web analytics

Category: Welfare of animals

Categories
Alfred Rosenberg Heinrich Himmler Savitri Devi Welfare of animals

NS and neo-paganism

by Savitri Devi

An entirely new culture can hardly be conceived among people who retain the same religion as before. The Programme proclaimed at Hofbräuhaus states, it is true, that ‘the Party as such stands for a positive Christianity’. But, as I have said before—and as all the most intelligent National Socialists I met have admitted to me—it was well-nigh impossible, in 1920, to say anything else, if one hoped at all to gather a following. And it also remains true that the very fact of replacing, as we did, the link of common faith by the link of common blood—the creedal conception of community by the racial one—is contrary to the spirit of Christianity, no less than to its practice, always and everywhere, up to this day. It remains true, in other words, that if whatever religion that is ‘a danger to the national State’ is to be banned, then, Christianity must go—for nothing is more incompatible with the fundamental principles upon which rests the whole structure of any National State.

However, apart from the fact that this could not be said in a political programme in 1920—or even in 1933—it could still less be done in a day. Christianity could not be too openly and too bitterly opposed, before the Nazi philosophy of life had become widely accepted as a matter of course; before it had firmly taken root in the subconscious reactions of the German people, if not also of many foreign Aryans, so as to buttress the growth of the new—or rather of the eternal—religious conception which naturally goes hand in hand with it.

Until then, it would have been premature to suppress the Christian faith radically, however obsolete it might appear to many of us. ‘A politician’, our Führer has said, ‘must estimate the value of a religion not so much in connection with the faults inherent in it, as in relation to the advantages of a substitute which may be manifestly better. But until some such substitute appears, only fools and criminals will destroy what is there, on the spot’.

One had to prepare the ground slowly, by creating anew a thoroughly Aryan soul in the young people, through their whole education; and, at the same time—for the elder folk—by giving a precise meaning (as National Socialistic as possible) to the expression ‘positive Christianity’. That is what Alfred Rosenberg has endeavoured to do in his famous book, The Myth of the Twentieth Century. His ‘positive Christianity’ is something indeed very different from the Christianity of any Church, nay, from the Christianity of the Bible, based as it is solely upon Rosenberg’s interpretation of what is obviously the least Jewish in the New Testament and upon Rosenberg’s own National Socialist philosophy.

The Christians themselves soon discovered that it was no Christianity at all. And of all the prominent men of the Party, Alfred Rosenberg is surely the one whom they dislike the most to this day—although they are probably wrong in doing so, for there were and still are National Socialist thinkers far more radical than he. And he was, moreover, far too much a theoretician to be a real danger to the power of the Churches.

But it is certain that, under all this talk about ‘positive Christianity’, there was, from the beginning, in every thoughtful National Socialist, the feeling that Germany in particular and the Aryan world at large need a new religious consciousness, entirely different from and, in many ways, in vigorous contrast to the Christian one; nay, that such a consciousness is already lurking in the general discontent, disquiet, and scepticism of the modern Aryan, and that the Nazi Movement must sooner or later help it to awake and to express itself.

Although he too speaks of ‘positive Christianity’ and insists on the fact that ‘nothing is further removed from the intentions of the NSDAP than to attack the Christian religion and its worthy servants’; and although he is very careful to separate the Movement from every endeavour to revive the old Germanic cult of Wotan, Gottfried Feder cannot help mentioning that slowly rising new consciousness, and ‘the questions, the hopes, and the wishes whether the German people will, one day, find a new form by which to express their knowledge of God and religious life’, if only to say that such questions, hopes, etc. are ‘far beyond the frame even of such a revolutionary programme as the one National Socialism proclaims’.

And it is no less certain that, although no attempt was ever made officially to overthrow the power of the Churches and to forbid the teaching of the Christian doctrine, books inspired through and through, not by the desire to revive any particular Cult of old—that of Wotan or any other God—but by the love and spirit of eternal Nordic Heathendom, some of which are exceedingly beautiful, were published under the Third Reich, and read, and sympathetically commented upon in Nazi circles; and that this was the first time that the real Heathen soul of the North—the undying Aryan soul—fully realised, after nearly fifteen hundred years, that it is alive; more so, that it is immortal, invincible.

I have already quoted Heinrich Himmler’s short but splendid book, The Voice of the Ancestors, that masterful condensation of our philosophy in thirty-seven pages, which only an out-and-out Pagan could write. It contains, among other things, a bitter criticism of the Christian attitude to life—meekness, self-abnegation, delectation in the feeling of guilt and misery; ‘aspiration towards the dust’—and, in opposition to it, a profession of faith of the proud and of the strong and free: ‘We do not exhibit our faults to anyone, we Heathens—least of all to God. We keep quiet about them; and try to make good for our mistakes’.

Of the many other books of similar inspiration, I shall recall only two far less well-known than Alfred Rosenberg’s famous Mythus but, I must say, far more radical, and deserving undoubtedly more, both the pious hatred that so many Christians of all persuasions waste upon that work and the wholehearted admiration and gratitude of all real modern Heathens: one is Ernst Bergmann’s Twenty-Five Theses of the German Religion, and the other, Johann von Leers’ History on a Racial Basis. There, the incompatibility of the National Socialist view of life and the Christian is shown as clearly, once for all, as any uncompromising devotee of either of the two philosophies could desire:

A people that has returned to its blood and soil, and that has realised the danger of international Jewry, can no longer tolerate a religion which makes the Scriptures of the Jews the basis of its Gospel. Germany cannot be rebuilt on this lie. We must base ourselves on the Holy Scriptures which are clearly written in German hearts. Our cry is: ‘Away with Rome and Jerusalem! Back to our native German faith in present-day form! What is sacred in our home, what is eternal in our people, what is divine, is what we want to build’.

And Thesis Two of the Twenty-Five Theses—the number seems to have been chosen to match the Twenty-Five Points of the National Socialist Party Programme, so as to show that the ‘new’ (or rather eternal) ‘German religion’ is ultimately inseparable from the creation in Germany of a true National State—the second ‘thesis’, I say, states that the German religion is ‘the form of faith appropriate to our age which we Germans would have today, if it had been granted to us to have our native German faith developed, undisturbed, to the present time’. As for Christianity, it is frankly called ‘an unhealthy and unnatural religion, which arose two thousand years ago among sick, exhausted, and despairing men, who had lost their belief in life’, in a word, exactly the contrary of what the German people (or, by the way, any Aryan people) need today.

I do not remember any writer having more strongly and decisively pointed out the contrast between the everlasting Aryan spirit and that of Christianity and, especially, having more clearly stressed the nature of the Aryan religion of the future. There is no question of reviving the Wotan cult, or any other national form of worship from Antiquity, as it was then. The wheel of evolution never turns backwards. The religion of resurrected Germany can only be that which would have been flourishing today, as the natural product of evolution of the old Nordic worship, had not ‘that Frankish murderer Karl’, as Professor Bergmann calls Charlemagne, destroyed the free expression of German faith and forced Christianity upon the Germanic race by fire and sword, in the eighth and ninth centuries; or rather, had not Rome herself fallen prey to what her early emperors called ‘the new superstition’, introduced by the Jews. And what can be said of the new German religion is no less true of the desirable new religion of every regenerate Aryan people, organised under a real national State.

The only international religion—if such a thing is to exist at all—should be the extremely broad and simple Religion of Life, which contains and dominates all national cults and clashes with none (provided they be true cults of the people, and not priestly distortions of such); the spontaneous worship of warmth and light—of the Life energy—which is not the natural religion of man alone, but that of all living creatures, to the extent of their consciousness. In fact, all the national religions should help to bring men to that supreme worship of the Godhead in Life; for nowhere can Divinity be collectively experienced better than in the consciousness of race and soil. And no religion definitely stamped with local characteristics, geographical or racial, should ever become international.

When such a one does—as Christianity did; as Islam did—the result is the cultural enslavement of many races to the spirit of that one whence the religion sprang, or through which it first grew to prominence.

An Indian Muslim, to the extent he is thoroughly Muslim, is outside the pale of Indian civilisation. And, to the extent he accepts Christianity, a European accepts the bondage of Jewish thought. And a Northern European, to the extent he accepts Christianity, and especially Catholicism, accepts, in addition to that, the bondage of Rome. Germany, the first Aryan nation that has rebelled on a grand scale against the Jewish yoke—cultural, no less than economical—is also the first Nordic nation to have shaken off, partly at least, in the sixteenth century, the less foreign (while Aryan) but still foreign bondage of Rome. Nothing shows better the spirit of the religious revolution—of the religious liberation—slowly preparing itself under the influence of National Socialism, than the outcry of Ernst Bergmann which I have quoted above: ‘Away with Rome and Jerusalem! Back to our native German faith in its present-day form!’

* * *

The same inspiration—the same quest of the eternal Aryan faith under its present-day Germanic form—fills Johann von Leers’ History on a Racial Basis which I mentioned. There too one finds, applied to the domain of religion and culture, that passionate assertion of the rights of the Aryan North which constitutes, perhaps, the most characteristic feature of National Socialism on the political plane.

For a political awakening of the type that Adolf Hitler provoked, stirring a whole nation to its depth, cannot go without a parallel awakening in all fields of life, especially in that of culture and religion—of thought, generally speaking. There too, one finds—based this time upon the extensive researches of Hermann Wirth in ancient lore—a protest against the idea, current in all the Judeo-Christian world, that the old Aryan North was something ‘primitive’ and ‘barbarous’; and a vision of the future in which Germany in particular and the Aryan race at large will rise again to unprecedented greatness, having re-discovered their glorious, eternal collective Self.

The passage of Johann von Leers’ book which comes a few pages after his tribute to Hitler as ‘the greatest regenerator of the people for thousands of years’ is worth quoting in extenso:

After a period of decadence and race-obliteration we are now coming to a period of purification and development which will decide a new epoch in the history of the world. If we look back on the thousands of years behind us, we find that we have arrived again near the great and eternal order experienced by our forefathers. World history does not go forward in a straight line, but moves in curves. From the summit of the original Nordic culture in the Stone Age, we have passed through the deep valleys of centuries of decadence, only to rise once more to a new height. This height will not be lesser than the one once abandoned, but greater, and that, not only in the external goods of life…. We did not pass through the great spiritual death of the capitalistic period in order to be extinguished. We suffered it in order to rise again under the Sign that never yet failed us, the Cross of the great Stone Age, the ancient and most sacred Swastika.

The form and particulars of a modern Aryan religion destined to rule consciences in the place of obsolete Christianity are not yet laid out—and how could they be? But the necessity of such a religion could not be more strongly felt and expressed; and its spirit and main features are already defined. It is the healthy religion of joy and power—and beauty—which I have tried to suggest in the beginning of this book. In other words, it is the eternal aspect of National Socialism itself or (which means the same) National Socialism extended to the highest sphere of life.

I have previously recalled the Führer’s words of wisdom concerning the growth of a new religion, better adapted than Christianity to the requirements of the people, namely, that ‘until such a new faith does appear, only fools and criminals will hurry to destroy what is there, on the spot’.

In 1924—when he wrote Mein Kampf—he obviously felt that the time was not yet ripe for such a revolution.

From what one reads in the famous Goebbels Diaries, published by our enemies in 1948 (and therefore, no one knows to what extent genuine) he would appear to have been in perfect agreement with the Reich Propaganda Minister’s radical opposition to the Churches at the same time as with his cautious handling of the religious question during the war. As long as the war was on, it was, no doubt, not the time to promote such changes as would, perhaps, make many people realise too abruptly that they were fighting for the establishment of something which, maybe, they did not want.

But, when victory would be won, then, many things that looked impossible would be made possible. According to the Diaries, the Führer was even planning, ‘after the war’, to encourage his people, gradually, to alter their diet, with a view to doing away with the standing horror of the slaughter-houses—one of the most laudable projects ever seriously considered in the history of the West, which, if realised, would have at once put Germany far ahead of all other nations, raising her conception of morality much above the standard reached by Christian civilisation. He was certainly also planning the gradual formation of a religious outlook worthy of the New Order that he was bringing into being.

Already, the most devotedly radical among the active Party members, the corps d’Élite; the SS men—were expected to find in the National Socialist Weltanschauung alone all the elements of their inner life, without having anything to do with the Christian Churches and their philosophy. And if one recalls, not the Führer’s public statements, but some of the most striking private statements attributed to him, one feels convinced that he was aware of the inadequacy of Christianity as the religion of a healthy, self-confident, proud, and masterful people no less than any of the boldest of the National Socialist thinkers, nay, no less than Heinrich Himmler himself and those whom he had in mind when he repeatedly wrote, in his brilliant booklet, ‘Wir Heiden’—’We Heathens’.

I know that the sayings attributed to a man, either by an admiring devotee in a spirit of praise or by an enemy, in a spirit of hatred, are, more often than not, of doubtful authenticity. Yet, when, while quoted in order to praise the one alleged to have uttered them, they in reality condemn him, or when, while quoted as ‘awful’ utterances, with the intention of harming him, they in reality constitute praise; and when, moreover, they happen to be too beautiful, or too true, or too intelligent for the reporter to have invented them wholesale, then one can, I believe, accept them as authentic or most probably so.

Of the many books written purposely to throw discredit upon our Führer, I have only read one through and through; but that one—the work of the traitor Rauschning, translated into English under the title Hitler Speaks—I read not merely with interest, but with elation, for it is (much against the intention of its author) one of the finest tributes paid to the Saviour of the Aryan race. Had I come from some out-of-the-way jungle and had I never even heard of the Führer before, that book alone would have made me his follower—his disciple—without the slightest reservation.

Should I characterise the author of such excellent propaganda as a scoundrel? Or is he not just a perfect fool: a fellow who joined the National Socialist Movement when he had no business to do so, and who recoiled in fright as soon as he began to realise how fundamentally opposed his aspirations were to ours? His aspirations were, apparently, those of a mediocre ‘bourgeois’. After he turned against us, he did not actually lie; he did not need to. He picked out, in the Führer’s statements, those that shocked him the most—and that were likely to shock also people who resemble him.

And he wrote Hitler Speaks, for the consumption of all the mediocre ‘bourgeois’ of the world. As there are millions of them, and as the world they represent was soon to wage war on the Führer, the book was a commercial success at the same time as an ‘ideological’ one—the sort of success the author had wanted: it stirred the indignation of all manner of ‘decent’ Untermenschen against National Socialism. But one day (if it survives) a regenerate Aryandom will look upon it as the unwilling tribute of an enemy to the greatest European of all ages.

And Hitler’s words about Christianity, reported by Rauschning in the fourth chapter of his book, would be admired—not criticised—in an Aryan world endowed with a consistently National Socialist consciousness, for they are in keeping with our spirit—and ring too true not to be authentic. ‘Leave the hair-splitting to others’, said the Führer to Hermann Rauschning before the latter turned renegade:

Whether it is the Old Testament or the New, or simply the sayings of Jesus according to Houston Stewart Chamberlain, it is all the same Jewish swindle. It will not make us free. A German Church, a German Christianity, is a distortion. One is either a German or a Christian. You cannot be both. You can throw the epileptic Paul out of Christianity—others have done so before us. You can make Christ into a noble human being, and deny his divinity and his rôle as a saviour. People have been doing it for centuries. I believe there are such Christians today in England and America—Unitarians, they call themselves, or something like that. It is no use. You cannot get rid of the mentality behind it. We do not want people to keep one eye on life in the hereafter. We need free men, who feel and know that God is in themselves.

Indeed, however clever he might have been, Rauschning was not the man to concoct this discourse out of pure imagination. As many other statements attributed to the Führer in his book, this one bears too strongly the stamp of sincerity, of faith—of truth—to be just an invention. Moreover, it fits in perfectly with many of the Führer’s known utterances, with his writings, with the spirit of his whole doctrine which is, as I said before, far more than a mere socio-political ideology. For, whatever might be said, or written, for the sake of temporary expediency, the truth remains that National Socialism and Christianity, if both carried to their logical conclusions—that is to say, experienced in full earnest; lived—cannot possibly go together.

The Führer certainly thought it premature to take up, publicly, towards the Christian doctrine as well as the Churches, the attitude that the natural intolerance of our Weltanschauung would have demanded; but he knew that we can only win, in the long run, if, wherever essentials are concerned, we maintain that intolerance of any movement sincerely ‘convinced that it alone is right’. And he knew that, sooner or later, our conflict with the existing order is bound to break out on the religious and philosophical plane as well as on the others. This is unavoidable. And it has only been postponed by the material defeat of Germany—perhaps (who knows?) in accordance with the mysterious will of the Gods, so as to enable the time to ripen and the Aryan people at large, and especially the Germans, to realise, at last, how little Christianity can fulfil their deeper aspirations, and how foolish they would be to allow it to stand between them and the undying Aryan faith implied in National Socialism.

That Aryan faith—that worship of health, of strength, of sunshine, and of manly virtues; that cult of race and soil—is the Nordic expression of the universal Religion of Life. It is—I hope—the future religion of Europe and of a part at least of Asia (and, naturally, of all other lands where the Aryan dominates). One day, those millions will remember the Man who, first—in the 1920s—gave Germany the divine impetus destined to bring about that unparalleled resurrection; the Man whom now the ungrateful world hates and slanders: our Hitler.

Imprisoned here for the love of him, my greatest joy lies in the glorious hope that those reborn Aryans—those perfect men and women of the future Golden Age—will, one day, render him divine honours.

___________

This extract from Savitri Devi, Gold in the Furnace, ed. R.G. Fowler (Uckfield, England: Historical Review Press, 2005), ch. 11, ‘The Constructive Side’, pages 211-22 originally appeared in Racial Nationalist Library.

Categories
Aristotle Conservatism Welfare of animals

Two Counter-Currents articles

After all the terrible atrocities humans have perpetrated and continue to perpetrate against animals I think we should abolish all human history and exterminate all humans to make the world a better place for the rest of the living. Lets end speciesism and human supremacy. – Joseph Walsh

I concluded my entry yesterday by saying that because of pride whites don’t want to see the cause of their misfortune: the axiological reversal that Christianity caused in their collective mind. A paradigm of such pride is exemplified by libertarian Americans.

Three months ago I realised that the ideology advocated by the former youtuber John Mark was cuckoldry. I wrote: ‘Mark says that, unlike the alt-right, propertiarianism represents the “scientific” approach and that those who practice it “love all people” [including non-whites]’. One of CC’s articles, the one about Mark and his pathetic libertarian mentor, is as funny as what a couple of years ago happened to the two Matts, who wanted to create an impossible chimera between Orthodox Christianity and racism. The grotesque event of this July 4 in which John Mark and his mentor imploded has been well illustrated with the Dodo metaphor in the CC article. The comments section is fascinating.

In my post yesterday, I also said that I consider the issue of child abuse my forte, although in recent years I have realised that this issue is inseparable from the animal abuse that humans perpetrate. Now I think both are two sides of the same coin. The other CC article addresses the issue of animal rights, but in a very flawed way.

I don’t want to expand too much because my yesterday post is important, and instead of adding a lot of posts on top of it I would like to give it time, to see if I get more replies (about the pederasty in Homer’s poetry nobody has said a peep).

Simply put, abuse of children or animals cannot be addressed by the intellect alone, as that second CC article does. It is necessary to involve emotions. In my soliloquies I call ‘hemiplegic’ those who believe that only by using the left hemisphere of the brain can understand a man-made tragedy.

As Aristotle saw well, the purpose of the Greek tragedy was to produce a catharsis in the spectator: as my friend Teresa cried in the car, all the way back, when many years ago we went to see Iphigenia. I didn’t cry, but the tragedy of the teenage Iphigenia, whom her father sacrifices to the gods, shocked me to the point of including that Greek film among one of my ten favourites.

The CC article is analogous to the Iphigenia theme… without any emotion (see Walsh’s quote above)! In my books in Spanish I address the same topic—sacrificing your child or an animal—with the equivalent of Teresa’s sea of tears that night. In addition to my cold argumentation after such catharsis, the alternation of both hemispheres results in a balanced understanding: Apollo dancing with Dionysus so to speak, compared to the hemiplegic approach we see in this second CC article and the following comments.

Categories
Child abuse Exterminationism Pandemics Third Reich Welfare of animals

My rider friends

‘Either Aryans will overcome their prejudice against genocide or self-exterminate’. —Tito Perdue

Today I woke up with a dream in which I mentioned to Jared Taylor and Greg Johnson my idea of dispatching the vast majority of mankind for ethical and aesthetic purposes. We were walking on a street in another country and in the end I got to fly, but when I was awake I realised that I didn’t see either of them in the dream: I was talking to them but they were not actually physically there.

Several times I have been told in this blog that I am not talking to myself. But obviously I am, as no one feels the four words as vehemently as I do.

‘Eliminate all unnecessary suffering’ is a call for exterminationism, as the misnamed Homo sapiens is causing hell in many species not only of animals but among themselves, even from parents to children (the subject of my eleven books).

The vast majority of my visitors have not been through hell. And those who have crossed there dissociate everything and do not write a single post about their experiences (I could mention three of them by real name, but I won’t).

Speaking of the four words this day I leafed through two articles, one from Occidental Dissent and the other from Unz Review, which touch on the subject of unnecessary animal torment. I was disgusted in the latter by some things I read in the comments section, and I can only think of the chasm between these Neanderthals and the Third Reich regarding eliminating unnecessary suffering.

Even if the coronavirus kills the same number of humans of the 1918-1920 influenza, that would only represent a very small fraction of the number that must die this century for survivors to understand the need to implement the four words on earth. Fortunately the four horsemen alluded to in my previous posts will help me in this purpose, even if I also die.

Categories
Pandemics Welfare of animals

Mother Nature’s revenge

No visitor, to my knowledge, shares my philosophy (or religion should I say?) of the four words that I explain by the end of From Jesus to Hitler and, more abbreviated, in Day of Wrath.

One of the most relevant passages of this religion of mine appears in the introduction to my second volume, where I mention that a cute little animal was worth more than the millions of capital residents who drive through the freeway where I live, as they are negatively evaluated in my value scale; and the beautiful forms of life, positively.

Although I would like to burn the Bibles, using Christian metaphors it is as if the first trumpet of the Book of Revelation had already blasted around the four corners of Earth in January and, more recently, the contents of the first cups of wrath begin to be poured out on the sin cities.

Although I rarely watch the television of a culture I wish to be destroyed, recently a 60 Minutes commentator told the great truth about the crisis we are going through: ‘I think this is Mother Nature’s revenge’ (see this pic of bats sold as food in China: a snapshot of the 60 Minutes documentary).

I had been waiting for the shrill trumpet blast since May 1976 (cf. my 1st autobiographical book, the translation of which will appear this month, and even more the 11th). I don’t know if I’m going to die or not because of the Chinese virus. But these days I have been happy because, at last, the revenge will apparently begin to reach these exterminable Neanderthals.

Categories
Exterminationism Welfare of animals

On serving two masters

The problem with white nationalists is their damn Christian ethics: a set of moral values shared by even those atheists who live under the illusion of having abandoned our parents’ religion.

Christianity not only has a dogmatic facet but an axiological one as we have said so many times.

Last week Ramzpaul said in one of his videos that ‘they literally take a bat, I think he is alive, and they throw it in the fryers, seems really cruel’. But a minute later he added that he didn’t condemn the Chinese but that he admired them. Typical Christian ethics: compulsory universal love by obeying what the son of Yahweh commands us in the New Testament.

Compare Ramzpaul’s words with the novel that I most recommend to every visitor to this site, The Turner Diaries, which culminates when the Aryan ethnostate exterminates the Chinese through a combination of nuclear, chemical and biological attacks on their continent.

It is impossible to serve two masters because one will always end up loving one and abhorring the other. It is impossible to love your neighbour and at the same time the 14 words. What white nationalists have chosen is to love their neighbour as themselves, even those bastards who torture animals. In other words, these apprentices of racists have barely taken a few steps to cross the psychological Rubicon and imagine they already crossed it.

Loving those who torment animals is what in my soliloquies I call ‘un quebranto psicótico marca diablo’ (literally, a psychotic breakdown of the devil brand): a huge voluntary surrender to evil, self-deceivingly believing that that by subscribing universal love you’re doing good.

Since the times of Greece and Rome the moral compass of the White Man has been shifted from North to South by the religion of our parents, and these poor devils who believe they defend the white race haven’t even noticed it.

Categories
Impeachment of Man (book) Savitri Devi Welfare of animals

A new religion for whites, 4

by Kevin Alfred Strom

Today we continue our exploration of an awakening—an awakening that began with Charles Darwin, exploded into life in the ideas of Shaw and Nietzsche, and found its highest expression in the entirely new kind of human society pioneered by Adolf Hitler in National Socialist Germany. It is an awakening that has just begun.

When we left off last week, we were discussing the nature of Judaism and its offshoots, especially Christianity, and their gods—their crude anthropocentrism, their refusal to acknowledge the evolutionary nature of Life and the Universe, their irrationality, and their utter unsuitability as moral guides to help us do what must be done in order to survive—their total inability to lead us ever upward toward the stars.

Today we will learn that even those who believe they have cast off the superstitions of the Abrahamic faiths—“secular humanists,” atheists, Marxists, most libertarians, liberal elitists—are in truth still in bondage to the poisonous ideas that sprang from Judaism. Instead of leading us upward, toward our evolutionary destiny, they wallow in the mire of a nonexistent “human equality” and waste our time, our energy, and our very lives in pursuit of ignoble goals such as making sure that every arguably human wastrel has a full belly and a large-screen television.

Life, my friends—your life—can be much, much different than the shallow mockery of life offered by these blind men and liars.

Our text for this week is by the National Socialist writer and mystic, Savitri Devi, taken from her book Impeachment of Man.

 

______ 卐 ______

 

Man-Centered Creeds versus Racial-
Hierarchical Reality (continued)

by Savitri Devi

But when later Jews proclaimed him to be the God of all mankind; when he crept into Christianity as the Heavenly Father of Christ and the First Person of the Holy Trinity; and into Islam as the One God revealed to man through his last and definitive mouthpiece, the Prophet Mohammed; and finally, when he colored the ideology of the humanitarian theists—and even atheists—as the unavoidable remnant of a tradition hard to die, then the conception of him became more and more irrational. There was less and less any reason for his solicitude to stop at mankind. Yet it did stop there. There was, more and more, every reason for him to evolve into a truly universal God of all life. Yet he did not evolve that way. He could not drop the long-cherished propensity of picking out a fraction of his creation and blessing it with a special blessing, to the exclusion of the rest. That fraction of the great Universe had once been the Jewish people. It was now the human race—a trifling improvement, if one ponders over it from an astronomical (that is to say, from what we can imagine to be the only truly divine) angle of vision.

The great creeds of the world west of India remained man-centered, it would seem, because they never could free themselves entirely from the marks of their particular tribal origin among the sons of Abraham. The Jews never were a race that one could accuse of giving animals too great a place in its everyday life and thoughts. Christ, who came “to fulfil” the Jewish law and prophecies (not to introduce into the world a different, more rational, and truly kindlier trend of thought) appears never to have bothered his head about the dumb creatures. We speak, of course, of Christ as the Christian Gospels present him to us. That Christ—we have no means whatsoever of finding out whether a “truer” one ever lived—never performed a miracle, never even intervened in a natural manner, in favor of any beast, as his contemporary, Apollonius of Tyana, not to speak of any more ancient and illustrious Master such as the blessed Buddha, is supposed to have done. He never spoke of God’s love for animals save to assert that He loved human beings a fortiori, much more. He never mentioned nor implied man’s duties towards them, though he did not omit to mention, and to stress, other duties.

If the Gospels are to be taken as they are written, then his dealings with nonhuman sentient creatures consisted, on one occasion, of sending some evil spirits into a herd of swine, that they might no longer torment a man, and, another time, of making his disciples, who were mostly fishermen by profession, as every one knows, catch an incredible quantity of fish in their nets. In both cases his intention was obviously to benefit human beings at the expense of the creatures, swine, or fish. As for plants, it is true that he admired the lilies of the fields; but it is no less true that he cursed a fig tree for not producing figs out of season and caused it to wither, so that his disciples might understand the power of faith and prayer. Fervent English or German Christians, who love animals and trees, may retort that nobody knows exactly all that Jesus actually said, and that the gospels contain the story of only a few of his numberless miracles. That may be. But as there are no records of his life save the Gospels, we have to be content with what is revealed therein. Moreover, Christianity as an historical growth is centered around the person of Christ as the Gospels describe him. And, as Norman Douglas has timely remarked, it remains a fact that the little progress accomplished in recent years in the countries of northwestern Europe and in America, as regards kindness to dumb beasts, was realized in spite of Christianity, and not because of it.

To say, as some do, that every word of the Christian Gospels has an esoteric meaning, and that “swine” and “fishes” and the “barren fig tree” are intended there to designate anything but real live creatures, would hardly make things better. It would still be true that kindness to animals is not spoken of in the teaching of Jesus as it has come down to us, while other virtues, in particular kindness to people, are highly recommended. And the development of historical Christianity would remain, in all its details, what we know it to be…

That people whose outlook is conditioned by biblical tradition should put a great stress upon the special place of man in the scheme of life; that they should insist on man’s sufferings, and on the necessity of man’s happiness, without apparently giving as much as a thought to the other living creatures, one can understand. They follow the Book to which they may or may not add some secondary scriptures based upon it. They cannot be expected to go beyond what is prescribed in it or in those later scriptures.

But there are, in the West, ever since the Middle Ages, increasing numbers of people who dare to do without the Book altogether; who openly reject all divine revelation as unprovable, and who see in their conscience the only source of their moral judgements and their only guide in moral matters. It is remarkable that these people, free from the fetters of any established faith, still retain the outlook of their fathers as regards man’s relation to animals and to living nature in general. Free Thought, while rightly brushing aside all man-centered metaphysics; while replacing the man-centered conceptions of the Universe by a magnificent vision of order and beauty on a cosmic scale—a scientific vision, more inspiring than anything that religious imagination had ever invented, and in which man is but a negligible detail—Free Thought, we say, omitted entirely to do away with the equally outdated man-centered scale of values, inherited from those religions that sprang from Judaism. Sons of Greek rationalism, as regards their intellectual outlook, the Westerners who boast of no longer being Christians—and the few advanced young men of Turkey and Persia, and of the rest of the Near and Middle East, who boast of no longer being orthodox Muslims—remain, as regards their scale of moral values, the sons of a deep-rooted religious tradition which goes back as far as some of the oldest fragments of the Jewish Scriptures: the tradition according to which man, created in God’s own image, is the only living being born for eternity, and has a value altogether out of proportion with that of any other animal species.

There has been, it is true, in the West, in recent years—nay, there is, for nothing which is in harmony with the Laws of Life can ever be completely suppressed—a non-Christian (one should even say an anti-Christian) and definitely more than political school of thought which courageously denounced this age-old yet erroneous tradition, and set up a different scale of values and different standards of behaviour. [Here Savitri Devi is referring to National Socialism.—Editor] It accepted the principle of the rights of animals, and set a beautiful dog above a degenerate man. It replaced the false ideal of “human brotherhood,” by the true one of a naturally hierarchised mankind harmoniously integrated into the naturally hierarchised Realm of life, and, as a logical corollary of this, it boldly preached the return to the mystic of genuine nationalism rooted in healthy race-consciousness, and the resurrection of the old national gods of fertility and of battle (or the exaltation of their philosophical equivalents) which many a Greek “thinker” and some of the Jewish prophets themselves had already discarded—politely speaking: “transcended”—in decadent Antiquity. And its racialist values, solidly founded upon the rock of divine reality, and intelligently defended as they were, in comparison with the traditional man-centered ones inherited, in Europe, from Christianity, are, and cannot but remain, whatever may be the material fate of their great Exponent [Adolf Hitler—Ed.] and of the regime he created, the only unassailable values of the contemporary and future world. But it is, for the time being, a “crime” to mention them, let alone to uphold them—and their whole recent setting—in broad daylight.

The opposite ideologies, more in keeping with the general tendencies of modern Free Thought from the Renaissance onwards, have only broken off apparently with the man-centered faiths. In fact, our international Socialists and our Communists, while pushing God and the supernatural out of their field of vision, are more Christian-like than the Christian Churches ever were. He who said, “Love they neighbor as thyself” has to-day no sincerer and more thorough disciples than those zealots whose foremost concern is to give every human being a comfortable life and all possibilities of development, through the intensive and systematic exploitation by all of the resources of the material world, animate and inanimate, for man’s betterment. Communism, that new religion—for it is a sort of religion—exalting the common man; that philosophy of the rights of humanity as the privileged species, is the natural logical outcome of real Christianity. It is the Christian doctrine of the labor of love for one’s neighbors, freed from the overburdening weight of Christian theology…

And that is not all. Even Christian theology will perhaps not always remain as totally worthless to them as our Communist friends often think. It may be, one day, that they will bring themselves to use it. And, if ever they do, who will blame them but those nominal Christians who have forgotten the out and out “proletarian” character of their Master and of his first disciples? The myth of the God of mankind taking flesh in the son of the carpenter of Nazareth may well be interpreted as a symbol foreshadowing the deification of the working majority of men—of the “masses”; of man in general—in our times…

The generous “morality” derived from modem Free Thought is no better than that based upon the time-honored man-centered creeds that have their origin in Jewish tradition. It is a morality centered—like the old Chinese morality, wherever true Buddhism and Taoism have not modified it—around “the dignity of all men” and human society as the supreme fact, the one reality that the individual has to respect and to live for; a morality which ignores everything of man’s affiliation with the rest of living Nature, and looks upon sentient creatures as having no value except inasmuch as they are exploitable by man for the “higher” purpose of his health, comfort, clothing, amusement, etc. The moral creed of the Free Thinker today is a man-centered creed…

We believe that there is a different way of looking at things—a different way, in comparison with which this man-centered outlook appears as childish, mean, and barbaric as the philosophy of any man-eating tribe might seem, when compared with that of the Christian saints, or even of the sincerest ideologists of modern international Socialism or Communism.

NOTE

The title of these excerpts is editorial; the text was originally prepared and edited by Irmin Vinson of the Racial Nationalist Library.

Categories
Impeachment of Man (book) Savitri Devi Welfare of animals

A new religion for whites, 3

by Kevin Alfred Strom

This week we continue our exploration of the evolution of religion and religious thought in National Socialist Germany. We’ll be learning about these stirrings of our race’s true religious spirit in the words of National Socialist writer Savitri Devi. This is an important series, and it’s vital that we make our journey carefully, understanding every point before leaping to the next highest level.

Devi’s words are taken from her book Impeachment of Man. What, you might wonder, does a book dealing primarily with humanity’s horrific cruelties against his fellow creatures have to do with building a new religion for European Man? Just this: The false religions which plague our people, corrupt their souls, cloud their eyes, and weaken their wills all have as one of their major tenets the idea that human beings are set apart from and above the rest of Nature—that men have souls and other creatures do not—that God is primarily concerned with human needs and human perfectibility and the other living beings are just part of the stage settings, or food to be eaten; and that, therefore—and this is the most important concept—all human beings partake of the divine and in that sense are equal.

The violent thief, the murderer, the grasping, cheating merchant, the child rapist, the warmongering politician—all are literally, they tell us, the living image of God. They can “wash away” their sins in two seconds flat with proper invocations to Jesus or Yahweh or Allah. Except in microscopically rare circumstances, they cannot be killed by us no matter how much they deserve it.

The most noble of non-human animals, however, can be killed with impunity by anyone (except, again, in microscopically rare circumstances), even hundreds or thousands at a time, and the priests and rabbis and imams say all is well.

For you see, in these alien religions there is a wall—an impenetrable boundary of kind—separating Man from all the rest of Nature. The idea of this wall makes some of us callous to the spirit and nobility and beauty of non-human creatures, but it gets worse—it also makes us think that everyone on “our side” of this imaginary wall—the human side—is somehow set apart from the rest of Nature—set apart from “mere animals.” These religions tell us that because of our “image of God” uniqueness, we humans are somehow “equal” to each other “in our souls”—“equal in the eyes of God,” as the saying goes, no matter how vile the human specimens being considered. Thus the Abrahamic religion accepted by many of our people inherently denies race, due to this concept alone, and would do so even if it didn’t have other, more explicit, race-denying ideas in its scriptures.

In reality, there is no such wall. There is no wall or dividing line in Nature between human and non-human. We are a part of evolving Nature. And there is a continuum in the qualities of all living things. The most virtuous dog is not inferior in the quality of his soul to the most degenerate human being—far from it! There are chipmunks, even rats, more deserving of life and sustenance than some human beings. When it comes to intelligence, the highest kinds of hominids, canines, felines, and cetaceans exceed the congnitive abilities of the worst human weeds.

And there is no evidence that a Divine Spark exists in all men, just because they are human—though it does exist in some. With the Abrahamic lie of the wall removed, we can finally clearly see that the idea of racial or individual equality, on the spiritual or any other plane, is totally absurd. Individual men—and races of men—have their strengths, their weaknesses, their potentials, their lack of potentials. The one thing they don’t have is equality.

If we acknowledge that we need faith in God to prevail, and if we acknowledge that physics, mathematics, and genetics are the real word of God; then our new religion must cast off all incorrect perception of reality, cast off all superstition, and see ever-evolving Creation for what it really is. That is what makes Devi and the spiritual evolution of our folk inherent in National Socialism directly relevant to our quest.

 

______ 卐 ______

 

Man-centered creeds vs. racial-hierarchical reality

by Savitri Devi

According to the religious creeds which we have characterized as “man-centered,” man, alone created “in the likeness of God,” is God’s most beloved child, perhaps even his only child on this earth. The heavenly Father of the Christian Gospels no doubt loves the sparrows. But he loves man infinitely more. He loves the lilies too; he has clothed them more beautifully “than Solomon in all his glory”; yet, man is the main object of his solicitude, not they. Among all the living beings that are born in the visible world man alone is supposed to be endowed with an immortal soul. He alone was created for eternity. The transient world was made for him to enjoy and exploit during his short earthly life, and creatures of several species were appointed—both quadrupeds and birds—as meat for him to eat.

And that is not all. A whole scheme of salvation was worked out for him by God himself, so that man might still reach everlasting bliss in spite of his sins. God raised prophets to urge rebellious humanity to repentance and to point out the way of righteousness. And according to the Christian belief, he even sent his only Son to suffer and die, so that his blood might become the ransom of all sinners who put their faith in him. All the splendor of the material world; all the grace, strength and loveliness of millions of beasts, birds, fishes, trees and creepers; the majesty of the snow-clad mountains, the beauty of the unfurling waves—all that and much more—is not worth, in God’s eyes, the immortal soul of a human imbecile—so they say, at least. That is why the hunting of tigers and deer, the butchering of innocent woolly lambs, so glad to live, the dissecting of pretty white guinea pigs or of intelligent dogs, are not “sins” according to the man-centered faiths—not even if they imply the most appalling suffering. But the painless chloroforming of worthless human idiots is a “crime.” How could it be otherwise? They have two legs, no tail, and an immortal soul. However degenerate they be, they are men.

I cannot help here recalling the answer of a French medical student, a member of the “Christian Federation of Students,” whom I had asked, twenty-five years ago, how he could reconcile his religious aspirations with his support of vivisection. “What conflict can there be between the two?” said he. “Christ did not die for guinea pigs and dogs.” I do not know what Christ would actually have said to that. The fact remains that, from the point of view of historical Christianity, the boy was right. And his answer is enough to disgust one forever with all man-centered creeds.

Man-centered creeds do not even enjoy that minimum of inner consistency which forces one sometimes to recognize a certain strength in a bad system of thought. Those who believe in them and who happen not to be by nature too irredeemably irrational, try to justify their point of view by saying that man, as a whole, is superior to the dumb beasts. He can speak, and they cannot. That is certain. He can speak, and subsequently he can define and deduce, and pass from one deduction to another. He can transfer to other people the conclusions of his reasoning and the results of his experience. He becomes more aware of his own thoughts by expressing them. In a word, he can do all that is only possible by means of a conventional system of symbolical sounds, which we call language and which beasts and birds do not possess. His very being is raised above the immediate needs of everyday life, and his mind rendered capable of evolution, by the use of such a system.

Anyone will agree that this is true to a great extent, though all may not necessarily see what relation there is between this human advantage of speech and the exploitation of dumb animals by man. It is more difficult to understand the privileged place which religions such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam give to man, when one remembers that the sacred books of those three famous creeds admit the existence of heavenly creatures far more beautiful and more intelligent than he, mainly of angels—creatures who need not wait for the day of resurrection to acquire a “glorious” body, but who are, here and now, in their raiment of light, free from disease, decay and death. They, and not the clumsy sons of Adam, should have been the ones for whom Nature and man were made, for it would seem, from whatever one can gather about them in the holy scripture, that angels are as much above men as the most brilliant men can claim to be above animals, and even more so.

Still, apparently God loves man the best. All human sinners can expect to be saved by his grace; while those poor angels who once, at the dawn of time, rebelled against their Maker under the leadership of Lucifer, have no other alternative but to remain damned forever. No Redeemer was ever sent to pay the ransom of their sin. No hope of salvation was ever given to them. No repentance of theirs, it seems, would be of any avail. Why? Goodness knows. They are not men, not God’s spoilt darlings. That is the only explanation one can give, if any can be given of old Father Jehovah’s strange justice and queer tastes. They are not men. Intelligent and beautiful as they may be, and full of endless possibilities for good no less than for evil if only they were given a chance, they are apparently not worth, in God’s eyes, the repentant drunkard who weeps aloud at the end of a Salvation Army meeting. God’s ways cannot be discussed. But then, don’t tell us that his love for man is “justified” by man’s superiority, and that the right he gave the chosen species to exploit the rest of his weaker creatures is founded on a reasonable basis. It is not. For, if it were, there would have been, in Paradise, a place for the repentant fallen angels, and at least as much joy for one of them as for the souls of ten thousand drunkards from the East End of London.

The real reason for this continual stress upon the welfare of man alone, in this world and in the next, seems to lie in God’s incapacity to transcend a certain puerile partiality—we speak, of course, of the personal God of the man-centered faiths rooted in Judaism, and not of that impersonal Power behind all existence, in which we are inclined to believe. The God of the Christians, the God of Islam, and the God of most of those later Free Thinkers who are not out and out atheists, never succeeded in shaking off completely the habits he once had when he was but the patron deity of a few tribes of desert wanderers, slaves in the land of the Pharaohs. He was able to raise himself from the rank of a national god to that of a God of all humanity. But that is all. His love seems to have been spent out in its extension from the “Chosen People” of Israel to the Chosen Species of mankind. He had not in him the urge to broaden his fatherly feelings still beyond those narrow limits. It never occurred to him how narrow they were in fact and how irrational, how mean, how all-too-human that childish preference for man was, in a God that is supposed to have made the Milky Way.

The bloodthirsty national gods of West-Asian Antiquity—once his rivals; now all dead—were more consistent in their narrowness. They limited their sphere to a town, or at the most to a country, and in cases of emergency accepted—some say: asked for—human victims as well as burnt offerings of animal flesh. Grim gods they were, most of them. But there was something outspoken and reassuring in their very limitations. One knew, with them, where one stood. One was not carried away in their name by prophets and saints who took one right along the path leading to universal love, only to leave one in the middle of it. The prophets of Jehovah might call them “abominations,” but they were consistent. So was Jehovah, as long as he remained merely the tribal god of the Jews.

Note

The title of these excerpts is editorial; the text was originally prepared and edited by Irmin Vinson of the Racial Nationalist Library.

Categories
Free speech / association Welfare of animals

Black Pigeon Speaks…

has been purged from YouTube. ‘It was fully monetized, was in good standing, had no strikes and 95-99% like ratio and with almost 500k subscribers’, he said. ‘I follow the rules carefully and have not broken any of them’.

Black Pigeon Speaks is the author of the content linked in the sticky post’s first line: content about how contemporary Westerners internalised their extremely toxic foundation myth or story—something we have been discussing recently on this site.

Black Pigeon Speaks used to make a living in Japan through the YouTube monetization. He also rescued pigeons in an environment where non-whites give a shit about these cute birds.

Update of 10 pm

It looks like his channel is back thanks to the protests! YouTube did to BPS something similar to what they had done to the guy with the funny penname of Styxhexenhammer666 some time ago, another Alt Lite Youtube vlogger.

Categories
Exterminationism Welfare of animals

Why non-whites must be exterminated

In one of his most recent comments, Robert Morgan said:

Experimentation on animals tends to get a blanket pass because it sometimes saves human lives. Perhaps this is the result of Christian culture, according to which man is the only creature with a soul, so the tacit assumption is it’s okay so long as it’s for a good cause, and in any case animals, being soulless, aren’t worth bothering about.

But only in the West, I think, do a fair number of people get irate about the cruelty. Is there a PETA in China or Vietnam, or in all of Africa? If there is, I’d wager that it was founded and is staffed by whites.

I’ve read, for example, that the Chinese, who also eat cats, will lower them into boiling water an inch at a time. Making the animal suffer excruciating pain is thought to make the meat taste better. The details of kosher slaughter are about as sadistic, although whether it’s done to improve the flavor, or simply out of sheer pleasure at being able to torture something that’s utterly helpless, I can’t say.

The biggest flaw in white nationalism is subscribing Christian morality in the sense that love for mankind is a commandment taken for granted. That this universalism didn’t exist before Christianity suggests to me it is a malware installed in the white psyche by our (((racial enemies))), the gospel authors.

If non-whites are not exterminated after a world-wide Revolution à la Turner Diaries, animals will continue to be tortured in hell by these little devils called humans. Always remember that the first steps the Nazis took after reaching power in the 1930s were laws forbidding the unnecessary torment of animals. Always remember that (see first comment below)!

Of course: I expand the axis of my philosophy—exterminationism—in the books I write in my native language. It is true that I suspended the writing of a long From St Francis to Himmler, but these days I finished the much shorter From Jesus to Hitler. I will choose a translated chapter from it for the 2020 edition of Day of Wrath.

The crux of my philosophy is that ninety-nine percent of humans must be wiped out in order to leave room to a compassionate white race: a Utopia that already can be seen in the image chosen for the bare backup of this site.

Categories
Aryan beauty Axiology Deranged altruism Exterminationism Maxfield Parrish Welfare of animals

Petr’s rant

Or:

By their fruits ye shall know them

Very rarely people link to this site, presumably because our point of view is so light-years away from the POV of the common mortal that it is impossible for the normie that visits us to cross, in a single jump, the psychological Rubicon without the rosy stepping stones of the Alt-Right.

I think Petr is a Christian, but it is not clear to which ethnic group he belongs. At any event, on The Phora this guy said:

After a long pause, I decided to check out what C.T. is up to nowadays. (I know he is one of the most poisonously anti-Christian net Nazis out there, and I believe in the “know thine enemy” principle.)

And boy, it was an educational, even enlightening experience to see to what depths he and his few hand-around friends have sunk. As a matter of fact, I consider this to be a sort of moral victory; this shows the spiritual dead end that anti-Christian, anti-God WN activism ultimately leads to. They seem have taken the most extreme apocalyptic “Turner Diaries” views of William Pierce and ran with them. Thus they have come to the ultimate reductio ad absurdum of neo-Nazi ideology.

In fact, C.T. and his crew have abandoned not only Christian morality but also any shred of sober pagan morality (“nothing too much,” sophrosyne) and ended up in sheer manic-depressive nihilism. This stuff below is like the nastiest possible Antifa caricature of WNs come to life. I am not eager to “punch right,” but if this were seriously what all Nazis really believe in, then it would be justified not only to punch them, but to hunt them down as hostis humani generis, as the ancient Romans called pirates.

And it’s not just some booze-fueled tough talking or the Daily Stormer-like irony either—C.T. is a humorless fanatic who would clearly like to be taken seriously:

“For an introduction to my exterminationist philosophy see: here.”

But his genocidal fantasies are just impotent wish-fulfillment daydreams, and as such, even more grotesquely pathetic (you should never make threats you cannot carry out). In fact, people like him have now ironically become what Nietzsche caricatured early Christians being like—despised, embittered, resentment-filled losers hiding in dark holes and dreaming of massive vengeance to come. But without any real God to back them up.

All in all, thank God for the Alt Right and WN 2.0. if this is the mentality it freed us from!

Then Petr quotes in toto ‘How Awake Are You?’, the brilliant comment that our friend from the Iberian Peninsula posted last Thursday. Then Petr ended his rant with these words:

And the comments that follow are as pitiful and repulsive (literally so; you feel repelled from the company of such toxic losers) as the piece itself.

The problem with Petr and all those who make a superficial visit to this site is that they do not even read the links that they put themselves. For example, when quoting my words above (‘see: here’), any visitor of true nobility of the soul that clicked on those words would begin to follow the white rabbit. Eventually, he would enter Wonderland and realise that the devils tormenting innocent animals should be removed from the face of the Earth.

Who is the good and who the bad guy: Petr and company or us? Let’s use the parameter of their Jesus to answer the question: By their fruits ye shall know them.

In addition to perpetuating the lives of the devils tormentors, the promiscuous ‘loving’ ideology of Petr & Co. is murdering the fairest specimens of Homo sapiens. On the other hand, if we come to power, our fruits would mean not only the end of the torment of animals but living in the world of Parrish.