My site ‘The West’s Darkest Hour’ which was hosted by WordPress has been axed a few moments ago.
Although I will be appealing the decision, I believe I will be posting articles here from this accident onwards.
If you want to donate in these dark times, please do it…
Editor’s note: Since 2011 we have been predicting on this blog that the dollar is going to collapse. Ten years ago, as far as I remember, only another racialist blog used to mention the subject regularly (Mindweapons in Ragnarok). Now we see it everywhere, even on racialist forums where semi-normies comment. In the closing paragraphs of ‘The War in Ukraine Marks the End of the American Century’ published in The Unz Review, Mike Whitney tells us the following:
______ 卐 ______
Did you catch that part about ‘Russia winning the economic war’? What do you think that means in practical terms?
Does it mean that Washington’s failed attempt to maintain its global hegemony by ‘weakening’ Russia is actually putting enormous strains on the Transatlantic Alliance and NATO that will trigger a re-calibration of relations leading to a defiant rejection of the ‘rules-based system’?
Is that what it means? Is Europe going to split with Washington and leave America to sink beneath its $30 trillion ocean of red ink?
Yes, that’s exactly what it means.
Uncle Sam’s 30 Year Bender.
Proponents of Washington’s proxy-war have no idea of the magnitude of their mistake or how much damage they are inflicting on their own country. The Ukraine debacle is the culmination of 30 years of bloody interventions that have brought us to a tipping point where the nation’s fortunes are about to take a dramatic turn-for-the-worse. As the dollar-zone shrinks, standards of living will plunge, unemployment will soar, and the economy will go into a downward-death spiral.
Washington has greatly underestimated its vulnerability to catastrophic geopolitical blowback that is about to bring the New American Century to a swift and excruciating end.
As the fourth chapter of Richard Weikart’s book made clear, Hitler was aware of the theme that Nietzsche (before Hitler) and Evropa Soberana (after Hitler) called Rome against Judea; Judea against Rome: a subject so important that we have called the masthead of this site.
Hitler had all the right instincts to understand the subject. Nevertheless, his view of Jesus, as it appears in that Weikart chapter, evokes Christian Identity: people incapable of breaking away altogether from the old paradigm, to the extent of producing naïve pseudo-history (or naïve pseudo-biography, in the case of Jesus).
Hitler’s apostasy from Christianity was almost absolute, in that not only the dogmatic part of Christianity was rejected, but the axiological part as well. He was almost there. But his apostasy wasn’t absolute. 
As Savitri said, it is necessary for the Avenger to come, who, I would add, will no longer harbour in his mind residues of Judeo-Christian introjects, but will see things even more clearly thanks to the heart tree that allows him to see the past, to the extent of realising that Jesus never existed.
If we compare all the quotes about Jesus from Hitler’s mouth that we read in Weikart’s book, we will see that Hitler’s imaginary Jesus was, from the point of view of Aryan interests, inferior to the Jesus of Evropa Soberana: who depicts Jesus simply as a zealot executed by the Romans. (Interestingly, that Jesus resembles the Jesus of the first modern exegete, Reimarus, whom we have discussed on this site.)
But we can use Carrier’s non-existent Jesus as a final step in our crossing of the psychological Rubicon. As I said to a disciple of that author, Carrier is not a full apostate in that axiologically he is still Christian (love thy neighbour even if he is black, Jewish or Chinese, etc.). Only by intellectually assimilating Carrier’s legacy of the non-historical Jesus, but unlike him transvaluing Christian ethics, will we have reached dry land, the other side of the river.
(excerpts)
by Richard Weikart
Many Christian leaders in the 1930s and 1940s, both within and outside Germany, recognized Hitler was no friend to their religion. In 1936, Karl Spiecker, a German Catholic living in exile in France, detailed the Nazi fight against Christianity in his book Hitler gegen Christus (Hitler against Christ). The Swedish Lutheran bishop Nathan Soderblom, a leading figure in the early twentieth-century ecumenical movement, was not so ecumenical that he included Hitler in the ranks of Christianity. After meeting with Hitler sometime in the mid-1930s, he stated, “As far as Christianity is concerned, this man is chemically pure from it.”
Many Germans, however, had quite a different image of their Führer. Aside from those who saw him as a Messiah worthy of veneration and maybe even worship, many regarded him as a faithful Christian. Rumors circulated widely in Nazi Germany that Hitler carried a New Testament in his vest pocket, or that he read daily a Protestant devotional booklet. Though these rumors were false, at the time many Germans believed them…
Most historians today agree that Hitler was not a Christian in any meaningful sense. Neil Gregor, for instance, warns that Hitler’s “superficial deployment of elements of Christian discourse” should not mislead people to think that Hitler shared the views of “established religion.” Michael Burleigh argues that Nazism was anticlerical and despised Christianity. He recognizes that Hitler was not an atheist, but “Hitler’s God was not the Christian God, as conventionally understood.” In his withering but sober analysis of the complicity of the Christian churches in Nazi Germany, Robert Ericksen depicts Hitler as duplicitous when he presented himself publicly as a Christian…
However, when we turn to Hitler’s view of Jesus, we find a remarkable consistency from his earliest speeches to his latest Table Talks. He expressed admiration for Jesus publicly and privately, without once directly criticizing Him. But his vision of Jesus was radically different from the teachings of the Catholic Church he grew up in. For him, Jesus was not a Jew, but a fellow Aryan. He only rarely stated this explicitly, though he frequently implied it by portraying Jesus as an anti-Semite. However, in April 1921, he told a crowd in Rosenheim that he could not imagine Christ as anything other than blond-haired and blue-eyed, making clear that he considered Jesus an Aryan. In an interview with a journalist in November 1922, he actually claimed Jesus was Germanic…
While Hitler appreciated Jesus because he considered him a valiant anti-materialistic anti-Semite, I have never found any evidence that Hitler believed in the deity of Jesus. Richard Steigmann-Gall bases his mistaken claim that Hitler believed in Jesus as God on a mistranslation of Hitler’s April 22, 1922 speech (some of which we discussed earlier in this chapter). According to the Norman Baynes’ edition of The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, during that speech Hitler stated about Jesus, “It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to the fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as sufferer but as fighter.” The term that is translated “God’s truth!” is wahrhaftiger Gott, a common German interjection that is rendered in some German-English dictionaries as “good God!” or “good heavens!” In the original German edition, wahrhaftiger Gott is set off in commas, indicating that it is indeed an interjection… Steigmann-Gall uses this mistranslation to argue that Hitler believed in the deity of Jesus. Apparently, he did not understand the colloquial expression used…
While Hitler’s positive attitude toward Jesus—at least the Jesus of his imagination—did not seem to change over his career, his position vis-a-vis Christianity is much more complex. Many scholars doubt that as an adult he was ever personally committed to any form of Christianity. They interpret his pro-Christian utterances as nothing more than the cynical ploy of a crafty politician. Almost all historians, including Steigmann-Gall, admit that Hitler was anti-Christian in the last several years of his life…
Even when he publicly announced his Christian faith in 1922 or at other times, Hitler never professed commitment to Catholicism. Further, despite his public stance upholding Christianity before 1924, he provided a clue in one of his earliest speeches that he was already antagonistic toward Christianity. In August 1920, Hitler viciously attacked the Jews in his speech, “Why Are We Anti-Semites?” One accusation he leveled was that the Jews had used Christianity to destroy the Roman Empire. He then claimed Christianity was spread primarily by Jews. Since Hitler was a radical anti-Semite, his characterization of Christianity as a Jewish plot was about as harsh an indictment as he could bring against Christianity. Hitler was also a great admirer of the ancient Greeks and Romans, whom he considered fellow Aryans. Blaming Christianity for ruining the Roman Empire thus expressed considerable anti-Christian animus. Hitler often discussed both themes—Christianity as Jewish, and Christianity as the cause of Rome’s downfall—later in life.
Hitler’s anti-Christian outlook remained largely submerged before 1924, because—as Hitler himself explained in Mein Kampf—he did not want to offend possible supporters…
But by the time Hitler wrote Mein Kampf in 1924-25, he was walking a tightrope. His political ally, General Ludendorff, was increasingly hostile to the Catholic Church, as were many on the radical Right in Weimar Germany. Hitler did not want to follow them into political oblivion—and indeed Ludendorff did end up politically isolated, perhaps in part because of his antireligious crusade. But Hitler was also sensitive to the anticlerical thrust within and outside his party. Thus, after warning his followers in the first volume of Mein Kampf against offending people’s religious tastes, he threw caution to the wind in the second volume by sharply criticizing Christianity. In one passage, he complained that both Christian churches in Germany were contributing to the decline of the German people, because they supported a system that allowed those with hereditary diseases to procreate. The problem, he thought, was that the churches focused on the spirit and neglected the physical basis of a healthy life. Hitler immediately followed up this critique by blasting the churches for carrying out mission work among black Africans, who are “healthy, though primitive and inferior, human beings,” whom the missionaries turn into “a rotten brood of bastards.” In this passage, Hitler harshly castigated Christianity for not supporting his eugenics and racial ideology.
Worse yet, he actually threatened to obliterate Christianity later in the second volume. After calling Christianity fanatically intolerant for destroying other religions, Hitler explained that Nazism would have to be just as intolerant to supplant Christianity:
A philosophy filled with infernal intolerance will only be broken by a new idea, driven forward by the same spirit, championed by the same mighty will, and at the same time pure and absolutely genuine in itself. The individual may establish with pain today that with the appearance of Christianity the first spiritual terror entered in to the far freer ancient world, but he will not be able to contest the fact that since then the world has been afflicted and dominated by this coercion, and that coercion is broken only by coercion, and terror only by terror. Only then can a new state of affairs be constructively created.
Hitler’s anti-Christian sentiment shines through clearly here, as he called Christianity a “spiritual terror” that has “afflicted” the world. Earlier in the passage, he also argued Christian intolerance was a manifestation of a Jewish mentality, once again connecting Christianity with the people he most hated. Even more ominously, he called his fellow Nazis to embrace an intolerant worldview so they could throw off the shackles of Christianity. He literally promised to visit terror on Christianity. Even though several times later in life, especially before 1934, Hitler would try to portray himself as a pious Christian, he had already blown his cover.
Hitler’s tirade against Christianity in Mein Kampf, including the threat to demolish it, diverged remarkably from his normal public persona… In January 1937, Goebbels was with Hitler during an internecine debate on religion and reported, “The Führer thinks Christianity is ripe for destruction. That may still take a long time, but it is coming.”
In reading through Goebbels’ Diaries, Hitler’s monologues, and Rosenberg’s Diaries, it is rather amazing how often Hitler discussed religion with his entourage, especially during World War II. He was clearly obsessed with the topic. On December 13, 1941, for example, just two days after declaring war on the United States, he told his Gauleiter (district leaders) that he was going to annihilate the Jews, but he was postponing his campaign against the church until after the war, when he would deal with them. According to Rosenberg, both on that day and the following, Hitler’s monologues were primarily about the “problem of Christianity.” In a letter to a friend in July 1941, Hitler’s secretary Christa Schroeder claimed that in Hitler’s evening discussions at the headquarters, “the church plays a large role.” She added that she found Hitler’s religious comments very illuminating, as he exposed the deception and hypocrisy of Christianity. Hitler’s own monologues confirm Schroeder’s impression…
When Hitler told his Gauleiter in December 1941 that the regime would wait until after the war to solve the church problem, he was probably trying to restrain some of the hotheads in his party. But he also promised the day of reckoning would eventually come. He told them, “There is an insoluble contradiction between the Christian and a Germanic-heroic worldview. However, this contradiction cannot be resolved during the war, but after the war we must step up to solve this contradiction. I see a possible solution only in the further consolidation of the National Socialist worldview”…
At a cabinet meeting in 1937, Hitler commented, “I know that my un-Christian Germanic SS units with their general non-denominational belief in God can grasp their duty for their people (Volk) more clearly than those other soldiers who have been made stupid through the catechism.” Hitler’s contempt for Christianity could hardly have been more palpable.
Hitler’s press chief, Otto Dietrich, confirmed Frank’s impression. In private, according to Dietrich, Hitler was uniformly antagonistic to Christianity. Dietrich wrote in his memoirs:
…Primitive Christianity, he declared, was the “first Jewish-Communistic cell”…
Dietrich stated, “Hitler was convinced that Christianity was outmoded and dying. He thought he could speed its death by systematic education of German youth. Christianity would be replaced, he thought, by a new heroic, racial ideal of God.” This confirms the point Goebbels made in his diary—that Hitler hoped ultimately to replace Christianity with a Germanic worldview through indoctrination of children…
[Albert] Speer recalled a conversation in which Hitler was told that if Muslims had won the Battle of Tours, Germans would be Muslim. Hitler responded by lamenting Germany’s fate to have become Christian: “You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?” As this conversation reveals, Hitler saw religion not as an expression of truth, but rather as a means or tool to achieve other ends—namely, the preservation and advancement of the German people or Nordic race. In April 1942, Hitler again compared Christianity unfavorably with Islam and Japanese religion. In the case of Japan, their religion had protected them from the “poison of Christianity,” he opined…
In fact, Hitler contemptuously called Christianity a poison and a bacillus and openly mocked its teachings… After scoffing at doctrines such as the Fall, the Virgin Birth, and redemption through the death of Jesus, Hitler stated, “Christianity is the most insane thing that a human brain in its delusion has ever brought forth, a mockery of everything divine.” He followed this up with a hard right jab to any believing Catholic, claiming that a “Negro with his fetish” is far superior to someone who believes in transubstantiation. Hitler… believed black Africans were subhumans intellectually closer to apes than to Europeans, so to him, this was a spectacular insult to Catholics… Then, according to Hitler, when others did not accept these strange teachings, the church tortured them into submission…
Another theme that surfaced frequently in Hitler’s monologues of 1941-42 was that the sneaky first-century rabbi Paul was responsible for repackaging the Jewish worldview in the guise of Christianity, thereby causing the downfall of the Roman Empire. In December 1941, Hitler stated that although Christ was an Aryan, “Paul used his teachings to mobilize the underworld and organize a proto-Bolshevism. With its emergence the beautiful clarity of the ancient world was lost.” In fact, since Christianity was tainted from the very start, Hitler sometimes referred to it as “Jew-Christianity”… He denigrated the “Jew-Christians” of the fourth century for destroying Roman temples and even called the destruction of the Alexandrian library a “Jewish-Christian deed.” Hitler thus construed the contest between Christianity and the ancient pagan world as part of the racial struggle between Jews and Aryans.
In November 1944, Hitler described in greater detail how Paul had corrupted the teachings of Jesus…
Hitler’s preference for the allegedly Aryan Greco-Roman world over the Christian epoch shines through clearly in Goebbels’s diary entry for April 8, 1941… “The Führer is a person entirely oriented toward antiquity. He hates Christianity, because it has deformed all noble humanity.” Goebbels even noted that Hitler preferred the “wise smiling Zeus to a pain-contorted crucified Christ,” and believed “the ancient people’s view of God is more noble and humane than the Christian view.” Rosenberg recorded the same conversation, adding that Hitler considered classical antiquity more free and cheerful than Christianity with its Inquisition and burning of witches and heretics. He loved the monumental architecture of the Romans, but hated Gothic architecture. The Age of Augustus was, for Hitler, “the highpoint of history.”
From Hitler’s perspective, Christianity had ruined a good thing. In July 1941 he stated, “The greatest blow to strike humanity is Christianity,” which is “a monstrosity of the Jews. Through Christianity the conscious lie has come into the world in questions of religion.” Six months later, he blamed Christianity for bringing about the collapse of Rome. He then contrasted two fourth-century Roman emperors: Constantine, also known as Constantine the Great, and Julian, nicknamed Julian the Apostate by subsequent Christian writers because he fought against Christianity and tried to return Rome to its pre-Christian pagan worship. Hitler thought the monikers should be reversed, since in his view Constantine was a traitor and Julian’s writings were “pure wisdom.” Hitler also expressed his appreciation for Julian the Apostate in October 1941 after reading Der Scheiterhaufen: Worte grosser Ketzer (Burned at the Stake: Words of Great Heretics) by SS officer Kurt Egger. This book contained anti-Christian sayings by prominent anticlerical writers, including Julian, Frederick the Great, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Goethe, Lagarde, and others. It was a shame, Hitler said, that after so many clear-sighted “heretics,” Germany was not further along in its religious development… A few days later, Hitler recommended that Eggers’s book should be distributed to millions because it showed the good judgment that the ancient world (meaning Julian) and the eighteenth century (i.e., Enlightenment thinkers) had about the church.
This notion that Christianity was a Jewish plot to destroy the Roman world was a theme Hitler touched on throughout his career, from his 1920 speech “Why Are We Anti-Semites?” to the end of his life. It made a brief appearance in his major speech to the Nuremberg Party Rally in 1929, and reappeared in a February 1933 speech to military leaders. In a small private meeting with his highest military leaders and his Foreign Minister in November 1937, Hitler told them that Rome fell because of “the disintegrating effect of Christianity.” From the way that Hitler bashed a generic “Christianity” as a Jewish-Bolshevik scheme, it seems clear that he was targeting all existing forms of Christianity…
During a monologue on December 14, 1941, Hitler divulged a decisive distaste for Protestantism. That day, Hitler learned Hanns Kerrl, a Protestant who was his minister for church affairs, had passed away. Hitler remarked, “With the best intentions Minister Kerrl wanted to produce a synthesis of National Socialism and Christianity. I do not believe that is possible.” Hitler explained that the form of Christianity with which he most sympathized was that which prevailed during the times of papal decay. Regardless of whether the pope was a criminal, if he produced beauty, he is “more sympathetic to me than a Protestant pastor, who returns to the primitive condition of Christianity,” Hitler declared. “Pure Christianity, the so-called primitive Christianity… leads to the destruction of humanity; it is unadulterated Bolshevism in a metaphysical framework.” In other words, Hitler preferred Leo X, the great Renaissance patron of the arts who excommunicated Luther, to the Wittenberg monk who called the church back to primitive, Pauline Christianity. According to Rosenberg’s account of this same conversation, Hitler specifically mentioned the corrupt Renaissance Pope Julius II, Leo X’s predecessor, as being “less dangerous than primitive Christianity”…
(Note of the Editor: Left, The monument of Julius II, with Michelangelo’s statues of Moses, with Rachel and Leah). Many anti-Semites in early twentieth-century Germany despised the Old Testament as the product of the Jewish spirit, and Hitler was no exception. He saw the Old Testament as the antithesis of everything he stood for. In his view, it taught materialism, greed, and deception. Further, it promoted racial purity for the Jews, since it taught them to avoid mingling with other races…
Moreover, Hitler lamented that the Bible had been translated into German, because this made Jewish doctrines readily available to the German people. It would have been better, he stated, if the Bible had remained only in Latin, rather than causing mental disorders and delusions…
Many SS members followed Himmler’s example and encouragement to withdraw from the churches, and Hitler lauded them for their anti-church attitude. Hitler once advised Mussolini to try to wean the Italian people away from the Catholic Church, lest he encounter problems in the future. When Mussolini asked how to do this, Hitler turned to his military adjutant and asked him how many men in Hitler’s entourage attended church. The adjutant replied, “None”…
In the end… he [Hitler] had utter contempt for the Jesus who told His followers to love their enemies and turn the other cheek. He also did not believe that Jesus’s death had any significance other than showing the perfidy of the Jews, nor did he believe in Jesus’s resurrection.
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness: these are among the unalienable rights of all people, according the American Declaration of Independence. This historic document goes on to state, that to ensure these rights, governments are instituted among men. In the Americanised West, this sacred ‘pursuit of happiness’ has been pretty much left to the economic marketplace.
On Sundays I will be going through revising the syntax of the translation of some chapters of Savitri Devi’s book for the print version, and today I came across this passage in the first one:
Any society, any ‘civilisation’ that proceeds from the same aspiration for human well-being above all else, for ‘happiness’ at any price, is marked by the seal of the Powers Below, enemies of the cosmic order in the endless play of forces. It is a civilisation of the Dark Age. If you are obliged to suffer it, suffer it by unceasingly opposing it, denouncing it, and combating it every minute of your life. Make it your glory in hastening its end—at least to cooperate with all your might in the natural action of the forces leading to its end. For it is accursed. It is organised ugliness and meanness.
Pace Richard Spencer, America delenda est.
Update of June 7th: Because you have to pay to watch this documentary and the link I posted wasn’t payable, Odysee removed it but I suggest people watch it on Daily Wire.
______ 卐 ______
Christian Matt Walsh isn’t one of us, but his June 1st documentary is amazing!
Incidentally, mass formation, or more precisely mass psychosis about sex, ‘didn’t start with Kinsey. It started in Weimar Germany. The books that were burned by national socialists were gender theory transgender clinic materials’.
Führerhauptquartier
mittags, abends und in der
Nacht zum 9. 1941
Entschlußkraft haben heißt nicht, immer etwas tun um jeden Preis. Entschlußkraft ist: nicht zögern in der Verwirklichung dessen, das innerer Erkenntnis nach nun einmal getan werden muß.
Die größte Kraft gehörte dazu, im vergangenen Jahr den Entschluß zum Angriff auf den Bolschewismus zu fassen. Ich mußte damit rechnen, daß im Laufe dieses Jahres Stalin zum Angriff übergeht; es galt, so früh als irgend möglich anzutreten; als frühester Termin ergab sich der Juni 1941. Auch zum Kriegführen braucht man Glück. Wenn ich jetzt daran denke, was haben wir für Glück gehabt!
Ich konnte die Umstellung nicht propagandistisch vorbereiten. Ungezählten wurde das Leben erhalten dadurch, daß kein Artikel je ein Wort enthielt, das auf das Geplante schließen ließ. Ich habe mit der Möglichkeit gerechnet, daß der eine oder der andere in den Reihen der Wehrmacht noch mit einem Komplex Kommunismus behaftet ist! Die jetzt dabei waren, haben bestimmt alle umgelernt; aber vordem hat niemand gewußt, wie es wirklich drüben aussieht, und wie viele mochten sich sagen: Wir haben doch den Freundschaftspakt mit ihnen!
Der deutsche Soldat hat sich wiederum als der beste der Welt erwiesen; er war es zur Zeit Friedrichs des Großen und er war es von Anbeginn. Wenn es darauf ankommt standzuhalten, dann zeigt sich seine ganze Kraft. Der Unteroffizier hat seine Gruppe beisammen, der Zugführer seinen Zug. Noch am Ende des Westfeldzuges hat man sagen hören, die Härte des Infanteristen aus dem Weltkrieg habe der heutige Soldat doch nicht. Hier im Osten hat es sich erwiesen, daß er sie besitzt.
Während wir diesmal im Westen einen waffenmäßig überlegenen Gegner nicht gehabt haben, muß die russische Kriegsvorbereitung als phantastisch bezeichnet werden. Unsere Wehrmacht von heute ist besser als die Wehrmacht von 1914/18. Der Weltkriegssoldat hatte die gleich großartige innere Haltung. Aber die Angriffstaktik von damals war etwas ungemein Rückständiges, und die Armee war mit schwerer Artillerie nur unzulänglich ausgerüstet. Trotzdem würden wir 1918 noch den Sieg errungen haben, hätten wir damals den rechten Flügel um drei Korps verstärken können;[1] das würde schon damit erreicht worden sein, daß man aus Heeresgruppen, deren Aufgabe lediglich die Verteidigung war, entbehrliche Einheiten herausnahm. Aber das Verbot sich aus der Rücksicht auf Anciennität und Rangansprüche der fürstlichen Heerführer.
Man hat im Weltkrieg den Kampfwert der Einzelperson nicht gekannt: Nicht nur im Bewegungskrieg – 1914 – sind die Einheiten geschlossen vorgegangen, auch im Graben waren die Posten viel zu dicht beisammen. Ein Fehler war es andererseits, daß man 40-50 jährige Männer zu Kompanieführern hatte. Sich bewegen können, laufen, auf, nieder, ist für die Infanterie alles; dazu braucht man jugendliche Kompanieführer.
Der halbe Erfolg liegt in der Überraschung. Deshalb darf man eine Operation, mit der man Erfolg gehabt hat, nicht einfach wiederholen.
Antonescu[2] bedient sich vor Odessa der Weltkriegs-Taktik: Er rückt jeden Tag einige Kilometer vor, nachdem er, was in dem Raum war, mit Artillerie – er ist dem Gegner darin mächtig überlegen – dem Erdboden gleichgemacht hat. Unter den da gegebenen Umständen kann man schließlich auch so verfahren.
Die Operation, die jetzt im Werk ist – eine Einkesselung mit einer Tangente von zunächst mehr als 1000 Kilometern -, ist von manchen für unmöglich gehalten worden; ich mußte schon meine ganze Autorität aufbieten, sie durchzusetzen,[3] wie überhaupt ein gut Teil unserer Erfolge nur dem zuzuschreiben ist, daß wir den Mut zu »Fehlern« gehabt haben.
Der Kampf um die Hegemonie in der Welt wird für Europa durch den Besitz des russischen Raumes entschieden; er macht Europa zum blockadefestesten Ort der Welt. Es sind das wirtschaftliche Perspektiven, die den liberalsten westlichen Demokraten der neuen Ordnung geneigt machen werden. Jetzt müssen wir es durchbeißen. Das übrige ist eine Frage der Organisation.
Man braucht diese Urwelt lediglich zu sehen und weiß, daß hier nichts geschieht, wenn man den Menschen die Arbeit nicht zumißt. Der Slawe ist eine geborene Sklaven-Masse, die nach dem Herrn schreit; es fragt sich nur, wer der Herr ist. Der Bolschewismus hat uns da einen großen Dienst erwiesen. Er hatte zunächst das Land an die Bauern aufgeteilt. Die Folge war ungeheuere Hungersnot; es blieb nichts übrig, als in der Form der Staatsdomänen die Grundherrschaft wieder einzuführen, nur, daß der frühere Herr etwas von der Landwirtschaft verstanden hatte, während dem politischen Kommissar das Wissen darum fehlte; eben erst war man im Begriff, durch Landwirtschaftsschulen die kommende Generation von Kommissaren in dem zu unterweisen, worauf es ankommt.
Wenn die Engländer aus Indien hinausgetrieben würden, so würde Indien verkommen. Das ist hier genauso. Der Nationalsozialismus könnte nicht einmal nach Ungarn exportiert werden. In der breiten Masse ist der Ungar so faul wie der Russe; er ist der geborene Steppenreiter. Insoweit hat Horthy[4] recht, wenn er sagt: »Bei mir sinken die Bodenerträge, wenn ich den Großgrundbesitz aufgebe.« In Spanien ist es dasselbe; Spanien würde verhungern, wenn der Großgrundbesitz verschwände.
Der deutsche Bauer hat den Trieb weiterzukommen, er denkt an seine Kinder; ein ukrainischer Bauer aber wird nicht nach dem Imperativ der Pflicht handeln. Bedingt gibt es ein Bauerntum unseres Stiles noch in Frankreich, sehr stark in Holland und in Italien, wo jeder Quadratmeter in einem wahren Bienenfleiß ausgenutzt wird.
Der russische Raum ist unser Indien, und wie die Engländer es mit einer Handvoll Menschen beherrschen, so werden wir diesen unseren Kolonialraum regieren. Es wäre verfehlt, den Eingeborenen erziehen zu wollen. Was wir erreichen würden, ist ein Halbwissen, das zur Revolution führt. Es ist kein Zufall, daß der Erfinder des Anarchismus ein Russe war.[5] Wäre die russische Menschheit nicht durch andere, angefangen von den Warägern, zum Staat organisiert worden, so wären sie Kaninchen geblieben. Man kann Kaninchen nicht zum Leben der Bienen oder Ameisen erziehen. Diese haben die Fähigkeit, Staaten zu bilden, Hasen haben sie nicht. Sich selbst überlassen, würde der Slawe nie über den engsten Familienkreis hinausgekommen sein.
Die nordisch-germanische Rasse hat den Staatsgedanken geboren und dadurch verwirklicht, daß sie dem einzelnen Zwang antut, sich in ein Ganzes zu fügen. Die Volkskraft, die im Blut unserer Menschen schlummert, zu wecken, ist die Aufgabe, die wir uns zu stellen haben.
Die slawischen Völker hingegen sind zu einem eigenen Leben nicht bestimmt. Das wissen sie, und wir dürfen ihnen nicht einreden, sie könnten das auch. Wir haben 1918 die baltischen Länder und die Ukraine geschaffen.[6] Wir haben aber heute kein Interesse an dem Fortbestand der ostbaltischen Staaten und an einer freien Ukraine. Rechristianisierung wäre der größte Fehler, denn das wäre Wiederorganisierung. Ich bin auch nicht für eine Universität in Kiew. Wir bringen ihnen das Lesen besser nicht bei. Sie lieben uns gar nicht, wenn wir sie mit Schulen quälen; es wäre schon falsch, sie auch nur auf eine Lokomotive zu stellen. Wir haben auch keinen Grund, mit einer Neuverteilung des Bodens anzufangen. Die Eingeborenen werden künftig aber weit besser leben als jetzt. Wir finden in ihnen die Menschen zur Bearbeitung des Bodens, der uns heute abgeht.
Wir werden ein Getreide-Exportland sein für alle in Europa, die auf Getreide angewiesen sind. In der Krim haben wir Südfrüchte, Gummipflanzen (mit 40 000 ha machen wir uns unabhängig), Baum-wolle. Die Pripjet-Sümpfe geben uns Schilf. Den Ukrainern liefern wir Kopftücher, Glasketten als Schmuck und was sonst Kolonialvölkern gefällt. Unsere Deutschen – das ist die Hauptsache – müssen eine festungsartig in sich geschlossene Gemeinschaft bilden, – der letzte Pferdebursche muß höher stehen als einer der Eingeborenen außerhalb dieser Zentren.
Für die deutsche Jugend wird das ein Gebiet sein, wo sie sich Vorarbeiten kann. Dänen, Holländer, Norweger, Schweden nehmen wir mit herein. Für den deutschen Soldaten haben wir die Übungsplätze, für die Luftwaffe die von ihr benötigten Räume. Wir dürfen es nicht so machen wie vor dem Krieg in den Kolonien, wo neben der deutschen Kolonial-Gesellschaft eigentlich nur kapitalistische Interessen am Werk waren. Der Deutsche soll das Gefühl für weite Räume bekommen. Wir müssen ihn in die Krim bringen und in den Kaukasus. Es ist ein Unterschied, ob man das auf der Landkarte sieht oder ob man einmal da gewesen ist. Die Bahn hat dabei die Funktion des Frachtverkehrsmittels, das Land wird uns durch die Straße erschlossen.
Die Leute träumen heute von einer großen Weltfriedenskonferenz. Lieber führe ich zehn Jahre Krieg, als daß ich mir den Sieg auf solche Weise wegstehlen lasse. Ich habe ja keine unmäßigen Ziele; im Grunde sind es lauter Gebiete, in denen einmal schon Germanen gesessen haben. Das deutsche Volk soll in diesen Raum hineinwachsen.
________
[1] Zu Beginn des Ersten Weltkriegs mißlang die Umfassung der französischen Armeen. Der deutsche Vormarsch mußte 1914 infolge fehlender Kräfte und einer Krise am gefährdeten rechten Flügel an der Marne eingestellt werden. Am 9. September 1914 traten die deutschen Armeen den Rückzug an.
[2] Ion Antonescu, 1882-1946, 1937-1938 rumänischer Kriegsminister, vom 6. 9. 1940 – 23. 8. 1944 Staatsführer. Seit 1941 Marshall von Rumänien.
[3] Die Schlacht bei Kiew vom 21. 8.-27. 9. 1941, bei der laut Wehrmachtsbericht 665 000 Gefangene gemacht, 884 Panzerkampfwagen, 3718 Geschütze und sonstiges Kriegsgerät zerstört oder erbeutet wurden.
[4] Nikolaus Horthy von Nagybänya, 1868-1957, Flügeladjutant Kaiser Franz Josephs, im Ersten Weltkrieg Konteradmiral und letzter Oberbefehlshaber der österreichisch-ungarischen Flotte, 1. 3. 1920 – 15. 10. 1944 Reichsverweser des Königreichs Ungarn. Wurde von Hitler zur Abdankung gezwungen und in Bayern interniert.
[5] Michael Bakunin, 1814-1876, stammte aus einer adligen russischen Familie, kam in Paris mit Marx und Proudhon in Verbindung, beteiligte sich 1848 an der Revolution in Deutschland. Mitbegründer der 1. Internationale, überwarf sich aber mit Marx und wurde 1872 wegen anarchistischer Tendenzen ausgeschlossen.
[6] Über die Friedensverhandlungen mit Rußland in Brest-Litowsk, deren Scheitern, den deutschen Vormarsch und die Errichtung von Deutschland abhängiger Staaten im Baltikum und in der Ukraine vgl. Winfried Baumgart, Deutsche Ostpolitik 1918, Wien und München 1966.
Before I go on quoting more excerpts from Richard Weikart’s book (pictured left), I would like to say something that seems important to me.
Why, one might ask, if Weikart has such a clear mind and has read the most relevant German-language sources on Hitler’s religion—unlike the normies, who know only Allied propaganda—, does he still repudiate Him?
The answer is devastatingly simple: because the Christian operating system that is the platform of his psyche compels him to love every anthropomorphic creature as himself, even if they are physically ugly blacks, subversive Jews or soulless Chinese who skin animals alive in fur factories.
Before Christianity, whites didn’t love their neighbours.
They weren’t mad or psychotic.
Christianity is the single perpetrator, the great psychosis and great betrayal of the divine force of the universe that produced creatures as beautiful as the nymphs on the sidebar.
Christianity is the number one enemy of the Aryan race, not the Jews.
Christianity has so corrupted the white man that even its alleged defenders on the American racial right don’t reproduce images that show the divinity of their race: beauty that was displayed by the Greco-Romans and even the Germans of the last century (as we see in the video that appears almost to the top of the sidebar).
Both the anti-racist Weikart and the American racists look like spiritual children of Jeremy Bentham; that is, men completely uncircumcised at heart to see the true God I was talking about, in grey letters, in the previous post (a God that has nothing to do with a non-existent personal god, the god of the Abrahamic religions).
The only way to understand the deity, and this was clear to Savitri Devi in the book we recently translated (I will try to get a print-on-demand company to print it for you), is to be initiated into the artistic mysteries in which Hitler was initiated—nothing more opposed to the mummy of Bentham that seems to symbolise the Anglo-American world!
(excerpts)
by Richard Weikart
In many of his private conversations and monologues, as well as in some of his public speeches, Hitler sounded like a rationalist, using science to undermine religion. Also, he denied a personal afterlife…
Hitler’s freethinking bent seems to go back to his youth and may have come from his father, who was also disgruntled with the church. When reflecting back on his childhood religion classes in a January 1942 monologue, Hitler claimed that he “was the eternal questioner.” He read a lot of freethinking literature, and he challenged his religion teacher with his findings, allegedly driving his teacher to despair. He would continually ask his teacher about doubtful themes in the Bible, but the teacher’s answers were always evasive. One day Hitler’s teacher asked him if he prayed, and he responded, “No, Sir, I do not pray; I do not believe that the dear God has an interest if a pupil prays!” Hitler also reported that he hated the mendacity of his religion instructor, who once told Hitler’s mother in front of him that Hitler’s soul was lost. Hitler responded by telling his teacher that some scholars doubt there is an afterlife. In February 1942, Hitler confessed that he had not believed in Christianity since he was about thirteen to fifteen years old. According to Hitler, “None of my [school] comrades believed in the so-called communion any longer.” Hitler regaled his secretaries with accounts of his youthful exploits, including stories about embarrassing his religion teacher, whom he considered unkempt and filthy. He told his secretaries that he developed an aversion to clergymen from his earliest youth…
This was not the only time Hitler praised Enlightenment philosophers. During a monologue in October 1941, he lamented that current discussions about religion were in a miserable state compared to the writings of the French Enlightenment or to Frederick the Great’s discussions with Voltaire. Nine months later, he told Bormann that of the books that Bormann had given him to look at, he was especially interested in Frederick the Great’s books, Briefe über die Religion (Letters on Religion) and Theologische Streitschriften (Theological Polemics). Hitler commented that it would be valuable if all Germans, especially leaders and military officers, could read these works by Frederick, because then they would see that Hitler was not alone in his “heretical thoughts.” Hitler obviously thought highly of Frederick, not only for his military exploits and tenacity but also for his Enlightened religious views. Hans Frank noticed this tendency, too, testifying that Hitler increasingly identified with Frederick the Great’s Enlightened rationalism, which completely suppressed his childhood faith. The theologian Paul Hinlicky claims that Hitler’s conception of God was shaped by Enlightenment thought, asserting, “Hitler embraced the rationalist, watch-maker God typical of deistic (not ‘theistic’) thought whose stern and ruthless law he discovered anew in Darwinian natural selection. In this way, Hitler renounced the God identified by biblical narrative”…
In 1927, Hitler corresponded with a Catholic priest who had previously supported Nazism but by this time had some misgivings. Hitler contradicted the priest’s claim that Christianity had brought an end to Roman barbarism. Instead, Hitler insisted that Christianity was even more barbaric than the Romans had been, killing hundreds of thousands for their heretical beliefs…
Hitler attacked those in the churches who opposed his regime, indignantly claiming that their resistance was “nothing more than the continuation of the crime of the Inquisition and the burning of witches, by which the Jewish-Roman world exterminated whatever offered resistance to that shameful parasitism.” In a February 1942 monologue, Hitler mocked the Christian story of God sending His Son to die for humanity. Then, after Christianity became established, Hitler complained, Christians used violence to force everyone to believe…
Another way that Hitler paralleled Enlightenment rationalism was by stressing the variety of religions in the world. Hitler saw the presence of numerous religions in the world as a major hurdle to believing in any particular one. The basic idea was that since there were so many different religions, each claiming to be the sole and exclusive truth, most religions were necessarily wrong. Why, then, believe in one particular religion, just because by accident you happened to be raised in the society that embraced it? In a monologue in October 1941, Hitler expressed this point clearly. Where he got his statistics from is uncertain, but he claimed that there were 170 large religions in the world, so at least 169 must be wrong. The implication, however, was that all 170 were probably wrong. Then he claimed that no religion still being practiced was older than 2,500 years, while humans have existed for at least 300,000 years (having evolved from primates). This implied that religions were temporary phenomena of questionable validity. A few months later, he made similar remarks, claiming that human conceptions of Providence are constantly shifting. Only about 10 percent of people in the world believed in Catholicism, he claimed, and the rest of humanity had many different beliefs. This time, he gave the figure of 500,000 years for the existence of the human species, noting that Christianity only existed during an “extremely short epoch of humanity.”
In his 1935 speech to the Nuremberg Party Rally, he argued that religious ideas and institutions are inseparably linked to the continued existence of its practitioners and thus are not eternal truths. Religions, according to Hitler, are only valid to the extent that they contribute to the survival of the people (Volk) practicing them…
Five years earlier, he had given his first Nuremberg Party Rally speech after taking power and at the time presented his racial ideology as scientific. “In nature,” he explained, “there are no inexplicable accidents…. Every development proceeds according to cause and effect.” Therefore, in order to triumph as a Volk, Germans needed to discover the “eternal laws of life” and conform to them. Some of the most important laws of nature, Hitler explained, are that races are unequal and culture depends on the biological quality of the people, not on their environment. These two ideas—racial inequality and biological determinism—were prominent among German biologists and anthropologists, so in this case Hitler’s views were consistent with the science of his day…
After coming to power, Hitler continued to prioritize science over religion. When meeting with Cardinal Michael von Faulhaber, Hitler reminded him that the world was changing, and he thought the Catholic Church should change with it. He reminded the cardinal of the Church’s past conflicts with science over its belief in a six-day creation and the geocentric theory of the solar system. Then he told Faulhaber that the Church must abandon its opposition to Nazi racial and eugenics legislation, because such policies “rest on absolute scientific research”…
When he was a boy, his religion teachers would teach the creation story from the Bible, while his science teachers would teach the theory of evolution. As a pupil, he recognized that these teachings were completely contradictory. He admitted that the churches in recent times had saved face somewhat by retreating to the position that biblical stories could be interpreted symbolically. However, he took the side of science and evolutionary theory against religion and the churches’ doctrines.
Another reason that some people might mistake Hitler for an atheist was his aforementioned rejection of a personal afterlife. Based on his interaction with Hitler, Walter Schellenberg, one of the most influential SS officers during World War II, testified the following:
Hitler did not believe in a personal god. He believed only in the bond of blood between succeeding generations and in a vague conception of fate or providence. Nor did he believe in a life after death. In this connection he often quoted a sentence from the Edda, that remarkable collection of ancient Icelandic literature, which to him represented the profoundest Nordic wisdom: “All things will pass away, nothing will remain but death and the glory of deeds.”
In his New Year’s Proclamation in 1943, Hitler publicly insinuated that he did not believe in an individual afterlife, telling his fellow Germans, “The individual must and will pass away, as in all times, but the Volk must live on.” According to Albert Speer, one of Hitler’s closest friends who met with him not long before he committed suicide, Hitler faced his own death without any hope of an afterlife. Hitler told him, “Believe me, Speer, it is easy for me to end my life. A brief moment and I’m free of everything, liberated from this painful existence.” Hitler clearly did not think there was any kind of personal afterlife and certainly had no inkling of any divine judgment after death…
In February 1942, in the midst of a screed accusing Christianity of destroying the noble, ancient world, Hitler blamed the Jews for introducing the “beastly idea” that one’s life continues in a future world. The Jews used this promise of life after death as an excuse, according to Hitler, to exterminate life in the present world. Hitler contradicted this allegedly Jewish view, asserting that persons cease to exist at death…
In Mein Kampf, Hitler claimed that true Aryan religion must uphold “the conviction of survival after death in some form.” This, however, still underscores the fuzziness of his conception of the afterlife, since “in some form” is rather vague and openended. It could mean a personal afterlife, but it could also simply mean continuing to exist in one’s descendants or in matter rearranged. The latter seems closer to the position Hitler stated elsewhere…
He reiterated this point in a January 1928 speech, where he posed the question crucial to all religions, “Why is the individual in the world at all?” He answered that we do not know why we are living, but we do know that we have an instinct not only to live, but also to continue our existence in to the future. This is “the yearning to immortalize oneself in the body of a child.” The highest humans—and Hitler clearly thought the Aryans were the highest—extend this desire to preserving the entire species, not just one’s own children.
The view that Hitler saw the afterlife as an impersonal return to nature or the Volk is reinforced by an entry in Goebbels’ diary during December 1941. The entry is especially intriguing because it was one of the only times that Goebbels noted a point of disagreement between Hitler and himself about religion. Goebbels claimed that in his view—but not in Hitler’s—the average German needs to regard the afterlife as a continuation of the individual. “One cannot make do by saying, he goes again into his Volk (people) or into his native soil (Mutterboden).” In this discussion, Goebbels states that Hitler did not believe in an individual afterlife, and he implies that Hitler took the position that afterlife simply means returning to the blood and soil from which one came.
The view that the afterlife is simply a continuation of life in future generations was reflected in an SS pamphlet on funerals. It quoted Himmler, who stated that death held no terror, because it found meaning in the continuation of life. He explained, “The individual dies, but in his children his people (Volk) grow beyond him even during his life. Because we love the future of the life of our people (Volk) more than ourselves, we freely and bravely consent to go to the death, wherever it must be.” This notion of an impersonal afterlife was not uncommon in Nazi circles. It was so widespread that Pope Pius XI criticized the Nazi view of the afterlife in his 1937 encyclical. Pius complained, “Immortality in a Christian sense means the survival of man after his terrestrial death, for the purpose of eternal reward or punishment. Whoever only means by the term, the collective survival here on earth of his people for an indefinite length of time, distorts one of the fundamental notions of the Christian Faith and tampers with the very foundations of the religious concept of the universe, which requires a moral order”…
Hitler’s vague notion of God inspired him because he considered God the creator and sustainer of the German Volk. When Hitler used the term Volk, he was referring to the Germanic people as a racial entity, so Volk was synonymous with the Aryan or Nordic race (terms also used interchangeably). But it was also conveniently ambiguous, making it a great propaganda tool appealing to Germans who might differ in their interpretations of it. It could mean all the German people belonging to the unified German nation, or it could mean all those who were ethnically German, or it could even mean all those having Nordic racial characteristics, even if they were ethnically Danish or Dutch or Norwegian or Polish. Hitler preferred this last definition and tried during World War II to construct a Greater Germanic Reich that incorporated all those identified as members of the Nordic race, no matter their nationality. However, most Germans opted for one of the first two definitions…
Hitler made the connection between God and the German Volk so often that Max Domarus, who edited a massive four-volume collection of Hitler’s speeches, claimed Hitler’s God was a “peculiarly German God,” not the God worshipped by most other people throughout the ages…
Domarus added this insightful footnote to the passage: “In this context as well it is evident that Hitler understood the term ‘Almighty’ to refer to a god that existed exclusively for the German people.” Of course, Hitler believed that God existed everywhere, but he also believed the Volk was God’s special people with a special mission, and he tried to instill this faith in his fellow Germans. Rather frequently Hitler encouraged his fellow Germans to believe that their work and struggle on behalf of their people was assured of success, because God was with them. In June 1937, while boasting of his achievements and preparing for future conquest, Hitler exhorted his compatriots to expect that God would bless them if they tenaciously worked for Germany…
______ 卐 ______
Note of the Editor:
Here is, with the honourable exception of GLR, the astronomical failure of American racialism. Only if they worked to restore Germany’s honour—the exact reverse of the anti-Nazi West of our day—could God help them.
Let us remember the words of Michael O’Meara: ‘The greatest of the “conservative” thinkers, Joseph de Maistre, pointed out long ago that the French Revolution led the revolutionaries rather than was led by them. For he believed that certain Providential forces rule our lives. These forces he saw in Christian terms, but others, like Heidegger, for instance, saw them in terms of Being, over which humans have no control. In either case, the force of Providence or Being or Destiny has a power that has often made itself felt in our history. For this reason, I have little doubt that Europeans will eventually throw off the Judeo-liberal system programming their destruction. I’m less confident about we Americans, given the greater weakness of our collective identity and destiny. But nevertheless even we might be saved from ourselves by this force—as long as we do what is still in our power to do’.
But O’Meara failed in one of his articles to honour the German Chancellor and his Reich because of, I suspect, the Catholicism of his Irish parents. Like many other Americans, he clung somehow to the Semitic god of the Christians.
The salvation of the Aryan consists in honouring Hitler and no longer Jesus. Then, and only then, the true God will help them.
Nicht in kalten Marmorsteinen,
Nicht in Tempeln, dumpf und tot:
In den frischen Eichenhainen
Webt und rauscht der deutsche Gott.
Not in cold marble stones,
Not in temples dull and dead:
In the fresh oak groves
Weaves and rustles the German god.
