Category: Nordicism

Categories
Nordicism Pseudoscience Science

Anti-Nordicism

by Heinrich

There are some anti-Nordicists, such as those in Counter-Currents, who claim that Hitler was not a Nordicist. These people can easily be proved wrong simply by showing them the facts. But there is a more frequent and different kind of anti-Nordicism even in neo-Nazi circles.

The worldview of Hitler and National Socialism was not based on superstition or occultism, as many uneducated people claim, but had a scientific basis and ice-cold logic. If science proved that there was a mistake in their racial policy, they would surely have corrected it.

Anti-Nordicists will tell you that if the top Nazis were alive today, they would realise that their racial policy was wrong and that it’s time to turn the page, so that’s what we should do. They claim that scientific advances in the field of genetics have shown that there is not even such a thing as the ‘Nordic race’ and that Europeans with this phenotype are the same as other Europeans who do not have it.

They say that we need some continuity with the ideology of National Socialism but not with its racial policy. A good starting point is to point out that, as early as 1950 an United Nation’s educational, scientific and cultural organisation set up a committee of experts (with a very high percentage of Jewish demographics) which issued a Declaration on Race, stating that there was no scientific basis or justification for racial prejudice. They even went so far as to call race a ‘social myth’. It is clear that only five years after World War II they had no knowledge about race, nor was there any scientific breakthrough in this field, so it cannot be said that the scientific community moved away from pre-1945 race science as a result of a scientific breakthrough.

A very similar explanation can be found on Wikipedia: ‘After the war, the discovery of the Holocaust and Nazi abuses of scientific research (such as Josef Mengele’s ethical violations and other war crimes revealed in the Nuremberg trials) led most of the scientific community to repudiate scientific support for racism’. The alleged reason is Mengele and the Holocaust, not science. With this in mind it is very likely that were it not for this politically and morally biased disruption of racial science, today’s geneticists would not be contradicting the pre-1945 racial classification.

These people argue that racial anthropology should be thrown out of the window because we now apparently have more advanced knowledge about race. In reality, we only have more advanced technologies. However, these are not being used in the field of racial research in the way they should be, and this is easily demonstrated by the fact that not only have no new racial categories been established using all this advanced technology, but most researchers do not even talk about race any more.

A 2021 study examining more than 11,000 articles published between 1949 and 2018 in the American Journal of Human Genetics found that the term ‘race’ was only used in 5% of articles published in the last decade. Coupled with an increase in the use of the terms ‘ethnicity’, ‘ancestry’ and location-based terms, it suggests that human geneticists have mostly abandoned the term ‘race’.

So it should be clear to people with a functional brain that we cannot replace the racial foundation of National Socialism with this new science. I am not saying that what contemporary geneticists say has to be ignored in its entirety, but it has to be interpreted in a way that supports our ideas and not in a way that proposes the total annihilation of everything we knew so far. Consider, as a positive example of this, Evropa Soberana’s ‘The New Racial Classification’, published as an appendix to The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour (see our books —Ed.), a summary of which is reproduced below:

Editor’s summary: The European race is divided into three primary races: the European Nordic White (‘White Nordid’ or WN), the Central Asian Nordic Redhead (‘Red Nordid’ or RN) and the Near Eastern Armenid. The white race is a mixture of two or more races. We cannot say ‘this person is pure white’, but ‘this person has a mixture of races A, B and C in such proportions’. By terms such as Aryan or White we mean a mixture of Nordid White and Nordid Red and their slight crossbreeding with non-White ‘Armenids’ or ‘Mongolids’, usually people of Germanic and Slavic origin. Therefore, although the ideal white is a White Nordid with a Red Nordid, we cannot say that whites who have some Armenid or Mongolid genes are non-white. However, we could say that they are non-white if they have a considerable amount of Armenid and/or Mongolid and especially Congid blood. He who knows how to analyse facial features can be almost as good at genetic analysis or even better, as to date genetic analyses do not include detailed racial information.

The reason why physical anthropology should remain the basis for racial classification is very simple: it is the natural approach. Other technologies should only be used to supplement it. But if anthropology is discarded, then the actual physical basis of race is discarded as well, and race is reduced to a mere theory, something that can only be observed in a laboratory rather than a material reality visible to the human eye in the real world.

All of this appeals to sheep-minded people who are willing to ignore physical realities and blindly believe their claims. For example, Christians believe that our bodies are irrelevant because inside we are all made in the image of God. The anti-Nordicists of today’s racial right believe something very similar with the difference that they try to use genetics, not the ‘human soul’.

Does the same DNA inhabit these very different bodies?

Many of them often realise that this is compromising and will try to do damage control by dishonestly claiming that they are not actually in contradiction with visible realities, but only with the conclusions that were drawn about these visible realities in the 20th century.

The problem is that anthropologists have established different racial categories based on the physical characteristics they observed. Geneticists will not tell you that the characteristics themselves do not exist (for example, as if they told you that blue eyes do not exist): that would be total madness. They will only tell you that it is not a definitive marker of a distinct human race, and this makes the contradiction very clear.

Many of them even argue that we should disregard the conclusions of professional geneticists and try to be sceptical and say that we should analyse for ourselves the data they produce and draw our conclusions. This may sound similar to what I have suggested above, but there is a huge difference: I question the methods used in this field, as they only care about the results they see. (Note that I have not suggested that racial policy should be determined by laypeople. Only the authority of NS anthropologists should be respected, and that genetic data should be interpreted from this point of view, as a mere complement to physical anthropology.)

One methodological problem is to ignore race. Populations, when examined, are divided along geographical lines or into ethnicities, but never into racial categories, so it is useless to shove these graphs in our faces, as if they were some sort of refutation of Nordicism or physical anthropology, when in fact they do not refute it, but simply ignore it.

It is very stupid to use such research and argue that the similarities between Germany and Russia could mean that Nordicism is disproved. ‘Germany = Nordics, Russia = subhuman Slavs’. On the forums, I have personally encountered this statement many times. Of course, the reality is that there are some Nordics in Russia and, unfortunately, there are also East Slavic racial types in Germany. This is a well-known fact and even Hitler himself addresses it in his Zweites Buch.

If the racial types as defined by anthropologists were examined separately by looking at pure specimens of each group, the results could only validate what we have known to be true for so long. Professor Hans F. K. Gunther gives us the following definition of race: ‘A race manifests itself in a human group that is distinguished from any other human group by its combination of bodily and mental characteristics, which are reproduced [biologically] only by its fellows’. As for phenotype, Wikipedia gives the following definition: ‘In genetics, the phenotype is the set of observable characteristics or traits of an organism. The term covers the morphology or physical form and structure of the organism, its developmental processes, its biochemical and physiological properties, its behaviour, and its products’.

The definition corresponds roughly to Gunther’s definition of race, except that Gunther, in the last sentence, adds a reproductive criterion which is essential. So, if you don’t pay attention to the phenotype you don’t pay attention to the race, because it has now been shown that the phenotype is the race. So the claim that race would be something more than the phenotype is proven false.

The anti-Nordicists, of course, do not like to hear this and will scream and complain and resort to all sorts of attacks to counter it, but this is still the definition of race and there has not been a trustworthy and more competent professional to come up with a better definition. The fact that Nordicism hurts your feelings does not entitle you to change definitions.

Note also that you have to change the definition of race to argue against our position. All other avenues are futile and this speaks volumes. It is one thing to say that the triumphant Nazis would have refined some details in their racial classification after 1945 and to claim that they would have changed the basic definition of ‘race’. That is extremely wild and highly improbable speculation.

I am not ignorant of genetics at all, I am just writing for the sake of clarity. Phenotype is not magically encoded but by genetics. Therefore, a difference in phenotype means a difference in genetic makeup. So the claim by many anti-Nordicists that people with different phenotypes are genetically identical is either a deliberate lie or the result of mild mental retardation. One could argue that perhaps factors other than genes are responsible for the phenotypic differences. But then what this would tell us is that these genes are very important, not that they are meaningless as our enemies want to present them.

Some people would try to say that this definition of race is discredited because darker people can carry Nordic traits recessively and produce offspring with some Nordic traits, thus breaking the criterion of ‘producing only their kind’. But only people who have at least some Nordic admixture can do this, not purebred specimens of any race. Using the Evropa Soberana classification, pure Mongolids or pure Armenids will never bring Nordic-looking children into the world, and also for a Nordic couple, as already specified above, it is biologically impossible to have children with dark features that clearly show that they are a race of their own.

Many of the anti-Nordicists are not even familiar with basic Mendelian genetics. What most of them want is to replace racial anthropology with archaeogenetics: the ancestry of ancient populations such as the hunter-gatherers (whether Western Eastern or otherwise) Yamnaya and early European farmers. In his book, David Reich, the leading authority on the subject, says: ‘Although the great majority of scientists are focused on the biological information that is contained within the genes, there are also occasional differences between DNA sequences. These differences are due to random errors in copying of genomes known as mutations that occurred at some point in the past. It is these differences occurring around one every thousands or so in both genes and in junk that geneticists study to learn about the past’.

Since the methodology does not deal with what genes code for, racially (phenotypically) identical populations could be classified as different, and this is very important for their ‘everybody is mixed’ agenda: ‘We now know that nearly every group living today is the product of repeated populations mixtures that have occurred over thousands and tens of thousands of years. Mixing is in human nature, and no population is—or could be—pure’, writes Reich. This is the man who provides the genetic data to the so-called racists and neo-Nazis who oppose Nordicism. Needless to say, he is ethnically Jewish, and racially he looks like a textbook Armenid.

Reich also mentions in Who We Are and How we Got Here that our methods of classification are not good enough because physical traits can be influenced by environment and diet. When we analyse this carefully, we find that he does not have any solid argument against us and it can be deduced that he is secretly aware of being wrong on this point. From the fact that environment and diet can have some effect on a person’s physical features, it seems to follow, in his logic, that this can make someone look like another race. Better food may make one bigger and taller, and bad habits may make one look uglier, but no diet will make the light features of one race resemble the features of another race.

No diet will make the blond hair dark, the long skull round, the high bridge nose flat, and so on. Physical characteristics are about as reliable as you can get, especially when we are talking about examining purebred specimens, and we are only interested in purebred specimens.

According to Reich and his team, all early Europeans were mostly brown and today’s Europeans are mixtures of these various dark races. There is plenty of room for tricks and dishonesty to be exploited by Reich and his people. For example, a professional can easily select fossil remains for testing. In reality, the only thing his findings prove is that there have been mixed types in Europe even in the Neolithic. It does not prove that all early Europeans were dark, nor that the Norse did not exist (more on this later).

Reich and his team are quick to draw these false conclusions for one reason: to stamp out racism. In the book cited above, he writes: ‘To understand the power of the genome revolution for undermining old stereotypes about identity and building up a new basis for identity, consider how its finding of repeated mixture in human history has destroyed nearly every argument that used to be made for biologically based nationalism.’ And cherry picking is not the only tool they use, as we can see in the following image.

One need only glance at Reich’s book to realise that the anti-Nordicism in racialist circles comes from this man. Almost all of his arguments are adopted by the anti-Nordicists in our circles, although many of them probably don’t even know who David Reich is.

Anti-Nordicism is a poison designed to stamp out racism and encourage race-mixing. The fact that some people believe that this genetic ‘research’ can be used to promote racism is utter madness. Of course, it doesn’t matter how they present it or what context they give it. It will still be the same poison as before. It’s like giving your children cyanide but thinking you can change the effect of the substance by adopting a different attitude towards it.

From a pro-race-mixing point of view, I can understand someone spreading the idea that the ancestors of Europeans looked like Arabs, but I have a hard time understanding it from a racist point of view.

Why on earth would anyone spread such lies? What does it achieve? What is the purpose of spreading them? Are they going to have any positive effect, or is it just to bring down the hated blond man? This new science also makes claims about the Aryan invasion of India: claims that inevitably influenced our circles. It was probably designed for this.

They say that what we know today as Nordic did not really exist until the Bronze Age, and that all Europeans are descended exclusively from people of mixed Arab and Indian appearance. At this point, one would have to be brainless not to see the point of all this: to destroy the racial pride and identity of the Nordic people. The usual suspects are David Reich and his followers. Reich wrote: ‘The fusion of these highly different populations into today’s West Eurasians is vividly evident in what might be considered the classic northern European look: blue eyes, light skin, and blond hair. Analysis of ancient DNA data shows that western European hunter gatherers around eight thousand years ago had blue eyes but dark skin and dark hair, a combination that is rare today. The first farmers of Europe mostly had light skin but dark hair and brown eyes’.

Reich goes on to say that the blond hair came from another northern Eurasian population that was also racially different from the previous two, so yes, the Nordic people are a product of racial mixing. In Who We Are and How we Got Here he continues: ‘The ancient DNA revolution has shown that today’s classifications do not reflect fundamental “pure” units of biology. Instead, today’s divisions are recent phenomena, with their origin in repeating mixtures and migrations. The findings of the ancient DNA revolution suggest that the mixtures will continue. Mixture is fundamental to who we are, and we need to embrace it, not deny that it occurred.’

Reich says this right after explaining that the Nordic race never existed, and the stupid goyim accept it without question. To counter this let’s look at the skull of a Cro-Magnon man, which is a race that occupied the European continent possibly as far back as 56,800 years ago.

If we look at the skull we see essentially Nordic features: dolichocephalism, not quite vertical forehead, square jaw, sharp and pronounced chin, narrow nose with a high bridge and tall stature.

Reich only deals with the pigmentation of northern Europeans and does not mention the equally unique combination of facial features, stature and skull shape that also characterises them. We can assume that these would also be explained in the same way if this is how the population in question was formed, i.e., a gradual racial mixing that ended sometime in the early Bronze Age. Now, isn’t it strange that in Europe we have evidence of people with almost the same physical traits for over 50,000 years?

The only thing that makes the Cro-Magnon skull different from today’s Norsemen is a slightly broader face. But there is a simple explanation for this: Cro-Magnons ate a hunter-gatherer diet, which is by far the most complete form of nutrition. This diet, together with a more natural and healthy lifestyle, builds a more consistent skeleton, greater muscle development and a wider face than the later cereal-based diet imported from the Near East during the Neolithic. So we have every reason to believe that Cro Magnon looked like this:

Anti-Nordicists never realise this because they don’t know how to analyse physical traits and don’t believe in physical trait analysis. For them, there is nothing to connect tall stature or certain facial features with light pigmentation. But they are connected, just as the facial features of various African races are connected to their dark pigmentation.

It is also interesting how many anti-Nordicists do not believe that one should be sceptical of David Reich because he is a trustworthy person for them. They assume a kind of conspiracy by the Nordics to oppress non-Nordics and talk about how the racial science of the Third Reich was politicised. They even show stubborn scepticism when confronted with direct first-hand evidence from writers about ancient Greeks or Romans who were blond (see the articles on Greece and Rome in The Fair Race—Ed.).

Which one do you find more reliable: the Nazi or the kike?

It is also worth mentioning that many of the people who demand blind faith in David Reich’s research are… holocaust deniers! Some of them even believe that there is a breakaway Nazi German civilisation flourishing on the moon at the moment, so they are not guided by a fair grasp of reality. The first anti-Nordicist I met was a man who denied the abduction of children from the eastern territories for the Lebensborn (see, e.g., pages 117-129 of On Exterminationism, linked in the sticky post—Ed.). They also betray an immense lack of knowledge about the Third Reich and National Socialism, which explains how their ridiculous claims originate.

These neo-Nazis fail to see that, in repudiating Nordicism, they repudiate the racial view of history: the central pillar of historical National Socialism. They are not even capable of substituting the Nordic civilisation for something of similar magnitude. According to their nonsense, the ancient Greeks or the Romans were racially different from the Germanics, which by the way is not only detrimental to NS ideology but also European culture and identitarianism. In contrast, Adolf Hitler, in his speech on 2 April 1927, said: ‘Mankind owes everything great to the struggle and to a race that has triumphed. Take away the Nordic German and all that remains are the dances of the ape’.

Map taught in a German school

In National Socialism, all history and all historical development are analysed from the racial point of view. Races are not only considered different from each other but categorised in a racial hierarchy. Consequently, the mixing of races is considered extremely detrimental because it diminishes the quality of the superior breed. ‘A herd beast can be bred from all sorts of ingredients, but from such a mixture never emerges a man who will be the bearer of culture or, better still, the founder and creator of culture. The mission of mankind could then be considered as finished’ (Mein Kampf).

If one accepts the neo-Nazi narrative, there is no point in being a National Socialist anymore. It is clear that miscegenation has no negative effect if this is their ideology, so there is nothing to fear. From a self-preservationist perspective, there is nothing to preserve. You are a combination of many different races. You don’t belong to any one race, basically like a pardo from Brazil. Why not add a bit of a Bantu-Negroid component to the cocktail at this point? It might do you good.

Reich is fully aware of the implications of what he is promoting, but many of the goyim don’t want to see them. I hope it has been sufficiently demonstrated that this way of thinking is incompatible with National Socialism.

Based on my past experiences in debating with people, I know that as soon as it is shown that one side has to be chosen, none of them will choose our side, something that betrays that their worldview had not even been NS in the first place. However, I must ask one thing to these people.

Don’t be the kind of mindless idiot who ignores these contradictions and still call yourself a Nazi. This face only poisons the well of true National Socialism. In the coming conflict, Europeans who care about the future and follow NS principles will have the task of preserving the existence of a very distinct human phenotype, much like the one that motivated our predecessors to fight.

If you have a problem with this, you are not on our side.

Categories
American racial right Fair Race’s Darkest Hour (book) Latin America Nordicism Racial studies

White Nationalism has something in common with the FBI

I had resolved not to upload any more posts until the translation of Savitri Devi’s Souvenirs et Réflexions d’une Aryenne was ready. But I couldn’t resist responding to an anti-Nordicist piece that Counter-Currents published on Saturday.

If I have maintained for years that the internet movement that since the mid-1990s began to call itself white nationalism is phoney, it is precisely because they broke with the Nordicist tradition that proceeds from the French aristocrat Gobineau, the British Houston Stewart Chamberlain and the German Hans F. K. Günther to Americans like Madison Grant and even the eugenicists on both sides of the Atlantic, who flourished before World War II. After the war, the Establishment suspended these activities, and recently even Grant’s bust in an American park was removed permanently by the anti-white Establishment itself.

Has the author of the Counter-Currents piece read the work of Gobineau, Chamberlain, Günther or Grant? Rather, he cherry-picks out of context from Hitler’s legacy, omitting that the Great Plan of Himmler and his henchmen was to conquer Europe for the Nordics (not just the Germans). Although I am arranging our NS POV in a very orderly fashion with the PDFs in the featured post, very few on the racial right seem to read not only our Daybreak Press books, but not even the books of other authors! Remember: The West’s Darkest Hour will always be incomprehensible to those who don’t read entire books. The following is a passage (pages 117-129) from ‘Lebensraum’ which appears in On Exterminationism:

‘If we could establish the Nordic race and, from this seedbed, produce a race of 200 million, the world would be ours,’ Himmler said eloquently. A few months after its founding Lebensborn opened Heim Hochland, the first home for pregnant women. For this purpose, the National Socialists took over the building of a Catholic orphanage in the city of Munich. Initially, the institution could accommodate up to thirty mothers and fifty-five children, and the applicants were carefully selected. Only women who met the characteristics of the dominant race were admitted. Candidates had their skulls measured, and only those with the coveted elongated skull, typical of the Nordid type, could be admitted. They also had to meet other requirements, such as blond hair, blue or green eyes and good health.

And this one is a passage from Daybreak (pages: 91-93):

The Germans clearly defined their ethnicity as Germanic, including Austria, the Scandinavian and Low Countries, Switzerland and parts of the old Soviet Union. Hitler even dreamt of sharing the world with the British Empire. For the eugenicists of the last century on both sides of the Atlantic, Nordicism was taken for granted. Those who advocate white nationalism either ignore eugenics or don’t care about Nordicism at all. Like the conservatives of the Republican Party who treat mestizos as equals, in order not to offend Mediterranean sensibilities white nationalists refuse to recognise that the standard of whiteness is the Nordic type. Many have no objection to conceding amnesty to the Caucasoid population in Europe with their bloodline compromised, even if that means the eventual mongrelisation of true whites.

Because the American racial right has rejected the legacy of Hitler and his predecessors in race studies, it has slipped into a slippery slope that leads to positions very similar to those of the US government, that in its FBI statistics categorises mestizos as white. The author of the aforementioned Counter-Currents article, for example, speaks of ‘white’ Latin Americans. In reality, except for true whites such as the Mexican Mennonites, of Germanic descent, who do not interbreed with mestizos, and other immigrants who have very recently emigrated from Europe, there are no pure whites in Latin America. Centuries of miscegenation with Indians and mulattoes have diluted the white gene to such a degree that more than ninety-nine per cent of the inhabitants of Latin America have tainted blood. Yes: compared to the bulk of Mexican mestizos I would be a sort of ‘castizo’ or ‘harnizo’ who phenotypically could pass for a Spaniard, but I am not Aryan genotypically speaking (unless we use the parameters of the FBI or Counter-Currents).

Pure Nordid. I would suggest that people who are unclear about how to classify the various Caucasoid groups (and remember that even Jews are Caucasoid, especially Ashkenazis who have absorbed a lot of white blood) read the appendix to The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour. The best way to refute anti-Nordicism is simply to look at a lot of pictures of the various European groups (Meds, Nordics and Semites) and their interbreeding with each other: including those with black blood such as the Portuguese.

Sicilian man. I would also suggest watching the short YouTube clips these days, in which the players of the 2022 World Cup parade in the stadium, with camera close-ups of their faces before the actual games, revealing that not only the Latin American footballers, but the Latin American public in the stadium in Qatar, and even the players and public of some European countries, are no longer authentically white. Those who still refuse to read whole books should at least read the abstract of the final article of The Fair Race, written by the Spaniard Evropa Soberana and a colleague who specialises in racial classification.

If we keep in mind the new subtitle of this site (‘May the beauty of the White Aryan woman not disappear from the Earth’), I would fight for the blonde genes above to produce the beautiful nymphs of the Daybreak painting. But what would be the point of fighting for the Sicilian’s genes if he can’t produce such beautiful creatures?

As I said, WN is phoney.

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

Hitler’s Religion: Chapter 8

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

______ 卐 ______

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

______ 卐 ______

 

Editor’s note

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

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

Weikart continues:

______ 卐 ______

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Categories
Albert Speer American racial right Catholic Church Frederick the Great Heinrich Himmler Hitler's Religion (book) Michael O'Meara Nordicism Richard Weikart

Hitler’s Religion: Chapter 3

(excerpts)

by Richard Weikart

In many of his private conversations and monologues, as well as in some of his public speeches, Hitler sounded like a rationalist, using science to undermine religion. Also, he denied a personal afterlife…

Hitler’s freethinking bent seems to go back to his youth and may have come from his father, who was also disgruntled with the church. When reflecting back on his childhood religion classes in a January 1942 monologue, Hitler claimed that he “was the eternal questioner.” He read a lot of freethinking literature, and he challenged his religion teacher with his findings, allegedly driving his teacher to despair. He would continually ask his teacher about doubtful themes in the Bible, but the teacher’s answers were always evasive. One day Hitler’s teacher asked him if he prayed, and he responded, “No, Sir, I do not pray; I do not believe that the dear God has an interest if a pupil prays!” Hitler also reported that he hated the mendacity of his religion instructor, who once told Hitler’s mother in front of him that Hitler’s soul was lost. Hitler responded by telling his teacher that some scholars doubt there is an afterlife. In February 1942, Hitler confessed that he had not believed in Christianity since he was about thirteen to fifteen years old. According to Hitler, “None of my [school] comrades believed in the so-called communion any longer.” Hitler regaled his secretaries with accounts of his youthful exploits, including stories about embarrassing his religion teacher, whom he considered unkempt and filthy. He told his secretaries that he developed an aversion to clergymen from his earliest youth…

This was not the only time Hitler praised Enlightenment philosophers. During a monologue in October 1941, he lamented that current discussions about religion were in a miserable state compared to the writings of the French Enlightenment or to Frederick the Great’s discussions with Voltaire. Nine months later, he told Bormann that of the books that Bormann had given him to look at, he was especially interested in Frederick the Great’s books, Briefe über die Religion (Letters on Religion) and Theologische Streitschriften (Theological Polemics). Hitler commented that it would be valuable if all Germans, especially leaders and military officers, could read these works by Frederick, because then they would see that Hitler was not alone in his “heretical thoughts.” Hitler obviously thought highly of Frederick, not only for his military exploits and tenacity but also for his Enlightened religious views. Hans Frank noticed this tendency, too, testifying that Hitler increasingly identified with Frederick the Great’s Enlightened rationalism, which completely suppressed his childhood faith. The theologian Paul Hinlicky claims that Hitler’s conception of God was shaped by Enlightenment thought, asserting, “Hitler embraced the rationalist, watch-maker God typical of deistic (not ‘theistic’) thought whose stern and ruthless law he discovered anew in Darwinian natural selection. In this way, Hitler renounced the God identified by biblical narrative”…

In 1927, Hitler corresponded with a Catholic priest who had previously supported Nazism but by this time had some misgivings. Hitler contradicted the priest’s claim that Christianity had brought an end to Roman barbarism. Instead, Hitler insisted that Christianity was even more barbaric than the Romans had been, killing hundreds of thousands for their heretical beliefs…

Hitler attacked those in the churches who opposed his regime, indignantly claiming that their resistance was “nothing more than the continuation of the crime of the Inquisition and the burning of witches, by which the Jewish-Roman world exterminated whatever offered resistance to that shameful parasitism.” In a February 1942 monologue, Hitler mocked the Christian story of God sending His Son to die for humanity. Then, after Christianity became established, Hitler complained, Christians used violence to force everyone to believe…

Another way that Hitler paralleled Enlightenment rationalism was by stressing the variety of religions in the world. Hitler saw the presence of numerous religions in the world as a major hurdle to believing in any particular one. The basic idea was that since there were so many different religions, each claiming to be the sole and exclusive truth, most religions were necessarily wrong. Why, then, believe in one particular religion, just because by accident you happened to be raised in the society that embraced it? In a monologue in October 1941, Hitler expressed this point clearly. Where he got his statistics from is uncertain, but he claimed that there were 170 large religions in the world, so at least 169 must be wrong. The implication, however, was that all 170 were probably wrong. Then he claimed that no religion still being practiced was older than 2,500 years, while humans have existed for at least 300,000 years (having evolved from primates). This implied that religions were temporary phenomena of questionable validity. A few months later, he made similar remarks, claiming that human conceptions of Providence are constantly shifting. Only about 10 percent of people in the world believed in Catholicism, he claimed, and the rest of humanity had many different beliefs. This time, he gave the figure of 500,000 years for the existence of the human species, noting that Christianity only existed during an “extremely short epoch of humanity.”

In his 1935 speech to the Nuremberg Party Rally, he argued that religious ideas and institutions are inseparably linked to the continued existence of its practitioners and thus are not eternal truths. Religions, according to Hitler, are only valid to the extent that they contribute to the survival of the people (Volk) practicing them…

Five years earlier, he had given his first Nuremberg Party Rally speech after taking power and at the time presented his racial ideology as scientific. “In nature,” he explained, “there are no inexplicable accidents…. Every development proceeds according to cause and effect.” Therefore, in order to triumph as a Volk, Germans needed to discover the “eternal laws of life” and conform to them. Some of the most important laws of nature, Hitler explained, are that races are unequal and culture depends on the biological quality of the people, not on their environment. These two ideas—racial inequality and biological determinism—were prominent among German biologists and anthropologists, so in this case Hitler’s views were consistent with the science of his day…

After coming to power, Hitler continued to prioritize science over religion. When meeting with Cardinal Michael von Faulhaber, Hitler reminded him that the world was changing, and he thought the Catholic Church should change with it. He reminded the cardinal of the Church’s past conflicts with science over its belief in a six-day creation and the geocentric theory of the solar system. Then he told Faulhaber that the Church must abandon its opposition to Nazi racial and eugenics legislation, because such policies “rest on absolute scientific research”…

When he was a boy, his religion teachers would teach the creation story from the Bible, while his science teachers would teach the theory of evolution. As a pupil, he recognized that these teachings were completely contradictory. He admitted that the churches in recent times had saved face somewhat by retreating to the position that biblical stories could be interpreted symbolically. However, he took the side of science and evolutionary theory against religion and the churches’ doctrines.

Another reason that some people might mistake Hitler for an atheist was his aforementioned rejection of a personal afterlife. Based on his interaction with Hitler, Walter Schellenberg, one of the most influential SS officers during World War II, testified the following:

Hitler did not believe in a personal god. He believed only in the bond of blood between succeeding generations and in a vague conception of fate or providence. Nor did he believe in a life after death. In this connection he often quoted a sentence from the Edda, that remarkable collection of ancient Icelandic literature, which to him represented the profoundest Nordic wisdom: “All things will pass away, nothing will remain but death and the glory of deeds.”

In his New Year’s Proclamation in 1943, Hitler publicly insinuated that he did not believe in an individual afterlife, telling his fellow Germans, “The individual must and will pass away, as in all times, but the Volk must live on.” According to Albert Speer, one of Hitler’s closest friends who met with him not long before he committed suicide, Hitler faced his own death without any hope of an afterlife. Hitler told him, “Believe me, Speer, it is easy for me to end my life. A brief moment and I’m free of everything, liberated from this painful existence.” Hitler clearly did not think there was any kind of personal afterlife and certainly had no inkling of any divine judgment after death…

In February 1942, in the midst of a screed accusing Christianity of destroying the noble, ancient world, Hitler blamed the Jews for introducing the “beastly idea” that one’s life continues in a future world. The Jews used this promise of life after death as an excuse, according to Hitler, to exterminate life in the present world. Hitler contradicted this allegedly Jewish view, asserting that persons cease to exist at death…

In Mein Kampf, Hitler claimed that true Aryan religion must uphold “the conviction of survival after death in some form.” This, however, still underscores the fuzziness of his conception of the afterlife, since “in some form” is rather vague and openended. It could mean a personal afterlife, but it could also simply mean continuing to exist in one’s descendants or in matter rearranged. The latter seems closer to the position Hitler stated elsewhere…

He reiterated this point in a January 1928 speech, where he posed the question crucial to all religions, “Why is the individual in the world at all?” He answered that we do not know why we are living, but we do know that we have an instinct not only to live, but also to continue our existence in to the future. This is “the yearning to immortalize oneself in the body of a child.” The highest humans—and Hitler clearly thought the Aryans were the highest—extend this desire to preserving the entire species, not just one’s own children.

The view that Hitler saw the afterlife as an impersonal return to nature or the Volk is reinforced by an entry in Goebbels’ diary during December 1941. The entry is especially intriguing because it was one of the only times that Goebbels noted a point of disagreement between Hitler and himself about religion. Goebbels claimed that in his view—but not in Hitler’s—the average German needs to regard the afterlife as a continuation of the individual. “One cannot make do by saying, he goes again into his Volk (people) or into his native soil (Mutterboden).” In this discussion, Goebbels states that Hitler did not believe in an individual afterlife, and he implies that Hitler took the position that afterlife simply means returning to the blood and soil from which one came.

The view that the afterlife is simply a continuation of life in future generations was reflected in an SS pamphlet on funerals. It quoted Himmler, who stated that death held no terror, because it found meaning in the continuation of life. He explained, “The individual dies, but in his children his people (Volk) grow beyond him even during his life. Because we love the future of the life of our people (Volk) more than ourselves, we freely and bravely consent to go to the death, wherever it must be.” This notion of an impersonal afterlife was not uncommon in Nazi circles. It was so widespread that Pope Pius XI criticized the Nazi view of the afterlife in his 1937 encyclical. Pius complained, “Immortality in a Christian sense means the survival of man after his terrestrial death, for the purpose of eternal reward or punishment. Whoever only means by the term, the collective survival here on earth of his people for an indefinite length of time, distorts one of the fundamental notions of the Christian Faith and tampers with the very foundations of the religious concept of the universe, which requires a moral order”…

Hitler’s vague notion of God inspired him because he considered God the creator and sustainer of the German Volk. When Hitler used the term Volk, he was referring to the Germanic people as a racial entity, so Volk was synonymous with the Aryan or Nordic race (terms also used interchangeably). But it was also conveniently ambiguous, making it a great propaganda tool appealing to Germans who might differ in their interpretations of it. It could mean all the German people belonging to the unified German nation, or it could mean all those who were ethnically German, or it could even mean all those having Nordic racial characteristics, even if they were ethnically Danish or Dutch or Norwegian or Polish. Hitler preferred this last definition and tried during World War II to construct a Greater Germanic Reich that incorporated all those identified as members of the Nordic race, no matter their nationality. However, most Germans opted for one of the first two definitions…

Hitler made the connection between God and the German Volk so often that Max Domarus, who edited a massive four-volume collection of Hitler’s speeches, claimed Hitler’s God was a “peculiarly German God,” not the God worshipped by most other people throughout the ages…

Domarus added this insightful footnote to the passage: “In this context as well it is evident that Hitler understood the term ‘Almighty’ to refer to a god that existed exclusively for the German people.” Of course, Hitler believed that God existed everywhere, but he also believed the Volk was God’s special people with a special mission, and he tried to instill this faith in his fellow Germans. Rather frequently Hitler encouraged his fellow Germans to believe that their work and struggle on behalf of their people was assured of success, because God was with them. In June 1937, while boasting of his achievements and preparing for future conquest, Hitler exhorted his compatriots to expect that God would bless them if they tenaciously worked for Germany…

 

______ 卐 ______

 

Note of the Editor:

Here is, with the honourable exception of GLR, the astronomical failure of American racialism. Only if they worked to restore Germany’s honour—the exact reverse of the anti-Nazi West of our day—could God help them.

Let us remember the words of Michael O’Meara: ‘The greatest of the “conservative” thinkers, Joseph de Maistre, pointed out long ago that the French Revolution led the revolutionaries rather than was led by them. For he believed that certain Providential forces rule our lives. These forces he saw in Christian terms, but others, like Heidegger, for instance, saw them in terms of Being, over which humans have no control. In either case, the force of Providence or Being or Destiny has a power that has often made itself felt in our history. For this reason, I have little doubt that Europeans will eventually throw off the Judeo-liberal system programming their destruction. I’m less confident about we Americans, given the greater weakness of our collective identity and destiny. But nevertheless even we might be saved from ourselves by this force—as long as we do what is still in our power to do’.

But O’Meara failed in one of his articles to honour the German Chancellor and his Reich because of, I suspect, the Catholicism of his Irish parents. Like many other Americans, he clung somehow to the Semitic god of the Christians.

The salvation of the Aryan consists in honouring Hitler and no longer Jesus. Then, and only then, the true God will help them.

Nicht in kalten Marmorsteinen,
Nicht in Tempeln, dumpf und tot:
In den frischen Eichenhainen
Webt und rauscht der deutsche Gott.

 
 
 
 
 

Not in cold marble stones,
Not in temples dull and dead:
In the fresh oak groves
Weaves and rustles the German god.

Categories
Genuine spirituality Neanderthalism Nordicism Savitri Devi Souvenirs et réflexions d'une aryenne (book) Tree Welfare of animals

Reflections of an Aryan woman, 20

This is not to say that, statistically, the Aryan is not closer to the ‘idea of the perfect man’ than the man of the other races, even the noble ones, just as within the Aryan race itself the Nordic is statistically closest to the same ‘idea’, in the Platonic sense of the word. Warrior courage is perhaps one of the virtues most equally prevalent in both the purebred (or nearly purebred) Aryan and the non-Aryan.

But there are traits which, while not exclusive to the Aryan or more particularly to the Nordic, are undoubtedly more common in the latter than elsewhere. I will mention three of them: physical beauty, which counts as soon as one speaks of a visible being; the fact that he can be relied upon, that he doesn’t promise what he cannot give, that he doesn’t lie (or lies less than most nationals of other races) and finally, the fact that he has more respect than they generally have for the animal and the tree, and more kindness than they have towards all living beings.

And this last trait seems to me essential. I cannot, indeed, consider as superior any race—any human community, however outwardly beautiful and gifted it may be—if too large a percentage of the individuals composing it despise and treat ‘like things’ the beautiful living beings who, by nature, cannot take a stand for or against any cause, and whom, therefore, it is impossible to hate.

The superior man—the candidate for superhumanity—can not be the torturer or even the shameless exploiter of living nature. He will be the admirer—I would even say, the adorer; the one who, to use the words of Alfred Rosenberg, ‘sees the Divine in all that lives: in the animal; in the plant’.[1] He can be—indeed, he must be—merciless towards man, the enemy of this natural Order, with which he has identified himself, and whose beauty he is enamoured of.

But far from inflicting pain on an innocent creature, or allowing others to inflict it directly or indirectly, if he can prevent it he will, whatever is in his hands, ensure that every beast he meets lives happily; that every tree that grows in his path escapes, too, from the innate barbarity of the inferior man, ready to sacrifice everything for his own benefit, his own comfort, or for the benefit and comfort of his own, even of ‘humanity’.

Any overestimation of oneself is a sign of stupidity. All anthropocentrism is an overestimation of the collective ‘self’ of the two-legged mammal, all the more blatant as this self doesn’t exist; they are only collective selves each corresponding to more or less extensive and more or less homogeneous human groups. Hence it follows that all anthropocentrism is a sign of double stupidity, and generally of collective stupidity.

What are we reproached with when we say that we ‘deny man’? We are reproached for rejecting anthropocentrism. We are reproached for placing the notion of the elite—living aristocracy, human or non-human—above the notion of any man, and for sacrificing not only the sick to the healthy, the weak to the strong, the deficient to the normal individual or above normal, but also the mass to the elite. We are reproached for taking the elite of our Aryan race as the end, and the mass (all human masses, including those in our Aryan countries) as the means. And when I say ‘mass’ I do not mean people, but average and below-average humanity, not so much as to what its representatives know, but as to what they are: as to their character and their possibilities. Our Führer came from ‘the people’, but did not belong to ‘the mass’.

We are reproached for our disgust with the failed creature who has irrevocably turned his back on the ideal archetype of his race, our horror of the morbid, the quirky, the decadent, of everything that deviates without return from the crystalline simplicity of elementary form, absolute sincerity and deep logic. We are reproached for our militant nostalgia for the time when the visible order of the world faithfully reflected the eternal order, the divine order; for our fight for the reestablishment, at whatever cost, the reign of eternal values—our fight against the tide of Time.

_________

[1] Quoted by Maurice Bardèche in Nuremberg ou les faux-monnayeurs, first edition, p. 88.

Categories
Nordicism NS booklets

SS booklet, 5

‘In all provinces of the Reich and in all German countries—as shown by these pictures of Dutchmen, Norwegians, Danes and Swedes—we find a Nordic-based, Germanic-German [germanisch-deutsche] type’.

Categories
Nordicism NS booklets

SS booklet, 4

‘The knowledge that Nordic blood, which predominates in the folk, stamps the folk race, determines the folk character and binds hearts, is today common knowledge in Germany’.

Categories
American racial right Nordicism

Racialists who hate me

Regarding Krist Krusher’s most recent comment about a blogger after I opened again the comments section after two and a half months of closing it, this is my response:

This guy is an anti-Nordicist. And he just calls me names, never tries to rebut what Nordicists have said since the French Arthur Gobineau, the Briton Houston Stewart Chamberlain, the American Madison Grant, all Nazi raciologists, William Pierce and more recently Arthur Kemp (see also Evropa Soberana’s essays I’ve translated from Spanish to English). As to the Nordic stock of the original Greeks and Romans, see what American Renaissance has said: here. But he also lies.

That is of course Chechar’s [this is how one of my nephews called me long time ago] intention: harm Whites.

And also:

If by ‘Spanish imposter’ that means he’s a Mexican posing as Iberian, I agree.

I have never claimed I’m Spaniard. And this is libellous:

Of course he is hostile to White nationalism. He is anti-White… I’m sure exterminating Whites makes great sense to him.

Crazy guy. But those white nationalists who are also anti-Nordicists have always hated me.

Categories
American racial right Ethnic cleansing Eugenics Nordicism Third Reich

Lebensraum, 4

‘White’ to me just means ‘European’, which includes a whole range of skin tones, from the whitest white to brown.

–Greg Johnson

Abducting the future Sabine women

The image below says: ‘New Wolf’ [see first comments below] and below other letters seem to indicate that it is a text for the racial policies of the NSDAP.

To found Rome, on this site I have talked a lot about the abduction of the beautiful Sabine women, who belonged to an ethically related people of the Spartans. We have also talked about how the Spartan state nationalised small kids to garrison them.

But neither Sparta nor Republican Rome still suffered from the miscegenation that would fall on Europe centuries later. Since the extensive interbreeding with mudbloods was already well advanced in the last century, the Germans were forced to kidnap the most Nordish-like children from the conquered countries to educate them as god intended.

If the white race is to be saved, these kinds of measures will have to be retaken along with the repudiation of white nationalists who, following the egalitarian fashions of the darkest times in the West, reject Nordicism. Let’s just compare the above heading to the policies of the NSDAP and we will understand what the word quackery means in my mouth when I refer to white nationalists.

But let’s go back to the non-quacks who wanted to save the race.

Despite the successes, Himmler admitted that Lebensborn households couldn’t produce enough children to fulfil his dream. Even counting German-speakers in newer regions, such as the Sudetenland, the Third Reich’s population didn’t exceed seventy-nine million, well below the 120 million that had been proposed.

To increase the number of inhabitants, Himmler gave the order to the soldiers of the occupied countries to abduct Nordic-looking children. This strategy was carefully put into practice in some areas of the East, especially Poland. The children were divided into two groups: those with Slavic features were deported to the east or became labour; those with Aryan features could be Germans with all their privileges. The result was a real hunt of blond and blue-eyed children.

After this examination, they were classified into three different categories: desirable, acceptable or undesirable. Having gypsy features automatically made a child undesirable, which, in practice, carried a death sentence. Many of them were sent to the camps.

The past of the chosen children was painstakingly erased. Usually they were told that their parents had died and, after giving them a new name with Germanic resonances, they were sent to Germany. (At this point it’s necessary to recall the quote from Who We Are in the last article of Daybreak in which Pierce tears his garments when speaking of the ethno-suicidal American custom of bestowing Hebrew names on children.) There they entered a home where they strictly forbade them to speak Polish. Those who were unable to learn German or who didn’t adapt to their new nationality would be sent back to Catholic Poland.

This same fate happened to the children of many other parents, including Czechoslovakia, Slovenia, and parts of the Soviet Union. One of them was Alexander Litau, originally from Crimea, who was only twenty months old when, in 1942, Germany invaded the peninsula. With his blue eyes and blond hair, the little boy matched exactly what the Germans were looking for. One day, some SS officers saw him playing in front of his house and took him away.

Alexander was first sent to Poland, where German doctors made sure that he was healthy and met all the requirements. The examination was thorough and it was found that the child didn’t have any Jewish traits. He was then placed in a Lebensborn home, Sonnenwiese (Sunny Meadow) in Kohren-Sahlis, Saxony. Here, now under the name Folker, he was offered up for adoption along with others.

‘My first memory is being in a room with thirty other children. People would come in there and they would line us up as if we were puppies looking for a new home. Those people were going to be my parents. They left and came back the next day. Apparently my “mother” wanted a girl, but my “father” preferred a boy… I placed my head on his knee and this was enough: I would be his son’, Folker recalled.

Categories
Abortion Adolf Hitler Autobiography Ethnic cleansing Eugenics Germany Heinrich Himmler Infanticide Nordicism Third Reich

Lebensraum, 2

Demographic crisis

Four years earlier, in December 1935, the entity that would be in charge of the project, Lebensborn—Source of Life—had been created: a social assistance organisation whose main purpose was to offer different types of facilities for single mothers and their babies.

The German population had been declining for decades, and the country was suffering a severe demographic crisis. The birth rate, which at the beginning of the century was 35.8 children per thousand inhabitants, had fallen to 14.7 in 1933, the year of Hitler’s rise to power. For the Führer’s ambition to populate the eastern regions with Aryans, it was essential to reverse this trend. Himmler estimated that 120 million people were needed.

Family life and motherhood were promoted in various ways, notably with special marriage loans and grants for each birth to encourage Germans to bring more children into the world. At the same time, any information on contraception was suppressed and contraceptives were banned. Abortion was also outlawed, which was labelled ‘sabotage against the future of Germany’.

The idea of increasing the population with a large number of children of the superior race was firmly rooted in the mentality of the party. ‘If Germany had a million children a year and eliminated between 700,000 and 800,000 of the weakest, the result would probably be an increase in its strength’, Hitler had affirmed with conviction at a party meeting in 1929.

Here it is worth interpolating vignettes from my own life.

Non-consanguineous relatives had a son who was born the same year I was born. But this guy is mentally retarded, so terribly retarded that he once bit off his sister’s finger. Another case: the only friend with whom I spoke disparagingly about the race of the country in which we were born had a Down syndrome sister whose retardation was so great that, if they left her a few meters outside her apartment, she wouldn’t know how to return home: a lower IQ than a dog.

These real-life cases show that one must be truly lobotomised through Christian ethics to avoid what the ancient Greeks and Romans did with their defective babies. It is more than obvious that Christianity has fried the brains of the white parents of these people I know, and millions of others like them.

Among my relatives, only Uncle Beto admired Hitler. He once said having in mind, I believe, one of my handicapped cousins: ‘I would kill such a daughter and then I would go to hell!’ He meant that he’d kill her if she was his daughter. Although I was not a witness of this anecdote I guess that his sisters, my great-aunts, were scandalised by these kinds of pronouncements.

But let’s continue with the Third Reich.

‘If we could establish the Nordic race from Germany and, from this seedbed, produce a race of 200 million, the world would be ours’, Himmler eloquently expressed. A few months after its founding, Lebensborn opened Heim Hochland, the first home for pregnant women. For this, the National Socialists took over the building of a Catholic orphanage located in the town of Munich.

Initially, the institution could host up to thirty mothers and fifty-five children, and applicants were carefully screened. Only women who had the characteristics of the dominant race were admitted. Candidates had their skull measured, and only those with the highly coveted elongated skull, typical of the Aryans, were eligible for admission. They also had to meet other requirements, such as being blonde, having blue or green eyes, and being in good health.

Those who passed the test received the best care in exquisite surroundings as a reward. Homes were often in stately homes that, as in the case of Heim Hochland, had often been taken from Hitler’s enemies, and other mansions from Jews. The organisation’s headquarters in Munich was in a house that had been owned by the writer Thomas Mann, (who had six children with his Jewish wife). All homes were equipped with modern medical equipment and cared for by specialised medical personnel.

These luxurious conditions had their effect. In 1939, Gregor Ebner, Lebensborn’s medical director, informed Himmler that a total of 1,300 women had applied. Of these, 635 had been considered suitable due to their racial characteristics and their state of health.

The births went very well. While in Germany the mortality of newborns was six percent, in the homes of the Lebensborn Organisation this figure was reduced by half. ‘Deliveries are easy, without major complications, which is attributable to the racial selection and quality of women we welcome’, Ebner wrote proudly. Logically, all this had a high cost: 400 marks per mother. ‘It is not a great sacrifice if we can save a million children with good blood’, Ebner concluded.