web analytics

Tag: Adolf Hitler

Categories
Racial right Vegetarianism

Jef Costello’s article

The article ‘American Renaissance 2022’ published yesterday on Counter-Currents contains a few passages I would like to say something about:
 
 

What can explain such madness—this moral fanaticism coupled with hatred of one’s own? Taylor noted that white people seem to have a compulsion to throw themselves into virtuous causes… But the real mystery is why whites are attracted to causes that are anti-white—why, as Taylor put it, they ‘make a fetish out of opposing their own people.’ We simply do not see this at all in other races. Is there any other race that campaigns for other races to the detriment of its own? Why are we the only race that gets a dopamine surge from hating ourselves? So far as I can see, Taylor did not really offer a theory that might explain this most mysterious aspect of whites.

One of the things I have noticed is that there is no dialogue between our position, which we call here the priesthood of the 14 words, and the American white nationalists. That which Taylor and Costello find so mysterious has been answered ad nauseam on this site, and the PDFs in the featured post explain our POV didactically.

But let’s say it for the umpteenth time: whites didn’t do these suicidal follies prior to Christianity. There is nothing wrong with the ‘hardware’ of whites: only their ‘software’: the Christian ethics that even atheists suffer from. In his article Costello quotes D. H. Lawrence: ‘In attempting to convert the dark man to the white man’s way of life, the white man has fallen helplessly down the hole he wanted to fill up. Seeking to save another man’s soul [italics added], the white man lost his own, and collapsed upon himself.’

Christian ethics! But Costello doesn’t connect the dots. He also tells us:

A further characteristic they [the leftists] exhibit is hatred—not just hatred for their political enemies, but for strength, health, beauty, achievement, masculinity, femininity, family, hierarchy, religion, meat [italics added], and much else. In short, a hatred for life itself.

Nationalists might argue that The West’s Darkest Hour is such an obscure forum that hardly anyone reads it. But the above passage shows that these American racialists also don’t bother to educate themselves about the big movement that preceded them: German National Socialism. About those words I italicised, does Costello know what Hitler and his close associates thought of Christianity? Or how Hitler wanted to close the slaughter-houses after winning the war? I mention these two things—religion, meat—because Hitler was closer to today’s vegans than to the old-fashioned American racialists, Christian or not, who still sympathise with Christianity and eat meat.

American racialists will continue to tell themselves such things in their conferences (‘Oh mystery! Why are we doing these things to ourselves?’) if they don’t have the decorum to listen to voices other than their own.

I didn’t want to add more entries this month because I’m way behind in proofreading Karlheinz Deschner’s book on the real history of Christianity (I’m only on page 120 in a text of more than 400 pages). But Costello’s article motivated me to respond to him and the racial right of the neighbouring country to the north.

Categories
Charlemagne Indo-European heritage Swastika Third Reich

Manu’s wise words…

I usually add my comments within the posts of Karlheinz Deschner’s Christianity’s Criminal History (to contextualise this series, click here). But what I am about to say is so vital that I prefer to add it as a separate entry.

If Hitler and his closest associates, some of them anti-Christian, had understood that the Christian Question is far more toxic than the Jewish Question (the white traitor is worse than the kike), they wouldn’t have ventured into the Soviet Union.

The evil lay at home, including Hitler’s admiration for Charlemagne, the butcher of Saxons! So at home was the evil, that it was child’s play for the victorious Allies to brainwash the Germans after the Hellstorm Holocaust, in which more Germans died than Jews in the so-called Jewish Holocaust.

Had they known that the CQ was a more serious matter than the JQ, they would have prepared the German people so that, gradually—as Hitler well saw in his after-dinner talks—the Germans would abandon the religion of our (really asshole) parents. It is worth quoting, again, what the Spaniard Manu Rodríguez told me almost a decade ago:
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Your words have made me rethink this whole period [of the Third Reich—Ed.]. In this period the Aryan people are identified and recognised for the first time in the history of a people. For the first time, our people became aware of themselves, their origin and their nature. Since the emergence of our people (that primitive nucleus) six or seven thousand years ago, there had been nothing like it. It was a dawn, a new dawn. These were sublime moments.

This ‘birth’ has to do with the emergence of Indo-European studies, and the evolutionary and genetic studies of that time. They spread new knowledge about our biocultural being, our race, and our languages and cultures. It was a recognition. It was like looking in a mirror for the first time. We were there in those texts: in the hymns of the Rig Veda, in the Iliad, the Aeneid, the Edda, the Mabinogion. It was us, our blood, our genius, our race, that had generated those texts, those cultures, those worlds.

The swastika, our banner, was not only raised against liberalism and communism… It is only today that we are beginning to understand the greatness and scope of its mission—our mission. To situate it precisely, we can make these words of Saint-Loup our own:

[Hitler was] the man who had thrown down to the world this extraordinary challenge: to attack at the same time Anglo-Saxon capitalism, Red Bolshevism, Jewish racism, international Freemasonry, the Catholic Church, pauperism and social iniquities, the Treaty of Versailles, colonialism and the French disorder.

And the list is not complete.

It was not just Hitler, but Germany as a whole: the entire German people. It was a collective ‘enterprise’.

The German community was born armed, like Athena, the first Aryan community to awaken or be reborn. And it does so to fight against those who have sought to harm it; against a whole counter-cultural environment that denies its being. Spiritually alienated, it has to fight against the Judeo-Messianic delusion, the ‘Christian millennium’. It wasn’t the only Jewish monster that had to confront this newborn Aryan nation: communism also ravaged the population and others. The Jewish hydra had multiplied, had branched out, and had too many faces, too many heads.

It seems that we have had only one enemy throughout history: the Semitic peoples and their discourses (Jewish, Judeo-Messianic Christian and Muslim). They dominate us spiritually. It is the multiple alienations we suffer at the hands of the Semites or Semitic ideologies (religious, political, economic, anthropological, sociological, psychological…). Our enemy possesses us in one way or another. The dreaded Jewish hydra. Typhon. Evil. Our evil.

Was it an awakening, a premature birth? Too young was this community to face this age-old Monster. As a young Hero, it failed in its first attempt to defeat it. Too old and cunning such a monstrosity. It engulfed the child, and the young Aryan community, in a few years.

We must rescue the memory of this period and raise it to the top with pride. We should be proud of this period. We lost a battle, but not the war. We are still alive and active… We will beat them at last. I know that.

The birth of our people is conceived in the years before Hitler came to power. The Aryan consciousness of a whole people saw the light then and received its ‘baptism’ publicly. A whole people recognised itself. 1933 was the year of its birth, the first Aryan community to be recognised as such. It was lost in 1945. We are therefore on the 80th anniversary of its birth, the birth of the first Aryan nation, of the Aryan nation itself.

That period is an unparalleled milestone in our short history. The first appearance of our people in history. We are now a people: the Aryan nation.

Hitler symbolises our first period, our first battle and our first loss. His struggle was our struggle. His loss was our loss. But this defeat hasn’t conquered us in our first open confrontation against evil, against our evil. We were defeated, so what? It was a huge thing to fight. Too many hydra tentacles… The war has just begun.

These anniversaries of Hitler and the birth of our people have been for me like a small rebirth too. Let’s say I see more light, I see more clearly. I have a feeling about the next battle—that there will be another battle. And this time we will have a space from which to advance, a bulwark, a solid base: the Aryan nation itself. We will reconquer our people. We have many great spiritual warriors, well-armed with knowledge and truth. In the end, we will win.

This is my spirit now.

Chechar, I feel I owe this letter to you (and to all those I upset with my harsh words about Hitler and the Nazi period).

Regards,

Manu.

(translated from Spanish)

Categories
Charlemagne Christendom Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums (books)

Christianity’s Criminal History, 168

Frankish expansion from 481 to 814

 
Last uprisings, war of annihilation and ‘the serene height of the staff’

The war of the Saxons, which lasted for more than ten years, didn’t, however, affect the foreign sovereignty of the Franks, or even Christianity as such. Rather, it was directed primarily against their representatives and institutions, against the Church, their rigorous attacks on private property, and their brutal collection of tithes, of which Alcuin, Charles’ Anglo-Saxon adviser, had already complained, seeing predators (praedones) in the missionaries rather than preachers (praedicatores). ‘That tithes had destroyed loyalty and faith’ seems to have been a proverbial saying among the Franks. The northern Albigensians then fought the Church with the same harshness that the latter had shown. Everywhere the new temples were destroyed, the ecclesiastics were expelled, and not infrequently the Christian Saxons were murdered and their possessions plundered. In short, the entire ecclesiastical organisation north of the Elbe was completely eradicated.

The uprising grew into a war of annihilation lasting more than ten years, with extreme cruelty on both sides. The counter-offensive, which was only resumed in the autumn of 794 and in which Charles took several relics with him, consisted of simple raids of destruction. Several times he even used pagan Slavs, such as the Wilzos and the Obrodites, whose King Witzin was attacked and killed by the Saxons at the Elbe crossing. Charles plundered, destroyed and ravaged everything he could find, mainly with the use of firebrands, and killed thousands of people. After a victory at Kiel, it seems that 4,000 Saxon corpses littered the battlefield. And year after year he made large numbers of hostages, taking every third males—‘as many as he wanted’ the chronicler says—most of whom he ‘regularly killed’ (Bullough). Until 799 the ‘apostle of the Saxons’, ‘he who preached the gospel with a bronze tongue’ (Bertram), marched annually against them. In 802 he sent out another army, while he spent the whole summer in the Ardennes indulging in the pleasures of hunting. In 804 he returned in person to the battlefield, where the Saxons finally succumbed to his power.

To make any uprising impossible, he ended up ordering mass deportations with frightful large-scale population transplants, such as the Byzantine Christians had already practised. ‘He took out such several hostages as had never been seen in his day, nor the days of his father, nor in the days of the Frankish kings’, says one chronicler. The man who, as early as 794 at the synod of Frankfurt, openly presented himself as ‘head of the Western Church’, had his army settle thousands of Saxons with their wives and children in the years 795-799 and 804, totalling 160,000. Even today, the event is still remembered by some place names on Frankish soil, such as Sachsenfahrt and Sachsenmühie.

Many of the deportees, however, were placed in closely guarded camps and had to spend the rest of their lives there. One source even speaks of ‘total extermination’. And not a few Saxons, who had certainly not yet been cleansed of all pagan filth by the sacred bath of baptism, were sent in the course of the war to Verdun, the great slave emporium.

Thus, in the North, the relations of ownership and possession were completely changed. For even the territory stolen from the Elbe was again divided among bishops, priests and his lay vassals. And in the 9th century, numerous monasteries were founded in Saxony at the expense of private nobles.

Thus, using a thirty-three-year war, Charles had convinced ‘the most heathen’ of the idea ‘that there is still something superior to fighting and victory, superior to death on the battlefield’, as Cardinal Bertram, the encourager of two world wars and Hitler’s assistant, assures us. Charles had ‘planted the victorious and beneficent cross in the virgin soil of the Saxon country’. And, finally, most importantly, ‘the serene height of the staff acted beneficently and alongside the power of the royal sceptre and sword’.
 

______ 卐 ______

 

Editor’s immodest note: It is right here that you may notice not only the gulf between us and the white nationalists but even with the Nazis.

Hitler allowed, it seems to me amid the world war, a homage to be paid to Charlemagne because he had Germanic blood (as we shall see when I review one of the chapters of Tom Holland’s Dominion).

While Hitler and those closest to him were already aware of the Christian problem, they, like today’s anti-Christian racialists, didn’t realise that it was far more serious than the Jewish problem.

As we review Holland’s book you will see what I mean. For the moment I can only repeat my metaphor. The active substance that has been killing the white man since Constantine is Christian ethics (cf. the process of miscegenation in the Byzantine Empire and the Americas under Iberian rule). Jewry is only a catalyst that accelerates an ethnocidal process that already existed, albeit slower, in Christendom.

Even Hitler didn’t know that the main enemy was Christianity rather than Judaism: the modern catalyst of Christian ethics. Can you begin to glimpse why the message of The West’s Darkest Hour is the most important of all?

Categories
Israel / Palestine Judaism Old Testament Racial right Theology

The Holy Hook, 3

by Laurent Guyénot

Christians’ learned helplessness

It is beyond question that Christianity played a major role in the creation of Israel, and continues to play a major role in securing American and European support for its criminal enterprises. This has nothing to do with Jesus’ teaching or the example he set with his life and death, of course. Rather, this was due to the Od Testament, Israel’s Trojan Horse inside Christianity. By recognizing the Jews’ special status as the people of the Old Testament, Christians have granted them an extraordinary symbolic power that no other ethnic community can compete with.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s note: Since he’s writing for The Unz Review, Laurent omits to add that white nationalism should be seen as a failed movement. Except for Hitler and his closest henchmen, every Jew-wise man knows about the Jewish problem but none wants to say who is responsible for their power.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
For two thousand years, Christianity has taught Gentiles to consent to the delusional claim of the Jews to divine election: are they not the first and only ethnic group whom the God of the universe has addressed personally, the people whom He has loved to the point of exterminating its enemies? It matters not that Christians tell the Jews that they have lost the election because they rejected Christ: the main price is theirs. To accept the biblical notion of ‘chosen people’, whatever the reservations, is to accept the metaphysical superiority of the Jews. If Christ is Israel’s Messiah, then truly, ‘salvation is from the Jews’ (John 4:22).

We are experiencing today the final consequences of this submission, which the peoples of Antiquity could never have imagined in their worst nightmares. The exalted status of the Jews and of their ‘holy history’ is the deeper reason for their influence on the affairs of the world. By accepting the triple biblical paradigm—Jealous God, Chosen People, Promised Land—, Christian Churches, Catholic and Protestant in particular, have become complicit with the imperialistic project of the Hebrew Bible. Therefore, there will be no definitive emancipation from Zion without mental and moral emancipation from the biblical matrix.

When reading the Book of Joshua, a Christian is supposed to approve, as a matter of principle, the extermination of the inhabitants of the cities of Canaan and the stealing of their land, since it was ordained by God. The editors of my Bible de Jérusalem explain in a footnote to chapter 3:

Joshua was considered by the Fathers as a figure of his namesake Jesus [their names are identical in Hebrew], and the Jordanian passage as a figure of Christian baptism.

How can Joshua be a figure of Jesus? What has Jesus’s Sermon on the Mount to do with Joshua’s bloodthirsty fanatism? How can the god of Joshua be the Father of Christ? A crippling cognitive dissonance has seized Christian peoples, causing a chronic inability to think intelligently about the divine, and to see and resist the violence of Israel. We can also compare the Christian world to a son who has been lied to all his life about his real father, and, on top of that, told that his father was a war criminal, when in fact he is the son of a loving father. The neurotic ailments that genealogical lies and secrets may cause over several generations, though largely mysterious, have been well documented in the last fifty years (particularly by French psychogenealogists), and I believe such considerations, applied to the usurpation of our Heavenly Parent’s identity by the psychopathic Yahweh, are relevant to the psychology of nations.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s note: Unlike Laurent, we are not theists but pantheists (see the abridgement of Richard Weikart’s book on Hitler we made for this site).
 

______ 卐 ______

 
As a matter of principle, the Christian is supposed to approve Yahweh’s sentence on those who ate with the Moabites and took wives among them: ‘Yahweh said to Moses, “Take all the leaders of the people. Impale them facing the sun, for Yahweh, to deflect his burning anger from Israel”’ (Numbers 25:4). But then, why blame the Jerusalem priestly cast for sending Jesus to the torture? Explain to me in which way they were unfaithful to the Torah! Not to mention, of course, the inherent contradiction in blaming them for the Cross since, according to the Gospel, ‘the Son of man was destined to suffer grievously, and to be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and to be put to death, and after three days to rise again’ (Mark 8:31).

The sanctification of Yahweh’s bloody leadership during the Exodus and the conquest of Canaan has made Gentiles incapable of understanding the historical foundation of Jewishness, and helpless in the face of its intrinsic violence today. It has created a blind spot in Christians’ mind: they may see the effects of Zion’s evil power, but not its cause, falsely assuming that the moral corruption they see in Jews comes from the Talmud and the Kabbalah.

Christians cannot even see the Jewish plan for world domination that is written in plain language, right under their nose. If the Jewish Tanakh had not become the Christians’ Holy Book, it would have been exposed as the proof for Israel’s racist and supremacist ambitions long ago. But when it comes to the Old Testament, Christians are seized by a severe reading disorder: when the book says ‘Israel will conquer the world’, they read ‘the Church will convert the world’.

If the ‘Jewish question’ is about the inordinate power of Israeli elite networks within nations, then the Jewish question is also a Christian question: (emphasis by Ed.) it is about the built-in vulnerability of Christian societies to this power. Deep down, anyone who grew up a Christian knows that the chosen people will have the last word, because if Yahweh is God, his promise is eternal, as he himself declares, in his inimitable style: ‘By my own self I swear it; what comes from my mouth is saving justice, it is an irrevocable word’ (Isaiah 45:23). One can even speak of Christians’ ‘learned helplessness’ in front of Jewish power, since they are taught in their Scriptures that God has always guided Israel’s merciless slaughter of his enemies—no need for Scofield’s footnotes to know that. There is also learned helplessness in having as ultimate model a man crucified by the Jews: how can the ‘imitation of Christ’ save us from the high priests’ power to lobby and corrupt Pilatus?

The Judeo-Babylonian metaphysical hoax makes God not just ridiculously anthropomorphic, but Judeomorphic. To be fooled by it is to mistake the Creator of the Universe for a topical demon rumbling and spitting fire from a Midianite volcano (Exodus 19), adopted as tutelary deity by a confederation of Semitic nomadic tribes craving for a piece of the Fertile Crescent. It is to internalize an extremely primitive and unspiritual image of the divine that is obstructive of sound metaphysical thinking: the divorce between philosophy (the love of Wisdom) and theology (the science of God) is one manifestation of this cognitive dissonance in Western thought.

In the final analysis, the jealous Yahweh, destroyer of all pantheons, is so unconvincing in the garb of the Great universal God that he is fated to be discarded in his turn. Atheism is the end result of biblical monotheism: it is the rejection of the biblical God, mistaken for the true God. ‘If Yahweh is God, no thanks’ has been the simple rationale for atheism in Christendom since the Enlightenment: Voltaire, for example, scorned Christianity by quoting the Old Testament. Yahweh has ruined faith in a divine Creator.

Categories
Conservatism Quotable quotes

Gaedhal quote

I think that one of the reasons that conservatives despise Hitler so much, is because he actually took effective action against the social evils of his day instead of just bitching and whining about the social evils of his day as a shekels-garnering exercise, which is what conservatives do.

Categories
Arthur Schopenhauer Friedrich Nietzsche Joseph Goebbels Judaism Judea v. Rome Martin Luther New Testament St Paul Voltaire

The Jesus Hoax, 5

CHAPTER 5: RECONSTRUCTING THE TRUTH

To recap, I am reconstructing the likely sequence of events, based on a total picture and complete analysis of the situation.

Just as Paul’s life was ending, war broke out and the great Temple was destroyed. We can only imagine the distress and outrage of the Jewish community. Their hatred of Rome must have reached atmospheric heights. If the Jews had any illusions about peaceful coexistence, those were crushed. Military responses were no longer an option. Perhaps Paul’s ‘psychological’ ploy, the Jesus hoax, would work after all. But it would have to be taken to the next level.

(Note of the Ed.: Left, representation of Mark the Evangelist.) Thus it was that Paul’s surviving followers—perhaps Mark, Luke, Peter, John, and Matthew—decided to pick up the game. This band of “little ultra-Jews”[1] needed a more detailed story of Jesus’ life; Paul’s vague allusions to a real man would no longer suffice. Someone—“Mark”—thus decided to quote Jesus extensively and directly. Unlike Paul’s letters, this “gospel” (Paul’s word) would be intended for mass consumption. It had to be impressive—lots of miracles from their miracle-man. It would end up with 19 Jesus miracles wedged into the smallest of the four Gospels. And there were several other firsts. Here we read, for the first time ever, about the 12 apostles, Jesus as a carpenter, and the concept of hell. Here too Jesus makes a clever “prophecy” that the Jewish temple would be ruined (13:1-2)—an easy call to make, given that the temple was just actually destroyed!

It seems that Mark’s anger against his fellow Jews, however, got the better of him; for centuries afterward, Christians would blame the Jews for killing Christ, not realizing that the whole tale was a Jewish construction in the first place. Perhaps there’s a kind of justice in that irony after all.

The Gospel of Mark evidently sufficed for some 15 years. It must have been effective at drawing in Gentiles and building a functioning church. But then perhaps things stalled a bit. Maybe the little Jewish band got impatient. Maybe they splintered over tactical issues. Whatever the reason, some time around the year 85, two of the group—“Luke” and “Matthew”—decided that they needed to write an even more detailed account of Jesus’ life. But evidently the two couldn’t agree on a single plan, so they worked apart, drawing from Mark’s story while weaving in other new ideas they had jointly invented. Each man went off on his own, drafting his own new gospel.

The new documents had much more detail than Mark; in fact, both were nearly twice as long as their predecessor. They had to keep the same basic story line, of course, but each man added his own embellishments. What was new? The virgin birth in Bethlehem, for one, and the whole manger scene. These now appeared, for the first time ever, some 85 years after the alleged event. We scarcely need to ask how much truth is in them. (I note as an aside that Matthew included the bit about the star, whereas that was apparently an unimportant detail to Luke, since he omitted it completely.) Luke included a vignette about Jesus as a 12-year-old (2:41-51), something utterly lacking in the other three Gospels. The Sermon on the Mount appears for the first time, though Matthew has a much longer version than Luke. In the sermon we find a number of famous sayings, all of which were never seen before: “the meek shall inherit the earth” (Mt 5:5), “you are the light of the world” (Mt 5:14), turn the other cheek (Mt 5:39; Lk 6:29), love thy enemies (Mt 5:44; Lk 6:27), “cannot serve God and mammon” (Mt 6:24), “judge not” (Mt 7:1; Lk 6:37)—all now recorded, for the first time, some 50 years after they supposedly occurred.

Followers must now virtually abandon their families for the cause. “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, even his own life, he cannot be my disciple” (Lk 14:26). These are remarkably cult-like dictates, but perhaps appropriate for the Jewish-led Christian movement.

Then we have passages of outright militancy. In Matthew, Jesus says, “Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword” (10:34)—how very un-Christ-like! Luke has Jesus say, “I came to cast fire upon the earth… Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division” (12:49-51). Every man must do his part: “let him who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one” (Lk 22:36). Jesus becomes downright ruthless: “as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them before me” (Lk 19:27). All this is necessary because “the devil” rules all the kingdoms of the world (Lk 4:5-6). But not to worry; if we all stick to the plan, and “this gospel of the kingdom will be preached throughout the whole world,” then “the end will come” (Mt 24:14). And so, sometime around the year 85, two new Gospels were released into the world.

Once again, these apparently sufficed for a good decade or so. But then one more member of the cabal, “John,” breaks rank and moves in yet a different direction. He feels the need for an intellectual and esoteric Jesus story, and so constructs a gospel using abstract, almost philosophical terms and concepts. It ends up as mid-length essay, between the short Mark and the longer Matt/Luke. Miracles are still there, but they are now down-played— just eight appear. We can imagine that John understood that his new, more intellectual audience would likely not be taken in by such nonsense…

“Saint” Paul and his Jewish cabal turn out to be blatant liars. In fact, the epic liars of all recorded history.

Recall my explanation above, regarding how Paul and the Gospel writers had two sets of enemies: the Romans and their fellow elite Jews. In fact, they had a third enemy: the truth. Paul and crew knew they were lying to the masses, but they didn’t care. The Gentiles were always treated by the Jews with contempt, as I showed in chapter four. They could be manipulated, harassed, assaulted, beaten, even killed, if it served Jewish ends. This was not a problem for them…

In the early 1500s Martin Luther—founder of the Lutheran church—wrote a rather infamous book titled On the Jews and their Lies. There he declared that “they have not acquired a perfect mastery of the art of lying; they lie so clumsily and ineptly that anyone who is just a little observant can easily detect it”—a statement that could well be a motto for the present work. I also note the striking irony of a man like Luther who was so opposed to Jewish lies, even as he himself fell for the greatest Jewish lie of all.

In 1798, the great German philosopher Immanuel Kant called the Jews “a nation of deceivers,” and in a later lecture he added that “the Jews…are permitted by the Talmud to practice deceit”. In his final book, Arthur Schopenhauer made some extended observations on Judeo-Christianity. He wrote, “We see from [Tacitus and Justinus] how much the Jews were at all times and by all nations loathed and despised.” This was due in large part, he says, to the fact that the Jewish people were considered grosse Meister im Lügen—“great master of lies”. Employing his usual blunt but elegant terminology, Nietzsche saw it in this way:

In Christianity all of Judaism, a several-century-old Jewish preparatory training and technique of the most serious kind, attains its ultimate mastery as the art of lying in a holy manner. The Christian, this ultima ratio of the lie, is the Jew once more—even three times a Jew.

Similar comments came from express anti-Semites. Hitler called the Jews “artful liars” and a “race of dialectical liars,” adding that “existence compels the Jew to lie, and to lie systematically”. And Joseph Goebbels, in his personal diary, wrote: “The Jew was also the first to introduce the lie into politics as a weapon… He can therefore be regarded not only as the carrier but even the inventor of the lie among human beings”.

Finally, a remark by Voltaire seems relevant here. The Jews, he said, “are, all of them, born with a raging fanaticism in their hearts… I would not be in the least bit surprised if these people would not someday become deadly to the human race”. If a Jewish lie were to spread throughout the Earth, eventually drawing in more than 2 billion people, becoming the enemy of truth and reason, and causing the deaths of millions of human beings via inquisitions, witch burnings, crusades, and other religious atrocities—well, that could be considered a mortal threat, I think.

This, then, is my “Antagonism thesis”: Paul and his cabal [2] deliberately lied to the masses, with no concern for their true well-being, simply to undermine Roman rule. This little group tempted innocent people with a promise of heaven, and frightened them with the threat of hell. This psychological ploy was part of a long-term plan to weaken and, in a sense, morally corrupt the masses by drawing them away from the potent and successful Greco-Roman worldview and more toward an oriental, Judaic view.

As we know, it took some time but the new Christian religion did spread, eventually permeating the Roman world. In the year 315, the emperor himself, Constantine, converted to Christianity. In 380, Emperor Theodosius declared it the official state religion.

_______________

[1] Nietzsche, The Antichrist (sec 44). In German kleine Superlativ Juden.

[2] I’ve been using cabal throughout the present text. It is, I think, precisely the right word. A cabal is “a small number of persons secretly united to bring about an overturn or usurpation, especially in public affairs.” That’s a perfect description of Paul and his band.

Categories
Holocaust Kevin MacDonald

Carolyn Yeager confronts KMD

Dear Kevin,

Thank you for replying! I wrote that you had ‘never admitted that [you] seriously doubted that “it” occurred as generally described’. So it’s not what you have said but what you have failed to say. Also, publishing someone else’s articles in your capacity as editor of The Occidental Observer is not equivalent to a statement from you.

In 2017, you participated in a videocast of Torah Talk with Luke Ford, a non-ethnically Jewish student of Torah and Talmud. One of Ford’s young students asked you the clearly unexpected question: ‘What are your thoughts about holocaust revisionism?’ I quote your answer word for word:

Yeah, I guess I’m not, uh, I’ve never had any sympathy really, before—I haven’t seen anything that would really, you know, convince me. And I, frankly, haven’t dealt into it very much. My view is that it’s not important for what I’m doing and I don’t think it’s really important—I think what’s really important is the culture of the holocaust, you know, how it’s taught in school, how it’s used to defend Israel, and it’s used as a weapon against people who oppose immigration, and all those things—ah I think those are very important things to discuss. So whether it actually happened, exactly, and all that is something that I don’t think is possible to even go there anymore, is just… just uh… third rail.

Definition of ‘third rail’: A subject that tends to be avoided because of its offensive or controversial nature.

I’d like to insert here that IF it’s not important whether the H. actually happened, how can there be a culture about it that is important? We need to know whether it happened or not—if not, there can be no culture based on it. You were also asked your feelings about Adolf Hitler. You answered:

Oh God, I think that the only term I can use is a disaster. I think that his own personality… got in the way of [the generals] carrying out their strategic military [goals] in World War Two. I think he was, you know, he thought of himself as a general or something. You know, he interfered with policy that should have been left to professionals and I think that that was… horrible, that was a disaster.

There was more, which you can read for yourself at [Carolyn’s site].

 

______ 卐 ______

 

Editor’s Note: Read the whole exchange at The Occidental Observer.

Categories
Moscow

The Führer’s monologues, 2

For the context of these translations click here,
for this monologue in German, here.

Führer Headquarters 5/6 July 1941, 11.30 a.m. – 1.50 a.m.

Conversation with [Nicolaus] v. Below[1] about whether we wouldn’t do well to publish pictures of the large-calibre gun, which had not yet been shown, now for once, for the moral shaking of the enemy. Long general discussion about car engines: the Führer’s first and later cars. [Hitler also said:]

The beauty of Crimea is made accessible to us by a motorway: the German south. Crete is hot and forestless. Cyprus would be nice, but we reach Crimea by road—Kiev. And our destination: Croatia. ‘I think there will be great joy after the war’.

Better than the railway, which is somewhat impersonal, the motor car will connect the peoples. What a factor on the way to the new Europe! Just as the autobahn [federal controlled-access highway system in Germany] made the inner-German borders disappear, the borders of the European countries will be abolished.

When asked whether it would be enough to have advanced as far as the Urals as a frontier, [I reply that] it will be enough to have advanced the frontier as far as there. Bolshevism must be eradicated; if necessary, to this end we would advance from there to wherever a new centre of resistance is forming. Moscow as the seat of this doctrine will disappear from the face of the earth as soon as the valuable goods are taken away. It won’t be possible for us to work with the Russians in the factories there. St. Petersburg [Leningrad] as a city is incomparably more beautiful than Moscow. This time, the art treasures of The Hermitage [Museum] would probably not have been transferred to the Kremlin—as in the [First] World War—but to houses in the countryside, unless they’ve been taken to the cities east of Moscow or by sea.

________

[1] Nicolaus von Below was Hitler’s Luftwaffe adjutant, last in the rank of Major General.

Categories
Charles Darwin Exterminationism Hitler's Religion (book) Richard Weikart

Hitler’s Religion: Chapter 9

One of the most serious objections lodged against the interpretation of Hitler as a pantheist is his use of the term “Creator” in his writings and speeches. Hitler occasionally referred to an Almighty Creator or Eternal Creator, and he sometimes asserted humans were made in the image of God. If Hitler believed in a God who created nature as a distinct entity, separate from himself as deity—as monotheistic religions have traditionally taught—then he would not be a pantheist. He would most likely be a deist, since he generally spurned the idea that God intervened miraculously in history.

In his speech to the 1935 Nuremberg Party Congress, Hitler called God “the Creator” of the German Volk. However, he also implied that God would not intervene miraculously on behalf of his chosen people. They would have to work and fight to gain the Almighty’s favor and blessing. Hitler stated, “In the long run God’s favor will be given only to him who deserves it. He who speaks and acts in the name of a people created by the Almighty continues to act under this commission so long as he does not sin against the substance and the future of the work of the Creator that has been placed in his hand. Therefore it is good that the conquest of power is always bound up with hard fighting.” Hitler’s God was not one who intervened super-naturally in historical developments. Rather, he rewarded people according to the way they worked and fought. God did not break into the cause and effect relationship governed by natural law.

In January 1943, Hitler again called God “Creator” yet implied this version was not a miracle-working deity; rather, he expected humans to make their own way in the world… “In this mightiest struggle of all time, we cannot expect that Providence give us victory as a present. Each and every people will be weighed, and what is judged too light will fall.”
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s note: If this is true, and I believe it is, American white nationalism will fall: it is too timid an intellectual movement.

 

______ 卐 ______

 
God’s judgment is thus not a decision of a personal deity but the result of natural causation: those who work hard and fight bravely win. It is also interesting to note that, according to this speech, one of the things Hitler’s God established was the Darwinian law of the struggle for existence…

Hitler explicitly rejected the creation stories of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Finally, Hitler embraced an evolutionary account of the origins of humanity.

Let’s explore these last two points in greater depth. Never did Hitler express belief in the biblical creation story—which, after all, derived from the Jewish scriptures. (We have already seen that Hitler’s anti-Semitism led him to spurn the Old Testament as a Jewish document.) He obviously did not embrace young-earth creationism (which is what most Americans mean today when they use the term creationism), since on quite a few occasions he mentioned the earth existing for hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of years. For example, in Mein Kampf, he warned pacifists that their naiveté would have disastrous consequences, because “this planet once moved through the ether for millions of years without human beings and it can do so again some day if men forget that they owe their higher existence, not to the ideas of a few crazy ideologists, but to the knowledge and ruthless application of Nature’s stern and rigid laws”…

In general, Hitler regarded the Old Testament creation stories as delusional inventions of the Jewish mind. On October 24, 1941, Hitler spoke at great length to his entourage about the controversy between science and religion, and specifically between evolution and Christianity. Hitler opened this lengthy monologue on evolution by claiming that the church’s teachings are contrary to modern research. In fact, as Hitler expounded on this science-religion controversy, he clearly came down on the side of science and bashed the church, asserting, “The definition of the church is a misuse of the creation for earthly purposes.” He also divulged his pantheistic tendencies: “Whoever sees God only in an oak or in a tabernacle and not in the Whole, cannot be pious deep inside; he remains stuck in the outward.” In addition, Hitler praised the French Enlightenment thinkers’ anticlericalism and the progress of science. After expostulating on the glories of science and the ignorance of the church, Hitler pronounced his belief in the evolution of humans. He stated, “There have been humans at the rank at least of a baboon in any case for 300,000 years at least. The ape is distinguished from the lowest human less than such a human is from a thinker like, for example, Schopenhauer”…
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s note: Just what I meant in my previous post, ‘On the hermit’s cave’.

______ 卐 ______

 
[Hitler’s secretary Christa] Schroeder confirmed in considerable detail that Hitler believed in human evolution through the process of struggle and selection. Two other associates of Hitler testify that belief in Darwinian evolution was integral to his ideology. Wagener remembered a conversation in the summer of 1931 when Hitler professed, “Everywhere in life only a process of selection can prevail. Among the animals, among plants, wherever observations have been made, basically the stronger, the better survives”.

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s note: And the Jews are proving to be stronger than the Aryans because of the Christian malware in the latter’s head, the parasite that weakened them (compare today’s Aryans with what Flavian dynasty member Titus did in Jerusalem).
 

______ 卐 ______

 
This not only demonstrates Hitler believed in Darwinian natural selection, but it also suggests he saw the process as nonteleological, i.e., not directed by some deity. Wagener claimed that Hitler based his support for killing the weak and the sick on this vision of natural selection. Otto Dietrich generally concurred, stating that Hitler’s “evolutionary views on natural selection and survival of the fittest coincided with the ideas of Darwin and Haeckel.” Hitler was not an atheist, according to Dietrich, but believed in a Supreme Being who “had created laws for the preservation and evolution of the human race. He believed that the highest aim of mankind was to survive for the achievement of progress and perfection.” Thus, evolutionary thought was central to Hitler’s goals and policies.

In his two books, Hitler discussed evolutionary theory as vital to his theory of racial struggle and eugenics. Several times throughout Mein Kampf, he specifically employs the term “struggle for existence” (“Kampf um das Dasein”); in fact, the phrase or its plural appears three times in a passage several pages long where Hitler described why the Germans should be both pro-natalist and expansionist. Historian Robert Richards, however, inexplicably claims that Hitler’s views in this passage are un-Darwinian, because—according to Richards—a Darwinian should supposedly want population expansion only within restricted borders, which would allow the fit to triumph over the unfit. Richards argues expanding into new territory would lessen the struggle, allowing the fit and less fit “to have fairly equal chances.”

Richards, however, miscalculates here because he leaves out one of the most important factors in Hitler’s reasoning: the living space (Lebensraum) is to be taken from allegedly inferior races. Thus, expanding is part of the Darwinian racial struggle that allows the allegedly fitter Nordic race to outcompete allegedly inferior races. Contra Richards, Hitler’s discussion makes perfect sense in a Darwinian world if unequal races are waging a struggle for existence. In fact, the whole idea of Lebensraum was first formulated by Friedrich Ratzel, a Darwinian biologist who later became a geographer. In addition, many pro-natalist eugenicists with impeccable Darwinian credentials, such as Alfred Ploetz or Max von Gruber, agreed with Hitler’s position on expansionism (indeed, they may have influenced Hitler in this matter).
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s note: On the following pages (231-236) of Hitler’s Religion, pages containing a very important quotation from Hitler’s second book, we see that Hitler understood Darwinism perfectly.

The point is that this Darwinism will lead us to our exterminationist philosophy (remember what Darwin himself believed would be the fate of coloured people). Weikart continues:

 

______ 卐 ______

 

In June 1944, Hitler explained his views on war to an audience of army officers in a remarkably candid speech. He opened it by basing his philosophy of war on natural law:

“Among the processes that are essentially immutable, that remain the same throughout all time, and that only change in the form of the means applied, is war. Nature teaches us with every gaze into its workings, into its events, that the principle of selection dominates it, that the stronger remains victor and the weaker succumbs. It teaches us that what often appears to someone as cruelty, because he himself is affected or because through his education he has turned away from the laws of nature, is in reality necessary, in order to bring about a higher evolution of living organisms”.

Hitler then insisted that humans must follow the ways of nature, not the allegedly misguided path of humanitarians. If they pursue humanitarianism, Hitler warned, they will be supplanted by other organisms that take the struggle seriously.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s note: Instead of ‘humanitarians’ or ‘humanitarianism’, the Christian author of this book didn’t dare to write simply ‘Christians’ or ‘Christianity’. If the ancient Romans would have had weapons of mass destruction and survived the next centuries instead of succumbing to Christianity, we can already imagine the fate of the Huns, the nascent Muslims or the Mongol invaders.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
As I have demonstrated above, Hitler did indeed believe in human evolution. It was not a peripheral element of his worldview, either. It helped shape his understanding of the human struggle for existence, natural selection among humans and human races, eugenics, pronatalism, killing the disabled, and expansionism. Of course, Hitler’s evolutionary views were synthesized with many other influences, such as anti-Semitism and nationalism; it was by no means the sole influence on his ideology or policies.

But in addition to all the times Hitler explicitly broached the topic of human evolution, he even more frequently discussed the racial struggle for existence, the struggle for existence within the Nordic race, natural selection, and many other Darwinian themes. He often abbreviated these terms as “racial struggle,” “struggle,” and “selection,” just as many of his contemporaries, including biologists and eugenicists, did, but key issue here is the concept, not the exact terminology. When Hitler spoke about the “selection” of the strongest organisms and the elimination of the weakest, it did not matter whether he used the exact term “natural selection” (though he did at times). He was obviously describing it, and that is the crucial issue…

“The ape is distinguished from the lowest human less than such a human is from a thinker like, for example, Schopenhauer.” In a 1933 speech at the Nuremberg Party Rally, he stated, “The gulf between the lowest creature which can still be styled man and our highest races is greater than that between the lowest type of man and the highest ape.” These last two comments paraphrase statements Haeckel made in many of his works; two examples are “the difference between the lowest primitive humans and the highest evolved cultured humans is in this respect greater than that between the former and the apes” and “the differences between the highest and the lowest humans is greater than that between the lowest human and the highest animal.”

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s note: Emphasis in the original. I hope that by now you understand my iterated statement on this site about “the extermination of the Neanderthals”: something I have been telling myself for decades in the cave but only in recent years dared to divulge.

______ 卐 ______

 
Hitler asserts, “Nature knows no political boundaries. First, she puts living creatures on this globe and watches the free play of forces. She then confers the master’s right on her favorite child, the strongest in courage and industry.” In other words, nature is the source of living organisms—not some Creator God—and lets these organisms fight it out among themselves. Nature is not actively intervening or doing miracles but rather allowing its laws to prevail.

Categories
Jesus Richard Carrier

‘You’re almost there!’

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.