web analytics

Tag: Adolf Hitler

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
2nd World War 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.

Categories
David Irving

The Führer’s monologues (vi)

A detailed discussion of the content of Hitler’s monologues can be dispensed with in this context given the extensive recent Hitler research. However, even in the context of a brief sketch, references to facts that belong to the secured state of knowledge cannot be avoided.

First and foremost, Hitler bears witness to himself in his discussions, especially during the long evening and night hours when he spoke his thoughts ‘into the impure’. The man who was at the zenith of his power, who dominated large parts of Europe and directed the deployment of his armies in Russia, who could look back on a series of steady successes lasting more than ten years until the crisis of the winter of 1941/42, undoubtedly possessed high intellectual abilities. With his present knowledge in the field of military affairs, armament and technology, he always made a strong impression on those around him. This was no less true for problems of art and especially history and politics. On the other hand, he showed much less interest, as a long-standing confidant confesses, in questions of the ‘humanistic field of knowledge’.[1] Thanks to his extraordinary memory and remarkable knowledge of literature, Hitler achieved insights and findings in specialised fields that commanded the respect of many experts. He was usually superior to them in his ability to grasp the core of a problem immediately and to reduce complicated relationships to a simple denominator. Above all, Hitler not only knew but, according to the testimony of Grand Admiral Raeder, ‘formed views and judgements from it that were often remarkable’.[2] He was able to think in large contexts and was in many respects far ahead of his advisers, for example on the question of motorizing the German army.[3]

Hitler’s monologues at his headquarters bear witness to these abilities only to a limited extent. Examples are his terse remarks on questions of environmental protection, the warning against the consequences of unrestrained exhaustion of the earth’s reserves of raw materials (Monologue 1), the demand for better utilisation of the countries’ natural resources (15, 16), or even the realisation, by no means common at the time, that the automobile would overcome borders and link peoples together more strongly than before.

For Hitler, motorisation was an important step ‘on the way to a new Europe’ (2). The correctness of these and other insights are not affected by the fact that he hindered this development through his policies. Knowledge, worldview and political practice collided.

The extent to which the ‘Führer and Reich Chancellor’ was aware of this tension will not be clear. Even during his monologues at the Führer’s headquarters, he never forgot the necessary restraint regarding his intentions and plans. Even in the smallest of circles he did not betray any secrets, did not reveal doubts or uncertainty. At no time did he weigh up the pros and cons with his advisors before making major decisions, nor did he make it clear what the motives were for his actions in concrete political and military situations.

Heim’s notes testify to Hitler’s great self-control, but also his suspicious reserve. The guests at the table were given no indication of the information coming from Germany and abroad, how the German people reacted to the sacrifices and deprivations, and what repercussions the severe crisis of the winter of 1941/42 had on the population of the occupied territories and the allied states. In general, Hitler’s thoughts were far more on the past or the future than the present. With great willpower, he repressed the problems and worries of everyday life at the dinner table and acted as an attentive host, casually talking about Bruckner and Brahms or appropriate nutrition or reporting on events or figures from the early days of the NSDAP.

In this behaviour, however, another trait of Hitler’s becomes visible. He was not a political pragmatist who concentrated on solving the issues of the day, but the representative of a world view that he wanted to help to achieve victory. That is why he looked to the future, especially in times when a lot was coming at him. Convinced that he knew the ‘eternal law of nature’ (117) and that his mission was to help it come to fruition, he made great efforts to free himself from burdens and difficulties, to defy resistance and often even facts that did not fit into his concept. He knew very well the limits imposed on human action, but believed that through energy, especially through an unshakeable and uncompromising belief in his mission, he could push them far out and force people as well as powers under his spell.

Hitler was convinced that the epoch of the bourgeoisie was over and that the bourgeois nation-states would not survive the war. In his opinion, in the world war of the present day, they would inevitably disintegrate—since they lacked inner strength and a unifying force—and the vital and unconsumed layers of the nations would then strengthen the camp that fought with particular determination and faith. Just as National Socialism had prevailed in the internal political struggle against far superior forces of the parties and the means of the power of the state, so it had to assert itself in the war with the utmost determination and readiness to believe. Not the superior weapons, but the more devout fighters would ultimately bring about the decision.

On 27 January 1944, Hitler very clearly and firmly told the field marshals and commanders that it was precisely this devout readiness of each soldier that mattered. ‘It is completely unknown to many’, he declared, ‘how far this fanaticism goes, which in the past moved so many of my party comrades to leave everything behind them, to allow themselves to be locked up in prisons, to give up a profession and everything for a conviction… Such a thing has only happened in German history in the time of the religious wars, when hundreds of thousands of people left their homes, farm and everything and went far away, poor as church mice, although they had previously been wealthy people—out of a realisation, a holy conviction. That is the case again today’.[4]

There is no doubt that the National Socialists had an advantage over the bourgeois parties of the Weimar Republic because of their readiness to believe and devote themselves. And Hitler certainly helped his party overcome defeats and serious crises by never giving up, showing confidence especially in difficult situations and thus lifting his followers. Part of his strength lay in this steadfastness and belief in his mission (32). In the same way, Hitler also tried to convey to the German people during the war the feeling of superiority and the conviction of final victory. This undoubtedly succeeded to a great extent, as long as the expectations did not contradict the realities. In the long run, however, willpower and strength of faith were not enough to withstand the growing pressure of the war opponents. Among the concrete power factors on the opposite side that became more and more apparent was the internal stability of the Soviet Union, the efficiency of the Red Army and the economic strength of the country, the unity and willingness to resist of the British population, the industrial potential of the USA, the will of the nations of Europe conquered by Germany to live and to be free.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Note of the Editor: Free? Western nations today are slaves of an ethno-suicidal religion spawned by the Allies right after WW2!
 

______ 卐 ______

 
It cannot be assumed that Hitler failed to recognise these realities, as his statements in the Führer’s headquarters would lead one to believe. Even in the conversations in his inner circle, he did not lose sight of the psychological effect of his words. Remarks such as that the Americans are ‘the dumbest people imaginable’ (82), assertions about England’s growing difficulties (81, 88) or Germany’s perpetual superiority in weapons technology (84) were intended first and foremost to strengthen the self-confidence of those around him. He felt it necessary to counteract the sober assessments of the situation by his political advisers, who, in his opinion, inhibited the momentum of the soldiers and the population through their restraint and caution. Hitler was convinced that he had only achieved so much thanks to his ‘mountain-moving optimism’ (79).

More fundamental importance is attached to the statements on questions of domestic policy and worldview. The leader of the Third Reich was a bitter enemy of the revolution with its egalitarian and democratic driving forces. In his opinion, it was destructive and its bearers belonged to the negative selection of the people. Again and again one finds the assertion that the judiciary had nurtured criminality during the First World War, that in 1918 it was only necessary to open the prisons and already the revolution had its leaders (18, 52, 60). In other contexts, however, the achievements of the revolution are praised. It did away with the princes (20), broke up the class state, challenged the monopoly of the educated and propertied bourgeoisie and thus opened up opportunities for advancement to empower people from the lower classes (26, 50, 56). Sometimes even credit is given to the revolutionaries. Given the ‘stupid narrow-mindedness’ of the Saxon bourgeoisie, for example, the influx of workers to the KPD in that country was very understandable (13), just as communists like Ernst Thälmann generally elicited much more sympathy from him than aristocrats like the Austrian Prince Starhemberg (13), who had even taken part in the 1923 putsch in Munich in his entourage.

In all this, however, Hitler left no doubt in his discussions about how closely he felt bound to the nation-state tradition of the 19th and early 20th centuries and intended to complete what had been developed and propagated before him in the way of large-scale concepts and imperial ideas. However, he was convinced that he would only achieve this goal if he could rely on a broader, more powerful and more vital support class. The bourgeoisie and the old ruling classes seemed unsuitable for this. In unusually harsh terms, he criticised the former German ruling houses as well as the ruling princes of Europe (9, 20, 55), the nobility, the officer corps (13,28,31), the diplomats (121), civil servants and lawyers (14,48,130), the intellectuals and scientists. Again and again, the bourgeoisie in toto is accused of half-heartedness, cowardice and incompetence (13,20). The capitalist system is not spared either (15). ‘The economy’, Hitler declared bluntly, ‘consists everywhere of the same scoundrels, ice-cold money-earners. The economy only knows idealism when it comes to workers’ wages’ (39).

Well-known representatives of German industry and some bourgeois experts who heard such and even harsher statements by Hitler considered him a radical zealot or even a Bolshevik in disguise.[5] This view, however, does not get to the heart of the problem any more than the opposite view, which wants to conclude from words of appreciation for entrepreneurs and praise for the efficiency of the German economy and its promotion that Hitler was dependent on these circles. In these monologues there is no evidence that Hitler wanted to serve the interests of capital. He did not bind himself to any class, he hardly took into account the interests of certain groups and strata. In the National Socialist state, classes were to be eliminated and thus all the forces of the people were to be set free, and all sections of the population were to be given opportunities for advancement and activity. All groups were to be united in the Volksgemeinschaft, the national community a new higher unit.

However, since in the National Socialist Volksgemeinschaft the rights and functions of the social groups were not finally defined, nor were the NSDAP and its branches assigned any clearly defined tasks, it functioned as long as everyone derived advantage from it and saw part of their interests and demands realised. As the demands grew, there were signs of fatigue, resignation and communal refusals. Hitler increasingly found himself criticising state organs (107), civil servants (41, 59), judges (130, 177), party leaders and ministers for being too lenient towards individual and group interests. However, as long as there was still a basic consensus among the majority regarding the goals for which they were fighting, the state and party leader imposed his will unchallenged in all decisive questions.

That this succeeded so unreservedly was undoubtedly due to the dynamism that the leader of the NSDAP had unleashed in Germany. He did this based on the realisation that in times of social upheaval, economic and political change, authorities and institutions reacted too slowly and sluggishly, that experts in all fields had insufficient answers and solutions to offer, and that as a result of the confidence in the state and its organs was severely shaken. If unconventional methods were practised in such situations, if alternatives were developed with unused forces, then these would receive an advance of confidence from the outset. Hitler built on this. Through the establishment of special offices, the granting of special powers and special orders, the National Socialist regime gained a remarkable momentum, initially even a momentum that lasted in some areas into the first years of the war.
However, this process also caused considerable difficulties. A seemingly endless chain of competence disputes and rivalries developed, leading to friction, disorganisation and, in many cases, failure. Hitler, to secure the support of all forces for the speedy implementation of his plans, triggered this dynamic and held on to the system even when the disadvantages became openly apparent. David Irving concludes, therefore, that he was far from being the all-powerful leader and that his influence over those directly under him diminished, especially under the extreme stresses of war.[6] This thesis is correct insofar as Hitler’s will did not always and in all areas penetrate to the lowest state and party organs, and was also interpreted and understood differently due to a lack of ideological unity in the party. In the monologues presented here, he complains about the failure of the SA leaders (79), the high-handedness of individual Gauleiters, and the inadequate implementation of his orders. But it is wrong for Irving to conclude that the conduct of the war so absorbed Hitler’s strength and concentration that he left the areas of domestic and occupation policy to his responsible ministers and confidants, especially Himmler, Goebbels and Bormann. The reader of these monologues can convince himself of the opposite.

Without him, the Führer and Reich Chancellor believed, Germany could pack up (79), and important decisions had not been made (32). Hitler was also convinced of his indispensability at his headquarters; he was excellently informed and did not fail to intervene wherever he thought it necessary. He criticised clumsy formulations in an editorial by Reich Minister Goebbels, registered events in individual districts, paid attention to the promotion of the arts, forbade attempts at administrative simplification in the war, ordered the shooting of the arsonist of the ‘Bremen’, supervised and reprimanded the judgements of German courts, took note with indignation of the sermons of the Bishop of Münster. As the minutes of the Speer Ministry meetings and many other testimonies show, Hitler allowed himself to be informed down to the last detail and made his own decisions, especially in domestic matters. No one knew better than he that the war could only be fought if a majority of the people followed it, or at least accepted the inevitable. For this very reason, he devoted extraordinary attention to the tasks of domestic policy, especially domestic security.

Even more important is another consideration. Hitler waged the war because it was the consequence of his worldview: the living space of the German people was to be conquered and secured for many generations. He spoke about this very forcefully again and again in his headquarters. Only this gain of land would create the prerequisite for solving the social question. By offering each individual the opportunity to fully develop his abilities, the National Socialist programmer hoped to reduce or eliminate the tensions and rivalries in the community (140). In this war of worldviews, Hitler did not lose sight of the goals for which he was waging it. The most important was the consolidation of National Socialist supremacy in Europe and the expansion of German influence in the world. General questions of occupation policy in East and West, as well as cooperation with allied states and peoples, belonged in this context. In Hitler’s view, German rule could only be secured if it succeeded in winning over as many people of ‘Germanic blood’ in the world as possible (125). The prerequisite for strengthening one’s nationality, however, was the repression and elimination of all those who were considered inferior and alien to the community: Jews, Slavs, Gypsies and others. Finally, it was a question of suppressing the influence of those circles that did not recognise war as the ‘law of life of peoples’, that did not want to accept the ‘right of the strongest’ in social coexistence, nor race and descent as criteria in professional competition: Christians, Marxists, pacifists. In these areas Hitler never delegated responsibility, but reserved every fundamental decision for himself. Irving’s assertion that Hitler was not informed about essential measures precisely in this area, which was central to him, cannot be substantiated. An analysis of the monologues points’ in the opposite direction.

_____________

[1] Heinrich Hoffmann, Hitler, wie ich ihn sah. Munich-Berlin 1974, p. 160 f.

[2] Erich Raeder, Mein Leben. Vol. 2, Tübingen 1957, p. 110.

[3] Fritz Wiedemann, Der Mann, der Feldherr werden wollte. Velbert and Kettwig 1964, p. 102.

[4] Excerpts from this speech can be found in the appendix to the collection of Bormann’s Führer Talks.

[5] Walter Rohland – Bewegte Zeiten. Erinnerungen eines Eisenhüttenfachmanns (Memories of an Ironworks Expert). Stuttgart 1978, p. 82 reports on a statement of displeasure by Hitler during a meeting. Afterwards he had declared, ‘If only I had destroyed the entire intelligentsia of our people like Stalin, then everything would have been easier!’

[6] David Irving,. London 1977, p. XV.

Categories
Racial right

Uncle Adolf…

And as is typical of white nationalism, a couple of days ago they celebrated the ‘resurrection’ of a fictional Jew. But in their main forums, they never commemorate the birth day of the non-fictional Aryan who wanted to save their race.

That is American white nationalism in a nutshell.

The Daily Stormer’s new link

Since I mentioned yesterday in the hatnote of my previous post that Andrew Anglin’s site had been censored once again, I now feel compelled to put in his new address:

http://dailystormer.cn/

A few years ago, Anglin told me by email that TDS was ‘a site for normies’ (he even asked me to contribute articles to his site; this was before I went nuclear on the CQ). I think there is a lot of truth in that, as we see in the images Anglin chooses to entertain his young visitors.

In the case of this site, it is for the mature man who has crossed at least half the way of the psychological Rubicon. As we know, on the other side of the river is National Socialism, just as Uncle Adolf conceived it in his after-dinner talks.