Japanese, the traditional strands of today’s Western civilisation or the very society that was emerging in the Third Reich—especially in the Hitlerjugend and the SS—as well as the Prussian militaristic mentality of all epochs.

The shouting of fervent troops, the sternness towards women and children, the clattering of horses’ hooves, the blood spilt on the snow, the warlike ardour of young men, the weapons, the glorious idealistic art, the fire and bronze, the glitter of metal, the clatter of black boots, the military parades, the chanting and the roar of artillery and rifles are the glorious manifestations of the Aryan patriarchy.

A YouTube video is worth a thousand pictures: Viking prayer to family, lineage, ancestors and death, taken from the film The 13th Warrior, in which a patriarchal Nordic people face a prolific and sinister matriarchal people (Antonio Banderas, you suck!).

Categories
Eduardo Velasco Nature Patriarchy

Matriarchy

vs. Patriarchy, 2

by Eduardo Velasco
 

Matriarchy: The family and relations between the sexes

Individuals live in large common households, like prehistoric caves or the great houses of the Danubian Culture.

The procreation of large numbers takes precedence, which results in a repellent jumble. Subhuman matriarchy makes females the object of a cult of abomination, deformity, and promiscuity. Children are overpampered and overprotected, to the point of sapping their initiative and entrepreneurial spirit. Nowadays, we see children overloaded with coats, scarves, jumpers, gloves, and hats, even when it is clearly not cold at all. Mothers repress them when they show initiative or independence, an entrepreneurial spirit, or when they take risks.

As promiscuity is often such that no one knows who the fathers are, the family name is passed down through the mother’s side. Even in cases where there is marriage, the man often takes the woman’s surname and goes to live in the woman’s house, as was once the case among the Basques.

Families are not solid or defined. There are incestuous and endogamous tendencies. The environment encourages pederasty and rape, as in so many primitive societies today. Because of these practices, the deformed and defective abound.

Matriarchy is no friend of hierarchies, and everything tends to blur in the presence of the collective totem and the mass.

 
Patriarchy: the family and relations between the sexes

Individuals live in single-family homes.

Despite the importance of fertility and birth rate, the number of children is not important, but the quality of each child. This favours the emergence of strong families, eugenic selection systems and careful training and education methods. ‘Maybe few, but very good’, is the emblematic phrase of this mentality. In patriarchy, sons are treated as men from the time they are boys, while in matriarchy they are still pampered and treated as boys when they are still adults. Fathers and clan veterans seek ways of ‘manning up’ their sons through hardening initiations, and mothers have no say in this, for it is taken for granted that after a certain age (in Sparta and medieval European aristocracies, at age seven), the boy must be emancipated from female influence. Boys are allowed to run around, get hurt, get dirty and unclothed to grow up healthy and tough. Boys are encouraged to develop curiosity, fascination and respect for violence. It is especially in the ancient Aryan armies that the mentality of sacrifice, training, ceremony, fighting and dedication reaches its peak.

The ritual and solemn marriage ceremony is a patriarchal institution. The strong family, the clan, and the tightly knit community are patriarchal phenomena to the core. The wife takes her husband’s surname when she marries, and the children will have the father’s surname. There is a tendency for children to acquire the surname ‘son of’ about their paternity. This is evident in Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian countries, with the adoption of surnames ending in –son or –sen, in Slavic countries with –vich or –witz, or in Spain itself, with the suffixes –ez.

With matriarchy one knows exclusively who the mother is. With patriarchy, the father and mother are known, and the cleanliness of the lineage is guaranteed as long as the patriarchal law is respected. The patricians formed the aristocracy of Rome. Patriarchy guarantees the purity of blood. Matriarchy guarantees its interbreeding. Deeply united families emerge and practically create their tradition and mythology, even in terms of divine ancestry. Pride in the lineage of the fathers, the zeal for purity of blood, and the desire to preserve the race—racism—flourishes. Loyalty, honour and restraint, i.e. the instinct of protection of the pure and spiritual essence, take root. The Aryan patriarchy is the only social system which considers that honour also has to do with women.

Patriarchy tends to form severe hierarchies and caste systems which are separated by genetic criteria, and which favour the distinction of the best elements and the concentration of power in their hands. Examples are the systems of socio-racial separation that arose in India, Iran, Greece, Rome and the feudal Middle Ages. Apartheid in South Africa and Rhodesia is a more modern example.

Categories
Eduardo Velasco Nature Patriarchy

Matriarchy

vs. Patriarchy, 1

by Eduardo Velasco (*)

 
Since the New Age along with The Da Vinci Code, feminist-Marxist propaganda and so on, have poisoned this terrain and vilified patriarchy, I proceed to reconquer it.

What is matriarchy in the first instance?

Matriarchy is not a society ruled by women—that is, a gynarchy or gynecocracy—as deluded feminists insist on demonstrating. Such societies rarely occurred, and are very exotic exceptions, in the most primitive, backward and weakest peoples of the world, such as in the Amazon or Indonesia. And if we do not find gynarchies in the modern world, such societies perished at the hands of logically stronger, struggling, non-gynocratic societies. Matriarchy is thus a society in which the predominant influence on the collective character of the people is feminine. The peculiarity of the society as a whole has more affinity with femininity than masculinity, all the spotlights are directed at women, and there is a distinct odour of spiritual oestrogen in the air.

Matriarchy originally corresponds to ancient primitive societies and what Julius Evola calls ‘Mother civilisation’. We are talking about peoples who are generally decadent, spiritually and physiologically exhausted or depressed, where the primacy of religious worship corresponds to Mother Earth—the Great Mother—and where material enjoyment, pleasures, luxury, voluptuousness and opulence are worshipped. Priority is given to compassionate, pious, conciliatory and charitable instincts. The rule to follow is ‘enjoy’, and the result is promiscuous behaviour in every sense. Hedonism or the notion of ‘a brave new world’ is typically matriarchal.

Where can we find traces of matriarchy? In the pre-Aryan inhabitants of Europe, and the Eastern races. For example, in the Etruscans, the Vascons, the Pelasgians or the Minoans, or in areas of Celtic influence where the pre-Indo-European character came to predominate. Even in the Ottoman Turks, in their fat, drunken, retarded or perverted sultans, in the inordinate influence that some of their concubines, or their mothers, came to wield.

What is patriarchy? Quite the opposite. If matriarchy is free will and promiscuity, patriarchy is organisation, ritualism and discipline.

What happened when patriarchal societies met matriarchal societies? There was war. And—oh surprise—the patriarchal invaders triumphed every time, despite being generally fewer in number. Patriarchy violently burst into history, brought by Aryan invasions. Thus, if the Danubian Culture and related settlements around the Mediterranean, in the East and the British Isles, were matriarchal, on the other hand the Mound Culture, the Urnfield Culture, the Volga Battle Axe Culture, the Baltic cultures, the Nordic Megalithic Culture, the Globular Amphora Culture and the Corded Pottery Culture, were patriarchal, and are associated—oh surprise—with the expansion of the Nordic Race.

Intolerance against matriarchy was probably the first religious intolerance and the first fanaticism which our ancestors learned to acquire in the Iron Age. Aryan mythology itself preserves remnants of the immense struggle which our Race waged against the sinister matriarchal cults, remnants of which we shall examine later. In their decadence, the Aryans absorbed some of the customs of the subjugated peoples—that subtle, sticky, disgusting, soft, hedonistic, pacifistic filth with which atriarchy infected Aryanity even before Christianity.
 

Matriarchy: religiosity and worldview

The source of life is seen as exclusively water and earth. In the matriarchal religious cosmogony of Nature, vegetation is not born because it is watered by Heaven and guided by the Sun (and, naturally, sheltered by the Earth), but exclusively pushed from below by chthonic forces from the underworld. In the same vein, earthquakes are seen as the wrath of the Earth.

The primacy of religious worship belongs to Mother Earth, and everything in matriarchal society has a chthonic orientation. Calendars are based on the lunar cycle and the menstrual cycle it represents. Matriarchal symbols are telluric and tend towards the lunar, the aquatic and the underworld. Curved rather than straight lines abound. Examples are labyrinths, rivers, lakes, caves, snakes, swamps, stars and night.

As examples of typically matriarchal divinities, we have Cybele, Persephone, Demeter, Astarte, Tanit, Gaia or Isis. Such goddesses are often complemented by a castrated male companion (who reminds me very much of today’s pantywaists), such as Osiris or Attis, in an aberrant and unnatural religious cult.

Matriarchal priestesses are hetaeras who offer ‘sacred prostitution’ services and who are in the business of accumulating money. The priests are often eunuchs, like the priests of the Temple of Ephesus, those of Cybele, those of Astarte or as in the Mysteries of Attis.

The dead are buried, whereby they are symbolically returned to the womb from which they are considered to have emerged. In both Greece and Rome, the commoners (descendants of pre-Indo-European matriarchal peoples) were precisely called ‘sons of the Earth’ as opposed to the dominant castes, who were of Hellenic (Greece) or Italic (Rome) Indo-European origin and called themselves ‘sons of the Gods’. The underlying matriarchal philosophy was ‘from the Earth you came and to the Earth you shall return’, thus denying any ascension, any higher essence linked to Heaven and any accountability for our actions. It is such a philosophy that invites ‘enjoy, for life is short’, and acts as redemption for the minds of those who are incapable of obeying any dictates from above.

Places of religious worship used to be caves, areas deep in the earth’s matrix. There is a cult of evil ritual sacrifice, particularly the morbid sacrifice of a pure and innocent victim. Thus, in Phoenicia and Canaan, the newborn firstborn was burned alive, and something similar happened in Carthage. The Etruscans were fixated on the sacrifice of an adolescent male, and the Jews on the sacrifice of Aryan children or robust adult specimens.

Grotesque art forms predominate: disproportionate masks, totemic demonic figures, the butchery of human sacrifice or orgiastic scenes of eating, drinking, fucking and sleeping. The very ancient ‘Venus’ figures are the archetype par excellence of the ‘Great Mother’ in whom these people saw their ideal of fertility and femininity. The songs of matriarchy are laments (think of Arabian desert music or flamenco).

A picture is worth a thousand words: the Venus of Willendorf, a matriarchal idol of the Danubian Culture. Just like a fitness model or a Greek goddess, eh? Sperm whale dimensions, sagging tits, no face, and hips as wide as the Strait of Gibraltar. A testament to the ‘bucolic’, ‘peaceful’ and ‘harmonious’ primitive matriarchal culture so admired by today’s intellectual progressives.
 

Patriarchy: religiosity and worldview

The memory is preserved of the invasion of a minority and heroic people over a far more prolific people, but little is given to fights of honour. In mythologies, we remember a struggle of a heroic and virile element against a telluric element, as in the cases of Apollo against the serpent Python, Hercules against the two serpents commanded by Hera, Theseus against the Minotaur, Indra against Vitra or Thor against the serpent Iormugand.

The hero Hercules (called Heracles Misogenes), typically Aryan, is always fighting against the forces commanded by Hera ever since, as a newborn, he strangled two serpents that Hera sent to kill him. We are often told that these myths have to do with a simple ‘social evolution’ that led from matriarchy to patriarchy, but the reality is that they are related to the invasion of a patriarchal people (the Aryan) over a matriarchal people (the Ugrian, the Dravidian, the Semitic, etc., as the case may be) and the imposition of the triumphant patriarchy over the defeated matriarchy.

Heaven represents the world of spirit and light. The Sun (serene sky, light) and the storm (lightning, rain, angry sky) are seen as the source of life. The Earth is not disregarded or omitted; on the contrary, it is integrated into a system of Earth-Sky interaction in which the predominant role is played by the Sky, and in which the intermediate product is the natural world of green vegetation and red blood. The Aryans were not unaware of the importance of the telluric and Mother Earth. Demeter, Persephone, Gaya, Erda and Mat Zemya bear witness to this.

The primacy of religious worship belongs to Father Sky, and everything in a patriarchal society has a celestial (‘Olympian’) rather than an earthly orientation. Calendars are based on the solar-heroic cycle of birth, zenith, sacrifice, death and rebirth.

The main symbols of patriarchal societies are phallic, celestial, warlike and solar. Examples are the Swastika, the mountain (made into a holy place like Japan’s Mount Fuji or Sparta’s Mount Taigeto, or even the abode of the Gods, like Mount Olympus), the fire, the tree, the banner, the flag, the Sun, the Celtic Cross, the wheels, the eagle, the horse, the Lightning (considered the destructive counterpart of the creative power of the Sun), the hammer, the double axe, the sword or the spear. Straight lines take precedence over curves. The best example of this is the runic alphabet and the runic-derived Greek, Latin and Cyrillic capital alphabets, as well as the ancient Templar alphabet.

The main patriarchal divinities are warrior representations of male fighting, virility and fertility, even of subtle but certain rebellion (Prometheus, Hercules, Siegfried). Thor, as the god of thunder, rain and storms, wielder of the hammer and scourge of ‘giants’ is probably the best example of male divinity of celestial fertility and struggle against the Cthonic forces. Likewise, the gods of patriarchal pantheons are ruled by a Heavenly Father. Examples of typical patriarchal gods are Odin, Tyr, Zeus, Apollo, Apollo, Ares, Mars, Teutatis, Taranis, Thor, Dievs, Perun and Perkunos. The Latin name Jupiter (originally equivalent to Thor in his role as the wielder of thunder) comes from ‘Father God’ (Dyaus Piter). However, the patriarchate also has important female divinities: Phrygia, Athena, Minerva, Artemis, Diana and Dievana are typical Patriarchal goddesses, aloof, serene and full of austere dignity.

The origin of the priestly castes, where they exist, is in the warrior aristocracy. Priestly functions are often performed by kings, military captains, clan patriarchs, heads of families or first-born sons of the family line. Personal magic is considered a feminine affair, and power over the earth and matter is considered a man’s business. Likewise, priestesses in patriarchal societies (as opposed to matriarchal hetairas) are virgins, as were the priestesses of Artemis in Sparta, the Pythia of Delphi or the vestals of Rome.

The dead are cremated, which symbolically implies that their bodies are consumed and their spirits ascend from Earth to Heaven—to the world of the spirit. Sovereigns or heroes are deposited inside tumuli, mountains or pyramids, i.e. celestial monuments of vertical matter which, in their purifying ordination, are raised to Heaven, with the subconscious idea of preserving them in the earthly bosom to return at a future time of greatest need. It is well borne in mind that death is not the end, and that our actions will decide the future of the dead in the Hereafter. The Hereafter itself is not conceived as a peaceful and happy paradise, it is conceived as a place where old comrades-in-arms, blood brothers and ancient patriarchs of the Race await, and where the struggle is eternal.

The places of worship were originally mountain tops—as among the ancient Iranians—or places where there were dolmens, menhirs and other vertical and ‘phallic’ signs. Later, burial mounds, pyramids and temples were erected, which were conceived as the material envelope of the spiritual idea: the material shell of the sacred spiritual fire.

In art, sobriety and a tendency towards realism and idealism prevailed. There is a tendency to depict scenes of sport, hunting and war—in other words, of effort and heroism. In architecture, the celestial orientation is evident: monuments related to Heaven (dolmens, menhirs), obelisks, columns, pyramids, domes, towers, triangles and so on.

The cult of sacrifice in patriarchal societies is centred on the notion of duty, asceticism and effort, especially on the battlefield. The fallen in battle are elevated to divine status and become objects of worship.

____________

Note of the Editor: This article was originally published on November 11, 2008, when Eduardo Velasco didn’t yet post his entries in the Evropa Soberana webzine, but in Velasco’s (also defunct) Nordic Thunder webzine. A copy of the original article in Spanish taken from web.archive.org can be read here.

Categories
Energy / peak oil Nature Technology

Plough

The day before yesterday I was talking about James Burke’s BBC series The Day the Universe Changed, and today I started watching another of his TV series, Connections. I suggest that visitors of this site watch the first episode of the latter series.

Keep in mind what I was saying to Mauricio yesterday in the comments section about the possibility of the world returning to the gold standard. The Connections episode magnificently shows how fragile our technological civilisation is. Burke uses as a paradigm how a several-hour blackout in New York stopped the System in its tracks.

In my article yesterday I mentioned Sebastian Ronin, the only racialist to predict that energy devolution will open a window of opportunity for the white race in the West’s darkest hour. We can already imagine what the depletion of the oil fields will do to the world economy (everything depends on oil, even most electricity providers!).

In the episode linked above, Burke takes us momentarily into a scenario where technological civilisation collapses. After imagining how to get out of a large metropolis (at one point in the episode we see blacks chimp out), Burke takes us to an uninhabited farm that we can’t run because it relies on electricity. Fortunately, in the cellar of that farm Burke found an old plough thanks to which, and some surviving oxen, we can return to the technological times of ancient Egypt. (In such a world, our women would go back to behaving like the cute Little Red Riding Hood I mentioned a week ago in ‘Woods Girl’.)

Burkes’ plough (Connections, episode 1).

The good news, or the gospel according to Ronin, is that the oil fields are going to start running out. Some say that we will reach peak oil this decade and that, from the specific year we reach it, everything will gradually collapse over a century.

By that time Americans will be back to using their guns as they used to in the Wild West, especially to keep out the coloured zombies who will be starving, looking for food and the pussies of Little Red Riding Hoods (white women that we will be defending with all our might).

Categories
Friedrich Nietzsche G.L. Rockwell Jesus Martin Kerr Nature

Hitler made us holy again

Address given at the 2016
JdF 127 Hitler Festival
in Detroit, Michigan
by NEW ORDER Chief of Staff

Martin Kerr

In the Table Talk, Adolf Hitler accepts as a matter of course that the figure commonly known as Jesus Christ was an actual historical person. He describes him as the leader of a popular revolt against the Jews of his time. Savitiri Devi, one of the best known and most eloquent of Hitler’s post-war disciples, felt otherwise. In her essay, Saul of Tarsus, she writes that based on her own extensive research, she believed that Jesus (whose name would have been Yeshua bin-Yusef al-Nazarini or something similar in his native Semitic tongue of Aramaic) was merely a fictional character from Christian mythology; that is, he was not an historical person.

It matters little to us today whether or not Yeshua was real, or whether he was as imaginary as Bilbo Baggins and Huckleberry Finn. But, of course, it does matter to the Christians, who have built up an elaborate if perverse theology based on his putative teachings. In fact, so important has he been to the Christian world that all historical dates are routinely calculated from the year that he was supposed to have been born. That practice started around the year 525 by a Christian monk named Dionysis Exiguus. Years after his birth were counted forwards and those before his birth were counted backwards. Traditionally, these designations have been known as AD for Anno Domini (or “Year of our Lord”) and BC or “Before Christ.” For reasons of Political Correctness, these old terms have now been replaced by CE (for “Common Era”) and BCE (“Before Common Era”).

But regardless of what initials are used, the basic method of calculating and enumerating the years of the calendar has remained unchanged, because Jesus—real or not—is held to be someone who “broke history in half.” In the Christian conception of things, there is an absolute rift between what came before him and what came after. In the conventional wisdom, Jesus changed everything.

 

______ 卐 ______

 

In the 1880s, a towering intellectual figure arose in Germany to challenge the accepted dispensation: the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. In his autobiography, Ecce Homo, Nietzsche suggested that it was he, Nietzsche, who was the one who would break history in half. Through a process which he called the “transvaluation of all values,” Nietzsche sought not just to supersede Christianity, but to reverse it. Thereby he would lay the foundations for a new European super-civilization. I imagine that in Nietzsche’s scheme of things, future historians would date all history from his, Nietzsche’s coming, and not from the advent of the one whom our Norse ancestors called the “Pale Christ.”

Nietzsche, we note, was completely ignored during his lifetime, except for some cursory interest that he aroused in philosophical circles, which had a negative, dismissive view of his work. That he grandiosely described himself as the man who would break history in half is widely viewed either as sarcasm on Nietzsche’s part, or else as a psychological defensive mechanism to protect his ego from the rejection he suffered from his colleagues.

Perhaps there is a modicum of truth to both of these explanations, but I feel at the heart of things, Nietzsche was being fiercely serious. He recognized the full import and significance of his teachings, even if his contemporaries did not. Today, we National Socialists recognize him as one of the earliest “fragments of the future,” someone who was not the “last of yesterday,” but rather was one of the “first of tomorrow.”

 

______ 卐 ______

 

As it turned out, neither the Christian savior nor Nietzsche was the one who broke history in half. The theology espoused by Jesus was merely a reshuffling of the older Semitic worldview, a prime feature of which was the belief that there is a dichotomy between spirit and matter. Spirit is pure and good, it tells us, while the flesh is impure and corrupt. Nietzsche, for all his genius, was unable to articulate a realistic, systematic alternative to the Christian worldview.

No, it remained to Adolf Hitler to be the man to shatter the dispensation that had held Aryan man in thrall for 2,000 years or more.

I do not know when the realization first entered the Führer’s mind that there is no division between soul and matter, but rather that our flesh is infused with and animated by our spirit, while spirit is given form by our bodies. It must have been at a very young age. Probably, it did not dawn on him all at once, but instead only emerged gradually as he matured intellectually. In any event, by the time that he sat down to write Mein Kampf, his basic worldview was already well-formed and complete.

Adolf Hitler believed that the universe was governed by natural laws, and that for man to be happy and successful, he must first acknowledge that these laws exist; secondly, he must discover what they are; and thirdly, he must live in accordance with them.

This is another way of saying that the universe runs according to the principles of Causality—that is, of cause-and-effect relationships—and that it does not operate on the basis of supernatural forces, or on the mental constructions and wishful thinking of intellectuals and ideologues, or on the religious fantasies of theologians.

But at the same time, he knew that the human soul or spirit was a reality. His consistent use of religious language and imagery, plus specific comments recorded in Table Talk, reveal the Führer to be a deeply religious man, even if his spiritual outlook was diametrically opposed to that of Christianity.

Rather than believing that Man is born as a sinful being who can only be rescued from eternal hellfire and damnation by accepting the good lord Jesus as his personal savior, Adolf Hitler believed that Man was born into a state of grace with the Natural Order. In the Hitlerian worldview, we are all holy beings at birth. It is through being raised with false beliefs, and thrown into a society out of synch with the Natural Order, that we lose our state of natural grace and holiness.

Matt Koehl once discussed the Christian conception of original sin with me, contrasting it to the Hitlerian outlook. “If you look at a newborn baby in its cradle, what do you see?” he asked. “The Christians see an evil being born in sin, and doomed to Hell and torment without the intervention of their savior. But as a National Socialist, I see an innocent and holy being, born into a state of harmony and grace with the Natural world.”

This is the Führer’s great gift to Aryan man—and, indeed, to the whole world: he has restored us to a state of grace with the Natural Order. Hitler made us holy again, and only the Gods have the power to sanctify.

 

______ 卐 ______

 

As Aryans, we may be endlessly, sincerely, and profoundly thankful on a personal level for such insights. But unlike the Christians, as National Socialists, we are committed not just to our own personal salvation, but to the salvation and resurrection of our Race.

How do we incorporate our fundamentally religious perception of National Socialism into the practical work of building Adolf Hitler’s earthly movement? We struggle with these issues today—but we are not the first to have raised such questions.

Our great forbearer, George Lincoln Rockwell, wrestled with this question as well. During the final year of his life he prepared to transform his tiny, noisy band of political dissidents into a mighty mass movement. In a passage from his book, White Power, he gives us his thoughts on the future religious or spiritual orientation of the movement:

National Socialism, as a PHILOSOPHY, embodies the eternal urge found in all living things—indeed in all creation—toward a higher level of existence—toward perfection—toward God.

This “aristocratic” idea of National Socialism—the idea of a constant striving in all Nature toward a higher and higher, more and more complex, and more and more perfect existence—is the metaphysical, supernatural aspect of our ideal.

In other words, concepts of social justice and natural order are the organs and nerves of National Socialism, but its PERSONALITY, its “religious” aspect—the thing that lifts it above any strictly political philosophy—is its worshipful attitude toward Nature and a religious love of the Great gifs of an Unknown Creator.

Christianity, for instance, is a far higher thing than its rituals, the words of its prayers, or any of its creeds. It is a SPIRITUAL STRIVING toward the believer’s ideals of spiritual perfection.

National Socialism is the same sort of striving toward even higher and higher levels here on this earth, while Christianity is striving toward a future and later life not of this earth.
For the ordinary “soldier” in our “army”, building and fighting for Natural Order—National Socialism—it is sufficient that they respect and obey the laws and doctrines established by the lofty ideals of our philosophy with merely an instinctive love of those ideals, perhaps not with the complete understanding of the highest forms of our philosophy.

But just as the greatest Christian leaders have been those not preoccupied with details and rules but rather those who were “God intoxicated” with the highest ideals of the religion, the leaders among our National Socialist elite must share this fundamentally religious approach. For them the true meaning of our racial doctrine must be part of their idealistic “striving toward God.” [1]

Through total identification of ourselves with our great race, we partake of its past and future glories. When we contribute in any way, especially by self-sacrifice, toward helping our race along the path toward higher existence, we reach toward God—the Creator of the Master Race.

In short, while the mechanics and rules of National Socialism, as codified and set forth here, are sufficient for most of us, for the few idealists ready and willing to sacrifice their very lives in the cause of their people, National Socialism must be a very real religious ideal—a striving toward God.

We should all keep Commander Rockwell’s words in mind as we go forth into the world in the coming Jahre des Führers 127. We should endeavor to bring every single racially conscious White person into our Movement. But at the same time, we must maintain the ideological purity of our Cause by seeing to it that only those with a clear understanding of the spiritual, religious character of our worldview become Movement officers. And this is especially true with members of the senior leadership corps.

In this way, we will guarantee that we, too, are “breaking history in half,” in keeping with the Führer’s mission.

HEIL HITLER!

_____________

[1] From White Power, chapter XV, pp. 455-457.

Categories
Aryan beauty Beauty Leonardo da Vinci Nature Painting Poetry

On the series ‘European beauty’

In the 17th photograph of our ‘European beauty’ series, which I uploaded to this site today, we see a mountain backdrop in northern Italy (see my exchange yesterday about the locations that the photos represent). That Italian mountain may well have inspired Leonardo da Vinci for some of his drawings of the Holy Family, or the Annunciation with mountains in the background. It was a time when artists were almost compelled to paint pictures with religious motifs, although the angel of the Annunciation, beyond the Nordic and the hyperborean, is the absolute opposite of any Semitic profile. These are the antecedents of the nymphs that Parrish painted last century against the background of majestic mountains.

In the 18th and 19th centuries, when artists became independent of the patronage of the Church, they were finally able to admire the mountains and Aryan beauty from a more secular viewpoint. On a mountain excursion in 1739 the poet Thomas Gray, visiting the Grande Chartreuse, wrote: ‘Not a precipice, not a torrent, not a cliff, but is pregnant with religion and beauty’.

More famous for admiring nature were Goethe and poets like Coleridge and Wordsworth, and in painting Turner came to capture more abstractly the vital spirit of nature. While Constable painted the plains the poet Wordsworth was more associated with the mountains. I confess that Wordsworth’s leisurely, long solo walks in the English countryside prompted me to ask about prices for houses in Perth when I visited Scotland because that town was perfect for my long solo walks. Of course, it was only a fantasy as I have no money in the bank. Still, I cherished the idea of moving to a place where I could feel European Nature without interference from Gomorrah.

The inhabitants of Gomorrah may believe that by going to the gym they’ll be healthy, ignoring that a healthy body can only inhabit a healthy mind. It can only be obtained through the spirit of romantic poets and painters who understood, through their art, what Hitler would later understand through pantheism. The Aryan dissident who feels like Lot in Gomorrah and cannot afford a cosy cottage in the countryside should undertake the study of art in the solitude of his room, though unlike what Catholic Kenneth Clark told us, from the panentheist point of view.

This is one of the tremendous deficits of American white nationalism. Without the feeling of the numinous, it is impossible to awaken what Jung called the Self, as the full understanding of beauty is the royal road to a true racial awakening.

Categories
Hitler's Religion (book) Nature Richard Weikart

Hitler’s Religion: Conclusion

In mid-January of 1940, Hitler was discussing with his colleagues a rather frequent topic of his conversations and monologues: the church. After he sarcastically imitated Niemöller, the Confessing Church leader who was incarcerated in a concentration camp, someone in his entourage indicated to him that posterity might not be able to figure out what Hitler’s own religious views were, because he never openly stated his beliefs. The person who brought this to Hitler’s attention had clearly noticed the discrepancy between his private expressions of intense antipathy to Christianity and his public religious image. Since many in Hitler’s entourage were also intensely anti-Christian, perhaps they were trying to provoke him to state his personal religious views publicly. In any case, this observation about the inscrutability of Hitler’s religious views still has merit today—even though we have far more information about Hitler available to us than most of his contemporaries had.

That, of course, does not mean everyone draws the same conclusion. As we have seen, some people today interpret Hitler as an atheist, while others insist he was a Christian…

Interestingly, when Hitler was confronted in January 1940 with the observation that people might not know where he stood religiously, he suggested that, on the contrary, it should not be difficult for people to figure it out. After all, he asserted, he had never allowed any clergy to participate in his party meetings or even in funerals for party comrades. He continued, “The Christian-Jewish pestilence is surely approaching its end now…”

Hitler clearly thought that anyone should be able to figure out that he was not a Christian. Nonetheless, Rosenberg reported in his diary later that year that Hitler had determined that he should divulge his negative views about Christianity in his last testament “so that no doubt about his position can surface. As head of state he naturally held back—but nevertheless after the war clear consequences will follow.” Many times, Hitler told his colleagues that he would reckon with Christianity after the successful conclusion of the war…

So, what did Hitler not believe? He continually rejected Christianity, calling it a Jewish plot to undermine the heroic ideals of the (Aryan-dominated) Roman Empire. He did not accept the deity of Jesus, the resurrection of Jesus, or indeed any of the miracles of Jesus. There is no evidence that he believed in a triune God. Though he esteemed Jesus as an Aryan fighter against Jewish materialism who was martyred for his anti-Jewish stance, he did not ascribe to Jesus’s death any significance in human salvation. Indeed, he did not believe in salvation at all in the Christian sense of the term, because he denied a personal afterlife. Despite his public invocations to God, Hitler also did not believe in the efficacy of prayer. His God responded to people and judged them according to their works, not their words. Although he spurned Christianity, this did not lead him to disbelieve in every form of deity, however. He overtly rejected atheism, associating it with “Jewish-Bolshevism.” Further, he explicitly condemned mysticism, occultism, and neo-paganism. Thus, it is evident Hitler was neither a Christian, atheist, occultist, nor neo-paganist.

While this narrows the range of religious options slightly, it still leaves us with agnosticism, pantheism, panentheism, deism, and non-Christian theism. A reasonable case could be made for more than one of these options. In order solve this puzzle, however, one must not only examine the full panoply of Hitler’s religious statements but also decipher how to weigh those statements. Are his private statements more revealing of his true convictions than his public speeches? Probably, but even his private statements must be used cautiously. Are his books a better indication of his personal beliefs than his speeches? This is likely, because he seemed to be more systematic in explaining his worldview in Mein Kampf and in his Second Book. However, they also served propaganda purposes and must be used carefully as well…

One problem is that Hitler often portrayed God as an impersonal force, yet sometimes he implied God did take a personal interest in humanity, or at least in the German people’s destiny. Though he usually insisted that God does not intervene in the natural cause-and-effect relationships in the universe, at times he seemed to ascribe a role to Providence in history…

One of the reasons that I do not think Hitler was a theist is because he did not seem to think God could contravene the laws of nature. Hitler often called the laws of nature eternal and inviolable, thus embracing determinism. He interpreted history as a course of events determined by the racial composition of people, not by their religion or other cultural factors. The way to understand humanity and history, according to Hitler, was to study the laws of nature. He considered science, not religious revelation, the most reliable path to knowledge. What Hitler thought science revealed was that races are unequal and locked in an ineluctable struggle for existence, which would determine the future destiny of humanity…

Evil or sin, in Hitler’s opinion, was anything that produced biological degeneration. Thus, Hitler thought he was operating in complete harmony with God’s will by sterilizing people with disabilities and forbidding the intermarriage of Germans and Jews. Killing the weak to make way for the strong was part of the divine plan revealed in nature, in Hitler’s view. Thus, even murdering disabled Germans, launching expansionist wars to wrest territory from allegedly inferior races, and murdering millions of Jews, Sinti, Roma, Slavs, and others defined as subhumans, was not only morally permissible but also obedience to the voice of God. After all, that was how nature operated, producing superabundantly and then destroying most of the progeny in the Darwinian struggle for existence. Hitler often reminded his fellow Germans that even if this seemed ruthless, it was actually wise. In any case, he warned that they could not moralize about it, because humans were completely subject to the laws of nature.

In the end, while recognizing that Hitler’s position was somewhat muddled, it seems evident his religion was closest to pantheism. He often deified nature, calling it eternal and all-powerful at various times throughout his career. He frequently used the word “nature” interchangeably with God, Providence, or the Almighty. While on some occasions he claimed God had created people or organisms, at other times (or sometimes in the same breath) he claimed nature had created them. Further, he wanted to cultivate a certain veneration of nature through a reinvented Christmas festival that turned the focus away from Christianity. He also hoped to build an observatory-planetarium complex in Linz that would serve as a religious pilgrimage site to dazzle Germans with the wonders of the cosmos. Overall, it appears a pantheist worldview was where Hitler felt closest to home…

[H]opefully this study of Hitler’s religion sheds light on a number of important issues. First, his anti-Christianity obviously shaped the persecution of the Christian churches during the Third Reich. Second, his religious hypocrisy helped explain his ability to appeal to a broad constituency…

Finally, and most importantly, his religion did not provide him any transcendent morality. Whatever Hitler’s stance on other religious issues, his morality was entirely of this world, derived from his understanding of the workings of nature. In my view, this was the most pernicious element of his religion. Hitler followed what he considered the dictates of nature by stealing, killing, and destroying. Ultimately, however, he perished, because his God could not give him life.

 

______ 卐 ______

 

Editor’s note:

I included this final paragraph from Richard Weikart’s book only to show that the Christian author of Hitler’s Religion saw Hitler in photographic negative: white he saw black, black white; dark grey light grey, and light grey dark grey.

Once one transvalues values, it becomes clear that ‘the Jewish-Christian pestilence’, to use Uncle Adolf’s words, is what is driving the Aryan on the path to extinction.

What Weikart and the rest of the Christians and secular neochristians ignore is that one can only gain power by obeying the laws of Nature, not by violating them as they do (here Hitler hit the nail on the head). In fact, violating Nature’s laws will lead to a catastrophe greater than what happened after World War II.

Hitler did love Mother Nature. Above, Alpine view of the Berghof chalet, 1936 (Heinrich Hoffmann Collection, Bavarian State Library).