“Don’t read it dearie mother!
It is written from another point of view, completely different!”
— Nietzsche’s mother quoting her son,
in a letter of 31 December 1894,
six years after his mental breakdown.
Categories
“Order”
From Faith and Action (1938) by Helmut Stellrecht for the Hitler Youth:
The world came into being when order first appeared. It will exist as long as there continues to be order. It will reach its culmination when it has reached the highest state of order.
§ The German has the gift of creating order, living order, whether in the form of factories, armies or states. An order in which each has his place and his task, in which everything flows together smoothly as if it were a single body.
§ The ability of Germans to create order is evident also in small things, in precision. It shows itself in the German home, which has no equal in its cleanliness and order. It shows itself in a machine, in an apparatus, that function so precisely that they are unparalleled in the world. It shows itself in the German soldier, whose weapon is spotless, whose boots are not missing a single nail. It shows itself in the SA man or Hitler Youth, whose backpack or locker is perfectly arranged and maintained.
§ It is always the same German trait. It is not because of the presence of a spot of the absence of a nail, but rather because of order itself, because one must be brought up to do his task as best as possible and maintain German accomplishment at the highest level.
§ Results always depend on small things. A valuable machine is unusable because one part is not quite right. A machine gun on which everything depends fails because a grain of sand got in the barrel.
§ There must be order for there to be accomplishment, because every accomplishment begins with order. That is true for each individual part of life, and for the whole of it as well.
This entry has been moved: here.
Below, translated excerpts from the first chapter of Karlheinz
Deschner’s Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums
(“Criminal History of Christianity”):
Moses and the book of Judges
But not even this was enough for Moses, a character that a tract of 1598, On the Three Great Liars, blamed for “the largest and most egregious crimes” (summa et gravissime Mosis crimina) insofar as when “angry with the commanders of the army” he asked how they had spared the women and children. “Therefore kill all those men, even the children, and cut the throat of the women that have known a man; keep only girls and all the maids… And it was found that the booty was taken by the army of six hundred and seventy-five thousand sheep, seventy-two thousand oxen, donkeys, seventy-one thousand, and thirty-two thousand female virgins”—tremendous killings and robberies that also were contrary to the fifth and seventh commandments by Moses himself.
In a word, they perpetrated the most horrible atrocities and praise themselves for it, and burned towns and villages to leave no stone unturned. Today, when excavating the ancient Canaanites doublings, it is common to find a thick layer of ash that confirms the destruction by fire. One of the most important Palestinian cities in late Chalcolithic, Tell-Isdud or Ashdod, located in the international route of the sea (via maris) and that would become the capital of the Philistine Pentapolis, disappeared, destroyed by fire in the thirteenth century B.C., like its neighbor Tell-Mor.
Sometimes exterminating whole tribes spread because it was common to throw at the enemy the most severe form of war decreed by the Lord, the accursed (Hebrew herám, which was the negation of life itself, and which root derives from a word meaning “sacred” to the Western Semites): something offered to Yahweh as a kind of vast hecatomb or “ritual sacrifice.” Not by chance the biblical descriptions of “settlement” have been compared with the later campaigns of Islam (not nearly as bloody as those), when it is said that the conquerors should truly feel “custodians of the word of God” and protagonists of a holy war. “Just these, not the profane wars, end the anathema which means the extermination of all living in the name of Yahweh” (Gamm). Precisely, the “destruction at the roots can only be explained by the religious fanaticism of the Israelites.”
Those are the cases where the Lord expressly commands: “For in the towns that you shall not leave a living soul, but without differentiation you shall kill by the sword, namely: the Hittites and the Alamorreo, and the Canaanites and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, as the Lord your God has commanded you, lest they teach you to make all the abominations that they have used with their gods, and offend your Lord.”
Such excesses of faith had their origin, in the first place, in nationalism of that ancient people, undoubtedly one of the most extremist ever known, combined with the rigor of a monotheism unknown in those regions. Both elements mutually potentiated the claim to be the chosen people.
The Israelites of the pre-Davidic time committed the most terrible crimes, and celebrated the genocide as a pleasing action to the Lord’s eyes, almost as a symbol of faith. And that “holy war,” then and later was carried out with particular vehemence, without admitting negotiations or agreements. Only the extermination of the enemy, the uncircumcised (or unbaptized, the “heretic,” the “infidel”) is “a typically Israelite trait” (Ringgren).
In most respects, the description of the Old Testament book of Judges, dated between 1200 and 1050, i.e., a century and a half after the “settlement,” is a source of information if not entirely reliable, quite valid, and it barely mentions anything but “holy wars.” These always began with blessings, after a period of sexual continence, and usually ended with the total liquidation of the enemy: men, women and children. “The ruins of many villages and towns, repeatedly destroyed during the twelfth and eleventh centuries, provided the most graphic of archaeological commentaries” (Cornfeld / Botterweck).
The Ark of the Covenant, assurance of God’s presence, accompanied the massacres.
Categories
Sparta – I
Excerpted from an article by Andrew Anglin:
The Jew as a destructive force of nature
To begin, I must, once again, bring up the analogy of a virus, as I believe it is the simplest way to present my understanding of the biological Jew (note that a bacterial infection, such as Yersinia pestis— the Black Plague—may also work for this analogy). A communicable disease follows what appears to be an organized pattern of destruction without the need for an internally organized plan of action. Before the age of modern science, such diseases were regularly perceived as a punishment from the gods, or God, given that they appeared to be acting with a force of will, following an orchestrated pattern of destruction. In fact, a virus is merely carrying out a genetic program of infection and destruction of the host organism. It does not require conscious agency in order to act out its organized pattern of destruction. In this way, I see the behavior of the Jew.
The Jew, while parasitical, is also predatory, and as such a secondary analogy may serve us as we seek to understand his nature. In the forest, the deer is eaten by the wolf. The deer, being as he is, the prey of the wolf, could no doubt assign ill-will to the wolf, given that the wolf causes it such suffering. The deer could, if he had the cognitive capacity, come up with the idea that the wolf is part of a conspiracy. Everywhere he goes, he sees a wolf, and each one of these wolves is trying to kill him—surely, the deer may think, these wolves have gotten together and planned a conspiracy to harm him. If the wolf was not organized in such a manner, he would simply behave like a deer, peacefully eating the unconscious green leaves of the forest, with no desire to harm the deer. Such a conspiracy theory regarding the nature of the wolf would appear internally consistent to the deer, so long as he was incapable of grasping the biological nature of the wolf, who, in his unkind treatment of the deer, is in fact carrying out a biological program for his own survival—a biological program which is inconceivable for the peaceful deer, who is quite satisfied living a life devoid of violence against other creatures.
The wolf, for his part, may or may not hold ill-will toward the deer, but, because of his having evolved to feed off of the deer, he must surely take some amount of pleasure in hunting and killing him, receiving an internal reward via chemical reaction in his brain for having fulfilled his biological needs (in the same way that we get chemical rewards for eating a steak or having sex).
Neither of the above analogies are perfect, but both represent specific concepts necessary for understanding the nature of the biological Jew.
Individual Jews, as well as the Jewish race, maintain subconscious and biologically-determined drives which dictate their behavior patterns. As such, they do not require, on the whole, a top-down organizational structure in order to follow what would otherwise appear, to those born without these subconscious drives, as a well-formulated plan of action.
Due to the nature of the Jew, who has evolved as both a parasite and a predator, given that he does not create or do any form of physical labor, his own internal system of chemically-allocated rewards is based around what is good for his method of survival. Given this, when a Jew harms a member of his host society, fulfilling an aspect of the larger survival strategy of the Jewish race to damage the host society and make it more susceptible to exploitation, he feels good at having done so.
Just as the deer has no capacity to understand the organizational patterns of the wolf, White people have great difficulty understanding the organizational patterns of Jew. We grew up in a harsh, cold environment, following a hunter-gatherer method of survival, wherein, though group cooperation was a necessity, individual survival was in very large part based on individual ability. Thus, we are much more prone to viewing ourselves and others as self-reliant individuals. Given the scarcity of resource, there was also a large degree of competition between tribal-family groups who shared very similar genetics.
Being that he functions as a virus within a host society, the group evolutionary strategy of the Jew is based wholly around collective cooperation, involving relatively little competition with genetically similar persons. In order to efficiently subvert and feed off of a host society, the Jew was required to deal with genetically similar individuals in a highly favorable manner. Given this, when a Jew meets another Jew, he is capable of forming an immediate bond with his kinsmen, without needing to go through the series of trust-building exchanges that a White person needs in order to establish a bond with another White person. Due to this genetic capacity to immediately, subconsciously recognize and bond with genetically similar persons, Jews do not require the type of top-down organizational system that European peoples require in order to maintain a cohesive social structure where the individual tends to act in a manner that is beneficial to the group.
Historical foundations for the perception of the Jew as a biological phenomenon
Apparently, when people suggest that the way the Jewish-owned media continually pushes the Jewish racial agenda is the result of a top-down conspiracy, they are literally suggesting that if these Jews controlling the media were not getting orders from a group of high-level Jews, they would be reporting things which could be damaging to the Jewish racial agenda. This, again, simply demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the biologically-determined behavior patterns of the Jew.
If we look at the behavior of Jew throughout history, it is evident that he is incapable of resisting his fundamental biological drives, even when it goes against his own interests.
The Jews have historically been ejected from more than 100 White European nations/territories. This fact alone demonstrates the lack of a cohesive and structured long-term plan. White European people are the most tolerant of any people on the planet, and if the Jew had been acting on a secret plan, rather than functioning on biological drives, surely he would have recognized the point at which he was pushing it too far, and scaled back his exploitation, so as to allow him to continue to draw sustenance from these host populations.
With the Jewish take-over of Russia through the Bolshevik Revolution, we saw this same inability to regulate the degree of exploitation and abuse of the host population. Here, you had a situation where the Jew had obtained complete and total control over an entire nation of intelligent and capable Whites, a nation with virtually limitless natural resources. Instead of taking full advantage of this monumental achievement, building it up into an engine capable of fulfilling their every need for an eternity, they drove it into the ground. Their biological drive towards weakening the host was not capable of dealing with the level of control they had achieved, and thus they foolishly began destroying everything in a society they had full dominance over, putting people in camps and slaughtering them, crushing the people so completely that at the end virtually everyone was incapable of fulfilling their most basic human needs, and the host was of no more use to them.
And again, in post-WWII America, the Jews had everything they could possibly ask for. A massively disproportionate degree of control over a White society that was highly productive and very friendly towards them. The logical thing, if they indeed possessed a secret plan, would be for them to let things stay as they were, and continue to reap the benefits of feeding upon such a society. Instead, they, as a group, did what came to them naturally, and began to break down the internal stability of the society, sucking more than they could ever need from it, effectively killing the golden goose.
In the 1960s, they began a program of directed collapse of the social order, for no explainable reason other than that this was what came naturally to them. This has continued, as they push their host toward ever more unstable conditions, as we reach the point where there will simply be nothing left for them to take, nothing left for them to destroy. We may imagine again the wolf—if he eats all of the deer, without allowing them to reproduce, he is going to starve to death.
Categories
David Friedrich Strauss, 1
The following is excerpted from Albert Schweitzer’s The Quest of the Historical Jesus, published in 1906: a scholarly yet readable introduction to the field of New Testament studies from a modern viewpoint. Schweitzer’s seventh chapter is titled “David Friedrich Strauss – The Man And His Fate”:
In order to understand Strauss one must love him. he was not the greatest, and not the deepest, of theologians, but he was the most absolutely sincere. His insight and his errors were alike the insight and the errors of a prophet. And he had a prophet’s fate. Disappointment and suffering gave his life its consecration. It unrolls itself before us like a tragedy, in which, in the end, the gloom is lightened by the mild radiance which shines forth from the nobility of the sufferer.
After being for a short time Deputy-professor at Maulbronn, he took his doctor’s degree with a dissertation on the apokatastasis (restoration of all things. Acts iii. 21). This work is lost. From his letters it appears that he treated the subject chiefly from the religious-historical point of view.
In October 1831 he went to Berlin to hear Hegel and Schleiermacher. On the 14th of November Hegel, whom he had visited shortly before, was carried off by cholera. Strauss heard the news in Schleiermacher’s house, from Schleiermacher himself, and is said to have exclaimed, with a certain want of tact, considering who his informant was: “And it was to hear him that I came to Berlin!”
Strauss felt himself called upon to come forward as an apostle of Hegel, and lectured upon Hegel’s logic with tremendous success. “In my theology,” he writes in a letter of 1833, “philosophy occupies such a predominant position that my theological views can only be worked out to completeness by means of a more thorough study of philosophy, and this course of study I am now going to prosecute uninterruptedly and without concerning myself whether it leads me back to theology or not.” Further on he says: “If I know myself rightly, my position in regard to theology is that what interests me in theology causes offence, and what does not cause offence is indifferent to me. For this reason I have refrained from delivering lectures on theology.”
Considering its character, the work was rapidly produced. He wrote it sitting at the window of the Repetents’ room, which looks out upon the gateway-arch. When its two volumes appeared in 1835 the name of the author was wholly unknown, except for some critical studies upon the Gospels. This book, into which he had poured his youthful enthusiasm, rendered him famous in a moment—and utterly destroyed his prospects. Among his opponents the most prominent was Steudel, a member of the theological faculty, who, as president of the Stift, made representations against him to the Ministry, and succeeded in securing his removal from the post of “Repetent.” The hopes which Strauss had placed upon his friends were disappointed. Only two or three at most dared to publish anything in his defence.
Towards the end of the ’thirties he became conscious of a growing impulse towards more positive views. The criticisms of his opponents had made some impression upon him. The second volume of polemics was laid aside. In its place appeared the third edition of the Life of Jesus, 1838-1839, containing a series of amazing concessions. These inconsistencies he removed in the next edition, acknowledging that he did not know how he could so have temporarily vacillated in his point of view.
For a moment it seemed as though his rehabilitation would be accomplished. In January 1839 the noble-minded Hitzig succeeded in getting him appointed to the vacant chair of dogmatics in Zurich. But the orthodox and pietist parties protested so vehemently that the Government was obliged to revoke the appointment. Strauss was pensioned off, without ever entering on his office.
About that time his mother died. In 1841 he lost his father. When the estate came to be settled up, it was found that his affairs were in a less unsatisfactory condition than had been feared. Strauss was secure against want. The success of his second great work, his Christian Theology (published in 1840-41), compensated him for his disappointment at Zurich. In conception it is perhaps even greater than the Life of Jesus; and in depth of thought it is to be classed with the most important contributions to theology. In spite of that it never attracted so much attention as the earlier work. Strauss continued to be known as the author of the Life of Jesus. Any further ground of offence which he might give was regarded as quite subsidiary.
And the book contains matter for offence in no common degree. At the end of the second volume, where battle is joined on the issue of personal immortality, all these ideas play their part in the struggle. Personal immortality is finally rejected in every form. It is not the application of the mythological explanation to the Gospel history which irrevocably divides Strauss from the theologians, but the question of personal immortality.
At the very time when Strauss was beginning to breathe freely once more, had turned his back upon all attempts at compromise, and reconciled himself to giving up teaching; and when, after settling his father’s affairs, he had the certainty of being secure against penury; at that very time he sowed for himself the seeds of a new, immitigable suffering by his marriage with Agnese Schebest, the famous singer. After some years they procured a divorce, custody of the children being assigned to the father. The lady took up her residence in Stuttgart, and Strauss paid her an allowance up to her death in 1870.
What he suffered may be read between the lines in the passage in The Old Faith and the New where he speaks of the sacredness of marriage and the admissibility of divorce. The wound bled inwardly. His mental powers were disabled. At this time he wrote little. Only in the apologue “Julian the Apostate, or the Romanticist on the throne of the Caesars”—that brilliant satire upon Frederic William IV, written in 1847—is there a flash of the old spirit.
He had no practice in speaking without manuscript, and cut a poor figure as a debater. When, subsequently, the President of the Chamber called him to order for asserting that a previous speaker had “concealed by sleight of hand” (wegeskamotiert, “juggled away”) an important point in the debate, he refused to accept the vote of censure, resigned his membership, and ceased to attend the diets. As he himself put it, he “jumped out of the boat.” Then began a period of restless wandering, during which he beguiled his time with literary work. He wrote, inter alia, upon Lessing, Hutten, and Reimarus, rediscovering the last-named for his fellow-countrymen.
At the end of the ’sixties he returned once more to theology. His Life of Jesus adapted for the German People appeared in 1864. In the preface he refers to Renan, and freely acknowledges the great merits of his work.
His last work, The Old Faith and the New, appeared in 1872. Once more, as in the work on theology published in 1840-1841, he puts to himself the question. What is there of permanence in this artificial compound of theology and philosophy, faith and thought? But he puts the question with a certain bitterness, and shows himself too much under the influence of Darwinism, by which his mind was at that time dominated. The Hegelian system of thought, which served as a firm basis for the work of 1840, has fallen in ruins. Strauss is alone with his own thoughts, endeavouring to raise himself above the new scientific worldview. His powers of thought, never, for all his critical acumen, strong on the creative side, and now impaired by age, were unequal to the task. There is no force and no greatness in the book.
To the question, “Are we still Christians?” he answers, “No.” But to his second question, “Have we still a religion?” he is prepared to give an affirmative answer, if the assumption is granted that the feeling of dependence, of self-surrender, of inner freedom, which has sprung from the pantheistic world-view, can be called religion. It was a dead book, in spite of the many editions which it went through, and the battle which raged over it was, like the fiercest of the Homeric battles, a combat over the dead.
The theologians declared Strauss bankrupt, and felt themselves rich because they had made sure of not being ruined by a similar unimaginative honesty. Friedrich Nietzsche, from the height of his would-be Schopenhauerian pessimism, mocked at the fallen hero.
Before the year was out Strauss began to suffer from an internal ulcer. For many months he bore his sufferings with quiet resignation and inner serenity, until on the 8th of February 1874, in his native town of Ludwigsburg, death set him free.
He was buried on a stormy February day.