web analytics

Category: Racial right

Categories
Kevin MacDonald Old Testament Racial right

Why I am so critical of them

To many racialists, my constant criticism of white nationalism may seem excessive. But I do so and will continue to do so, for a very specific reason.

The platform that Kevin MacDonald provides, at least in the first and third books of his trilogy on Jewry, could potentially be ideal for understanding the West’s darkest hour: Whites and Jews have been engaged, for over two thousand years, in an ethnic war in which only one can come out alive (the best of the Gentiles, says the Talmud, must be exterminated; that is, the competing Aryans).

Instead of constructing an ideological edifice in which this fundamental premise serves to understand the Christian problem, bearing in mind that Christian ethics is the poison that is killing the Aryan, most contemporary racialists turn a blind eye to what is right under their noses: the JQ and the CQ are one and the same (again, remember Nietzsche’s long quote in The Fair Race).

Perhaps it would be a good idea for me to start quoting our friend Gaedhal’s letters so that, drop by drop in many posts to come, we can better understand the mind of Jewry—and the schizophrenia of white racialists who worship the god that wants to exterminate them. In his missive today, Gaedhal informs us of the following (note how psychotic, from this point of view, it is to admire Saul, David and company):

‘…lo, the people shall dwell alone, and shall not be reckoned among the nations.’

Numbers 23:9b KJV

‘Nations’ above is, in the Hebrew text, ‘goyim’. The Jews do not see themselves as part of the family of nations. They see themselves as separate, distinct, superior, and wish to dominate and enslave the gentile nations. Later on, in the Bible, one of the gentile nations tricks Israel into letting them live by becoming their slaves!. They become hewers of wood and drawers of water.

The reason why David was preferred by Yahweh to Saul is because Saul let some of the Goyim live—in disobedience to Yahweh’s strict command to exterminate them all!—whereas David did not. David was perfectly obedient to Yahweh in this respect, yea, a man after Yahweh’s own heart in this regard. It became a saying in Israel that Saul killed thousands of Goyim but David killed tens of thousands of Goyim.

Categories
Darkening Age (book) On the Historicity of Jesus (book) Racial right Richard Carrier

On semi-normies

Kevin MacDonald continues to publish Christian author Andrew Fraser, about whom a commenter said yesterday in the comments section of The Occidental Observer (TOO):

The Christian cult was designed to weaken the gentile Roman Empire. Paul and his cabal have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. Christians generally protect Jews and embrace their influence. This was true in the Renaissance as it is today. Why is this discussion given any weight in our movement? Christianity is a Jewish lie that prevents us from understanding evolutionary teleology and the ethics which flow from this, as well as the insights of Dr. McDonald. Please publish something more topical. Is this a digital synagogue?

At least whoever moderates TOO let that comment from an anonymous commenter go through. But I am still annoyed by the lack of intelligence of the semi-normies who comment on racialist forums.

In the comments section of Counter-Currents, for example, I recently saw again credulous comments on Joseph Atwill’s book, Caesar’s Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus. For all those who cannot distinguish between sound scholarship and crank scholarship I recommend a post from 2020, ‘Atwill’s Cranked-up Jesus’, which quotes the opening paragraphs of a polemic debunking Atwill authored by Richard Carrier, a sound scholar.

The scholarship on Christianity in racialist forums is pathetic, except for Tom Sunic’s anti-Christian essays that have appeared in TOO.

Unlike the poor approach to Christianity we see in racialist forums, one way to begin to familiarise oneself with the subject is precisely to read Carrier’s magnum opus (which obviously must be done in print, as every good scholar reads), and Catherine Nixey’s fine book on the destruction of the classical world by Christians that we have mentioned so much on this site.

Since most racialists today are de facto conservatives, they seem to be stuck in a sort of intellectual medieval age. They don’t even seem to be familiar with the New Testament exegesis by non-fundamentalist Christians, let alone with scholars who left Christianity behind, such as the excerpts from Deschner’s book on the history of Christianity that is now occupying much of my time.

Categories
Axiology Racial right

On putting new wine into old wineskins

No man putteth a piece of a new garment upon an old; if otherwise, then both the new maketh a rent, and the piece that was taken out of the new agreeth not with the old. And no man putteth new wine into old bottles; else the new wine will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the bottles shall perish. But new wine must be put into new bottles; and both are preserved.

This is a postscript to what I wrote yesterday.

In trying to correct the syntax of our books as cleanly as possible, I realised yesterday that using the Grammarly syntax checker is not enough. Since English is not my mother tongue, only a native speaker could correct my syntax properly. But since I can’t afford one, I thought of using DeepL Translator in an innovative way: retranslate my articles that are already in English into my mother tongue with DeepL and then have this same neural machine translate them back into English! It’s amazing how, in this way, it changes my syntax to a syntax and idioms that don’t sound strange. The problem, of course, is that it will take me much longer with this method to correct my Daybreak book than simply using Grammarly, an engine that only corrects grammar errors.

On the other hand, yesterday I decided to remove about twenty articles from the Daybreak book to leave only the essentials in the edition that will be corrected not only in grammar but also in syntax. Since I will be revising all my books in English (which are now only available in PDFs), thanks to this initiative of using DeepL, this afternoon I will post a new featured post in which I will be uploading, step by step, the cleaned PDFs. This afternoon I will only put The Fair Race in that new featured post, and when I finish correcting Daybreak I will add it there.

But I wanted to talk about my last comment regarding old and new wineskins: ‘The crux of all this is that white nationalists are not coming up with a new idea: they are using the old idea, the Judaeo-Christianity of their parents, and on top of that old idea they are trying to superimpose the new one. That’s just as impossible as the New Testament parable of putting new wine into old wineskins!’

It’s a shame that YouTube has deleted so many racialist videos. In one of them I remember that at a conference Tom Sunic, with Jared Taylor present, said that race realism is of little use because it’s like putting this new information into old wineskins (Sunic didn’t use that parable, I paraphrase). The Croatian intellectual added that such hard science data is simply considered immoral if the religious, axiological and judicial infrastructure of a culture takes racial egalitarianism for granted.

Taylor couldn’t answer what Sunic said, as I recall; and the same could be said of Carolyn Yeager’s efforts to baptise the historical Nazis, as it were, with American standards of morality. In another of my recent comments I responded to Adunai as follows: ‘It’s funny that Carolyn’s commenters at her forum haven’t realised that being NS implies transvaluation. I quoted the following phrase in On Exterminationism: “The WN meme that the Nazis dindu nuffin and dindu mass grave killings is ridiculous and goes against the violent attitude we need to have”.’

The new wine must be put into new wineskins: the transvaluation advocated by Nietzsche that the Third Reich wanted to put into practice. That has nothing to do with the article on the so-called founding fathers that Jared Taylor published a few days ago, or with Yeager’s claims that the Nazis didn’t do mass grave killings!

And now I’ll get down to the business of correcting my book Daybreak…

Categories
Miscegenation Racial right

The more normie the more hits

Not so many years ago, when YouTube cancelled the channel of Stefan Molyneux, the biggest promoter of what was then called ‘Alt-Lite’ in contrast to the Alt-Right (as Moly, whose mother was Jew, has served as gatekeeper for the Jewish question throughout his vlogging career), and moved to other video platforms, something happened that caught my attention. According to Moly himself, who uploaded excellent videos on the IQ differences between the races, only a tiny fraction of his YouTube subscribers re-subscribed to his new platform on Odysee.

If we use my metaphor of crossing the psychological Rubicon and those stuck in the river unable to cross it, it’s understandable that there are miscellaneous people in the water—from what used to be called the Alt-Lite, who at least have one foot in the water, to those who are just a few steps already inside the river. Never mind that there are people like Moly who will never speak honestly about the JQ: a step in the right direction is something so significant for the thought police that YouTube took down his channel (the same day YouTube took down the channels of Jared Taylor and Richard Spencer). But Moly was by far the most important of the three in terms of the hundreds of millions of hits his channel had garnered.

When I learned that only a negligible fraction of his supposed fans had subscribed to Moly’s new channel on another platform I thought that, rather than having been awake, those ‘fans’ had only been logging on to his YouTube channel out of curiosity but without real conviction.

Recently I’ve been thinking about the comments threads on webzines that address topics Moly didn’t touch (and doesn’t touch on his new channel). But even in the comment sections of forums that go so far as to address the JQ, I’m always left with the impression that I’m encountering normies or semi-normies. Think of the hundreds of commenters on The Unz Review for example: a webzine that republishes what Andrew Anglin writes in Daily Stormer. As far as I know, none of the authors Ron Unz publishes is aware of the Christian question, and very few commenters are aware of it, or that the US had a bad birth. (Unlike Europeans, Americans have never gone through a civilisational stage where there was not a single Christian.)

I am capable of rejecting both flags of the county where I was born: the tricolour flag of the eagle on a cactus devouring a snake—that is, an Aztec flag—and the previous flag, which some Criollos associate with New Spain. I reject even the latter because the first thing these Catholic idiots did was marry Indian girls. There is a very vulgar saying in Mexico that I have heard from the Criollos who live here: “Carne buena y barata sólo la de la gata” (‘Good and cheap flesh only that of the Indian maid’).

Not being aware of CQ is similar to Moly & Alt-Lite’s company not being aware of the JQ. As Adunai said in our Monday’s post, Robert Morgan has tried to break the taboo in the comments section of The Unz Review about how CQ explains the first anti-white war perpetrated by the Yanks in a time when Jewry hadn’t yet taken over their media. But if one starts from a primitive pride in one’s nation and stupid worship of one’s ancestors, one will never diagnose the causes of white decline. It is as if I were to blindly honour, say, New Spain by removing from my conscience the fact that the New Spaniards committed the nefarious sin of mestization.

My great-grandfather Damián Tort Rafols exemplifies
the saying “Carne buena y barata sólo la de la gata”.

Why is it that if I can disown the culture I was born into, and even my ancestor who married an Indian, the normies and semi-normies who argue in racialist forums cannot disown their culture? Never mind that the Spanish and Portuguese have been mixing since the 16th century and the Anglo-Germans from the North until the present century and the end of the last century. Both cultures have the same perpetrator as a common denominator: the universalist religion that equalises all human ‘souls’.

I started talking about Moly’s Alt-Lite, which reached half a billion hits on YouTube, because I have the impression that, as a blogger or vlogger moves away from Normieland and into the river, his hits begin to diminish. Jared Taylor and Richard Spencer, who had taken a couple of steps further towards the other side of the river, certainly didn’t have the audience volume that Moly had when they cancelled all three, not remotely. And someone like me, who has virtually finished crossing the river, has become an obscure blogger that no one mentions or links on racialist forums!

It seems that obscurity, in the sense of fewer and fewer hits, is directly proportional to the distance from crossing the Rubicon to the other side.

Categories
Racial right

On Wallace’s apologetics

These days Hunter Wallace of Occidental Dissent has been posting articles on Christian nationalism, an issue that has been alarming the US media. And yesterday he posted an article with graphs and statistics showing that white Christians in his country have more preservationist instincts than atheists. In the discussion thread, one of the commenters replied: ‘Christianity was invented by the people who want to destroy the White race, and most Christians refuse to face it’.

This, of course, evokes the masthead of this site, the essay by a Spaniard that I translated into English. But that historical reality is something that racialist apologists of Christianity have ignored to date. Wallace went on to comment on that thread:

If you believe that White people are improved or will have better politics by becoming atheists, I don’t know what to tell you. 95 out of 100 times that isn’t the case. Instead, these people become self absorbed degenerate Reddit libtards. The surest way to have a more anti-White culture is to increase the prevalence of atheism.

The problem with this reasoning is that Western atheists are not true apostates from Christianity. From an axiological point of view, once the atheist rejects Jesus his scale of values remains Christian. From the seminal essay by a Swede that we posted when I blogged in 2009, to Bardamu’s long article that can be read at The Fair Race through Tom Sunic and Jack Frost’s comments at The Occidental Observer, we have seen on this site that the atheist’s scale of values is simply a secular offshoot of the gospel message—a secular offshoot on steroids! Thus, the best way to respond to Wallace is simply to replace ‘atheists’ with what they really are: ‘If you believe that White people are improved or will have better politics by becoming neo-Christians, I don’t know what to tell you. 95 out of 100 times that isn’t the case. Instead, these people become self-absorbed degenerate libtards. The surest way to have a more anti-White culture is to increase the prevalence of neo-Christianity’.

I fully agree with this statement!

The overwhelming majority of people who cease to believe in God don’t believe in the White race.

This is navel-gazing as there have been, and are, whites outside Wallace’s country. I have often said, and no Christian racialist has answered me, that large-scale miscegenation was started by Constantine in the renamed city that used to be called Byzantium, not to speak of what the white Iberians, who were Christian fanatics, did on the American continent since the 16th century. They didn’t give a damn about their race to the extent of corrupting it throughout the continent.

How is it possible for 2% to 3% of White atheists to create a White ethnostate? What’s the plan? I’m all ears.

How is it possible for the majority of Christians who admit Negroes to the altar with white women to create a White ethnostate (cf. the sad story of former pro-white advocate Matt Heimbach)? What’s the plan? I’m all ears.

Extrapolating from what I am seeing in polls of atheists on social issues there are definitely pro-White atheists, but they are a minuscule fragment of that swath of the White population.

Atheists of the Richard Dawkins type are neochristian to the core. I prefer a Christian like Matt Walsh who is doing a great job on YouTube to debunk the Woke monster than an epigone of Richard.

Wallace makes his case from the false Christian / atheist dichotomy. The real dichotomy is Christian / panentheist, which would be the religion of Hitler, Savitri Devi and the priest of the holy words. Only those who have finished crossing the psychological Rubicon have left Christian ethics behind and no longer carry any neochristian ballast.

 
Update

In the comments section of a new Wallace article today, we can read this exchange:

Steve Denison said:

‘Christianity, historically speaking, is a Jewish sect that took off with Gentiles. You can’t stand up to Jewish power basing your platform on a faith they created’.

Hunter Wallace responded:

‘Why should Christians be interested in supporting your cause? If this is your message, you should hang the gloves up now and go home because it will never resonate with the 80% of people on the Right who are Christians’.

What Wallace and the Christians commenting on his site fail to understand is that, if Christian ethics is the primary cause of white decline, only genuine apostasy can save the West. Wallace seems to reason this way: You’re never going to persuade heavy smokers to give up tobacco.

Such a stance, of course, contains a hidden postulate: that heavy smoking doesn’t cause cancer.

Racialized Christians haven’t even come close to looking us in the eye and answering our initial premise: that Christian ethics, whether in its traditional or secular aspect, is what has been destroying the race ever since Christians took over the Roman Empire (cf. what William Pierce says in his book of the white race about miscegenation in Constantinople). They fail to grasp our most basic point. Here we go again until it’s understood: if Christian ethics is the primary cause, only genuine apostasy will save us.

Categories
Racial right

Enemy of whites

A couple of days ago an article by Tobias Langdon was published in The Occidental Observer, ‘The Cuckoo Cult: Mainstream Christianity Is Now an Implacable Enemy of the White West’.

Langdon’s article is typical of white nationalist (WN) webzines, who see the speck in someone else’s eye (Judaism) but never the log in their own (Christianity). It is an article that, as is typical of the movement, is all framed as JQ, as if whites are innocent that a Semitic cult took over the Roman Empire and continue to worship the god of the Jews to this day, including many contributors and commenters to Kevin MacDonald’s webzine.

Langdon’s article informs us, for example, that it was at Jewish instigation that the Second Vatican Council changed its stance towards the Jews. This denotes, as is so often the case in WN, complete ignorance of historical fact. The Roman Catholic Church began not only by murdering the Aryan religion of whites, but by legalising, from the 5th century onwards, Judaism and Christianity as the only religions tolerated by the Empire: a situation that persisted until the late 18th century. Many times I have quoted the culmination of the masthead of this site, but as WNsts have not responded to us I have to link it again.

Another fallacy is what Langdon tells us about Protestantism: ‘Jews have tamed and corrupted American Protestantism too’. Why is the American racial right unable to assimilate what American William Pierce said about Luther? I’ll go ahead and answer: because they are Christians or sympathisers of Christianity, and Pierce wasn’t.

Fortunately, as of today several commenters rebutted what Langdon said, and the moderator allowed the following comments from

Stan Wood:

This article ends, without explanation, with the same pretzel logic it condemns. Why should a nihilistic Semitic cult be vital to the salvation of ‘the West?’ Christianity is the original Marxism and the foundation of Political Correctness. Is ‘the West’ a euphemism for the species of hominin commonly referred to as ‘Whites?’ If so, it isn’t logical that a Middle Eastern god or cult of mixed-raced desert dwellers should be vital to ending our extermination; an ongoing genocide engineered by this same tribe of destroyers.

And speaking of genocidal engineering, it’s evident in many ways that Christianty is designed to weaken and destroy the White race for the benefit of the unholy self-proclaimed Chosen of the Judean God of Genocide; a projection of Judean psychopathy.

The only way out of the ongoing racial holocaust is for our species to regain our identity. Identifying with Middle Eastern beggars, their racist folklore, and their Semitic Buddhism, is exactly what has brought us under their power.

Our people need a racial religion or philosophy that meets the higher, purer standards of a race noted for being ‘white’. We do not need a fictionalized mixed-race Marxist hippie of questionable reputation and harmful dogma, and the scion of our mortal enemies and their God of Genocide, as our idol.

From its European beginnings in Rome, to today, Christianity is a Marxist, Antifa (anti-nationalist), anarchist death cult. In its Roman Catholic permutation, it created Hell on Earth for millions of White Europeans, for centuries, and works diligently today for the genocide of Whites by ethnic replacement.

We need to practice our own unique spirituality for healing and repairing our identity. We need to draw from our past mythologies, folklore, and traditions; and from our White collective unconscious. This is the foundation from which we will build something new and better. Semitic religion? Never again!

Luke:

‘Christianity is central to the sickness, but will also be central to the cure’.

I hear this same oxymoronic view being parroted by far too many on the pro-White alternative right, and I keep waiting for anyone who seriously believes this to explain how it is even remotely possible to un-brainwash the millions of White Christians who have allowed the jews to switch off their racial survival instincts and to fall in love with the very same race who works 24/7, 365 to do everything possible to destroy and genocide White Europeans off the face of the Earth.

I’ve tried to gently bring up the topic of jews and their… hatred for White Europeans and point out their leading role in the Great White Race Replacement agenda with a few marginally ‘Christian’ people I know… and these self-hating, self-loathing, white guilt ridden idiots will immediately start foaming at the mouth and blurting out every memorized bible passage that they can remember.

Fourth Horseman:

I appreciate Langdon’s writings here, but he completely misses the boat on this one. To claim that ‘Christian’ is not ‘Judeo’ is to totally overlook the history: Jesus, Joseph, Mary, the Twelve Apostles, the Gospel writers, and ‘Saint’ Paul—all ethnic Jews. The Bible, OT and NT, is a Jewish construction intended strictly for the benefit of Jews. The ‘Jesus miracles’ are nonsense—obvious fiction intended to sway gullible Gentiles. Paul’s constructed theology, based (perhaps) on a tiny core of historical truth, works directly against Roman rule and simultaneously corrupts its Gentile believers. Langdon needs to read Nietzsche’s The Antichrist.

Dorfmann:

Do Christians value their religion more than their race? Yes. Can any member of any race be a Christian? Yes. Do Christians believe everyone is a child of God? Yes. Does Christianity have irrevocable ties to Judaism? Yes… What more do we really need to know? Of course, it’s pointless to debate Christians on this subject as they have deep psychological needs that transcend rationality. But I hope non-Christian White racial activists understand the threat Christianity poses not only to our race, but to the entire planet itself.

Frederick Ford:

Christianity (& conversion religions), in general, is a multiracial, multicultural cult that preceded the eventually downfall of the White race through its message of universal human unity through morality—which is still used for international law and universal human rights. [Note of the Editor: what we call secular Christianity or neochristianity.]

Thaddeus Noble:

Christianity is, and was from inception, a Jewish plan to groom Gentiles into supporting Jews agendas. Starting literally from birth (baptism), gentile children are force fed pro-Jew propaganda starting with the Old Testament fiction on into the New Testament fiction. Bible schools, weekly Sunday schools, church services, church youth groups, summer bible camps, etc. The pro-Jew propaganda never ends.

The strange thing is that none of these commenters cites any of our featured essays or books that demonstrate, in a more learned way, what they have said informally. It’s weird that no one mentions, or links, The West’s Darkest Hour in WN forums.

This is why: unlike Langdon, this site demonstrates that mainstream Christianity has always been an enemy of the white West.

Categories
Racial right

What a transformation…!

Twelve years ago, in my mother tongue, on one of my now abandoned blogs (which still boasts the face of Eowyn) I wrote:

"I will remove my YouTube video that accompanied this post because in these treacherous times... criticising Christianity is counterproductive".

I mean, a dozen years ago I still believed, as many white nationalists today still believe, that to defend Christianity was to defend the fair race!

Shouldn’t that create, you might ask me, a little charitable empathy on my part for those nationalists, unable to finish crossing the Psychological Rubicon?

Alas, how hard it is to be charitable once you cross it (all you want is for others to cross the river)!

I remember in a Counter-Currents comment thread, about ten years ago Andrew Hamilton said to me: ‘Your thinking develops very rapidly’ or something very close to this phrase (Hamilton still had a few Christian atavisms).

Changing the subject, yesterday I noticed that some posts from the old incarnation didn’t carry over to the new one. I contacted the tech guy and he explained the reasons. It will take me a while to save up to pay him again because the links to some images are broken too: a complicated job and I have to think about what to pay first, that or an operation on the varicose veins in my leg.

For the moment I continue to save through PDFs those six other WordPress blogs of mine that weren’t censored, lest something bad happens to them…

Categories
Hitler's Religion (book) Racial right Richard Weikart

A brief reflection on Weikart’s book

It doesn’t matter that Richard Weikart is a Christian. I find his scholarship impeccable. He did us a great service even if that was never his intention because he forces those white nationalist sympathisers of National Socialism to take sides.

A considerable percentage of these sympathisers in America are Christians. The facts about Hitler’s biography that Weikart unearthed will put them at a crossroads: either they reject Judeo-Christianity, which Hitler called ‘pestilence’, or they repudiate the Führer.

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

Hitler’s Religion: Chapter 10

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

 

______ 卐 ______

 

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

 

______ 卐 ______

 

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

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

______ 卐 ______

 

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

 

______ 卐 ______

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

______ 卐 ______

 

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

 

______ 卐 ______

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

______ 卐 ______

 

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

 

______ 卐 ______

 

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

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

 

______ 卐 ______

 

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

______ 卐 ______

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

______ 卐 ______

 

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

 

______ 卐 ______

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

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

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

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

______ 卐 ______

 

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

 

______ 卐 ______

 

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

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

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

Categories
Daybreak Publishing Destruction of Greco-Roman world Racial right

Migration completed!

While it’s true that in the PDFs you can see all the entries as they appeared in the old incarnation of The West’s Darkest Hour (WDH), our previous problem consisted in that it was impossible to navigate through those PDFs (categories, comments, links to other internal and external articles, tags, etc.). But thanks to the generous financial help I received from some WDH visitors, the problem has been solved.

Now only minor problems have to be solved, like contacting a ‘theme developer’ so that the indented quotes don’t appear italicised in brown in this new incarnation of WDH. On Monday I’ll try to solve that problem with another technician (the ones I know don’t work on weekends). However, the main problem, that the posts from the old incarnation were navigable in this new incarnation, has been solved.

There are still many things to do: for example, getting a printer to print the English books that used to be printed for me by Lulu, Inc. When I get that printer, the first book not previously published by us that we will publish will be the one we translated from French by Savitri Devi. Then we will publish in print form, in addition to The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour, Daybreak, On Exterminationism, On Beth’s Cute Tits, a new compilation of WDH’s best recently published essays.

Unlike other racialist sites, we at WDH emphasise books. Only through books is it possible to convey the idea of the implications of a paradigm shift (summed up in the Nietzschean phrase about the transvaluation of all Christian values into values of the classical world). The racialist sites visited by thousands of semi-normies today talk about the news because they fail to see the big picture: it was the catastrophe from Constantine to Charlemagne that distorted the soul of Aryan man by forcing Him to worship the god of the Jews.

In the above picture we can guess what the Greco-Roman statue would have looked like had it not been destroyed by Judeo-Christians, who abhorred Aryan beauty. Just compare this glorious image with the medieval iconography that depicts Jesus with Semitic features.

There is something that sometimes causes me doubts and that I would like to have some feedback on. The criticism I’ve made of the American racial right has been sarcastic precisely because they don’t want to acknowledge the Christian Question. I don’t know how wise it is to continue with that mocking attitude. My friend Paulina once told me that my only flaw was that I am very mocking (“Eres muy burlón”). I don’t know how wise it is to continue to mock American white nationalism for its inability to see the CQ.

Should I, in this new incarnation of WDH, refrain from mockery? Does it take away from the seriousness of the site? One of the problems with character flaws is that you don’t see them. So I am willing to listen to a critique on the matter, especially from those who are convinced, as I am, that the Christian problem is a huge problem for the sacred words of David Lane.