web analytics

Tag: Christian problem (CP)

Comments

by Gaedhal & Adûnâi

America

The perfect, impregnable fortress, with oceans for moats. Colonised by the Anglo-Saxon stock at the peak of the European culture, during the Enlightenment era. Bestowed upon a century of peaceful expansion, of acquiring its own boundless Lebensraum in the West. Its tragedy, however, was in the total triumph of the Christian moral system in its midst, with not a single competing ideology in sight.

The first bell of impending doom was the American Civil War. No matter how modern racists may cope, it was neither a war about state rights, nor did any Jews give any recognisable impetus to the conflict. No, as Dr. Robert Morgan points out beautifully on the Unz Review, it was the first tangible sign of Christian dominance in the American cultural life. If the martial, pagan Romans had to wage a civil war not to grant citizenship rights to their traditional allies in war (the Social War, 91-87 BCE), the American Christians went on to bloody civil struggle in order to equalise the most debased foreigners with themselves—precisely the heart of the Christian message of love (‘the last shall become the first’, earthly strength is evil, Galatians 3:28, etc.).

My next bullet point will be about the conduct of the Americans in their colonies. In my view, an attentive observer would have been able to see already in the 1930s the ephemeral nature of the Western-style empires. Let’s take the Philippines, conquered by the Americans in 1898, and Poland, vanquished by the Germans in 1939.

• Philippine population (1903-1939) = 7.6 mil. > 16 mil. (+8.4 mil.)

• Polish population (1938-1946) = 34.8 mil. > 23.7 mil. (-11.1 mil.).

Thus, using this undisputed statistic, we can deduce that all the Christian American Empire has ever done is increase the population of foreign nations wherever it went. This same pattern would continue in Japan, in Iraq, in Afghanistan. Sure, the initial conquest may employ excessive violence—after all, American military might is astronomically supreme. But during peace-time, the Christian mercy of the American culture will do its work, undoing all the visible successes of their material capability.

This, in a nutshell, is my view of the world and my response to anyone talking about ‘American interests’. Geopolitics is moot if a given subject of history does not act in its own self-interest—not merely making honest mistakes without a perfect knowledge of future outcomes, but with an outright sabotage of its place under the sun. Again, an intellectual experiment—would Adolf Hitler als Führer Amerikas have ever been able to lose world supremacy as America enjoyed it in 1945? Would America have allowed China to industrialise in the 1980s, at America’s cost? Hell, would America have allowed the Japanese to live on their archipelago, instead of colonising it for itself?

And so comes the end of the American Empire, the most illustrious one, quelled by its own hand.

______ 卐 ______

 

Read Adûnâi’s entire article: here.
Gaedhal’s text was sent by email:

 

______ 卐 ______

 

One thing that you might develop when contemplating the problem of evil is survivor’s guilt. Think of hens in battery cages. Think of donkeys in third world countries who are forced to carry heavy loads, even though maimed. This planet is a colossal engine of horrendous suffering. It is a pyramid scheme where only the organisms at the very top have a halfway decent time. I could have come into being as one of those hens! I could have come into being as one of those donkeys! I could have come into being as one of those billion people who are starving, but not to the extent that it kills them.

I find myself, somehow, as a white man in a first-world country, and I am extremely glad about this. I am having an extremely pleasant time. However, I do kinda feel guilty. I have survived this Hell Planet when most organisms do not. Man is a virus with shoes, as atheist comedian Bill Hicks once correctly said, and we make this planet intolerable for wild animals. We hunt them. We leave nets lying about. We send hounds after them. We shoot them. We eat octopuses alive. We starve tigers to death in Chinese tiger farms. We clutter up the oceans with plastic.

I know that my good pal, Cesar Tort, thinks a lot about stuff like this, as well. Cesar, although an atheist, (or ‘panentheist’ as he styles himself, these days, which is simply to say that reality itself is necessary, uncreated and self-existent, or, to put it a little more romantically: ‘numinous and transcendent’ as Christopher Hitchens might have it) says that the devils are real, and we, humans are they. Hell is real and this planet is it. We devilish humans torture the poor defenceless animals for sport.

Even though I am not a vegan, I kinda wish I was. Vegans, to their credit, are bravely attempting not to add to animal suffering.

Whenever the imago-dei delusion from Christianity dies out, and we realise that so far from being made in the image and likeness of God, humanity is, instead, a virus with shoes, ‘consuming and destroying everything in sight’[1], then we might attempt to make this planet a little more tolerable for the animals.

_________

[1] Atheist activist, Aron Ra.

Categories
Racial right

On Wallace’s apologetics

These days Hunter Wallace of Occidental Dissent has been posting articles on Christian nationalism, an issue that has been alarming the US media. And yesterday he posted an article with graphs and statistics showing that white Christians in his country have more preservationist instincts than atheists. In the discussion thread, one of the commenters replied: ‘Christianity was invented by the people who want to destroy the White race, and most Christians refuse to face it’.

This, of course, evokes the masthead of this site, the essay by a Spaniard that I translated into English. But that historical reality is something that racialist apologists of Christianity have ignored to date. Wallace went on to comment on that thread:

If you believe that White people are improved or will have better politics by becoming atheists, I don’t know what to tell you. 95 out of 100 times that isn’t the case. Instead, these people become self absorbed degenerate Reddit libtards. The surest way to have a more anti-White culture is to increase the prevalence of atheism.

The problem with this reasoning is that Western atheists are not true apostates from Christianity. From an axiological point of view, once the atheist rejects Jesus his scale of values remains Christian. From the seminal essay by a Swede that we posted when I blogged in 2009, to Bardamu’s long article that can be read at The Fair Race through Tom Sunic and Jack Frost’s comments at The Occidental Observer, we have seen on this site that the atheist’s scale of values is simply a secular offshoot of the gospel message—a secular offshoot on steroids! Thus, the best way to respond to Wallace is simply to replace ‘atheists’ with what they really are: ‘If you believe that White people are improved or will have better politics by becoming neo-Christians, I don’t know what to tell you. 95 out of 100 times that isn’t the case. Instead, these people become self-absorbed degenerate libtards. The surest way to have a more anti-White culture is to increase the prevalence of neo-Christianity’.

I fully agree with this statement!

The overwhelming majority of people who cease to believe in God don’t believe in the White race.

This is navel-gazing as there have been, and are, whites outside Wallace’s country. I have often said, and no Christian racialist has answered me, that large-scale miscegenation was started by Constantine in the renamed city that used to be called Byzantium, not to speak of what the white Iberians, who were Christian fanatics, did on the American continent since the 16th century. They didn’t give a damn about their race to the extent of corrupting it throughout the continent.

How is it possible for 2% to 3% of White atheists to create a White ethnostate? What’s the plan? I’m all ears.

How is it possible for the majority of Christians who admit Negroes to the altar with white women to create a White ethnostate (cf. the sad story of former pro-white advocate Matt Heimbach)? What’s the plan? I’m all ears.

Extrapolating from what I am seeing in polls of atheists on social issues there are definitely pro-White atheists, but they are a minuscule fragment of that swath of the White population.

Atheists of the Richard Dawkins type are neochristian to the core. I prefer a Christian like Matt Walsh who is doing a great job on YouTube to debunk the Woke monster than an epigone of Richard.

Wallace makes his case from the false Christian / atheist dichotomy. The real dichotomy is Christian / panentheist, which would be the religion of Hitler, Savitri Devi and the priest of the holy words. Only those who have finished crossing the psychological Rubicon have left Christian ethics behind and no longer carry any neochristian ballast.

 
Update

In the comments section of a new Wallace article today, we can read this exchange:

Steve Denison said:

‘Christianity, historically speaking, is a Jewish sect that took off with Gentiles. You can’t stand up to Jewish power basing your platform on a faith they created’.

Hunter Wallace responded:

‘Why should Christians be interested in supporting your cause? If this is your message, you should hang the gloves up now and go home because it will never resonate with the 80% of people on the Right who are Christians’.

What Wallace and the Christians commenting on his site fail to understand is that, if Christian ethics is the primary cause of white decline, only genuine apostasy can save the West. Wallace seems to reason this way: You’re never going to persuade heavy smokers to give up tobacco.

Such a stance, of course, contains a hidden postulate: that heavy smoking doesn’t cause cancer.

Racialized Christians haven’t even come close to looking us in the eye and answering our initial premise: that Christian ethics, whether in its traditional or secular aspect, is what has been destroying the race ever since Christians took over the Roman Empire (cf. what William Pierce says in his book of the white race about miscegenation in Constantinople). They fail to grasp our most basic point. Here we go again until it’s understood: if Christian ethics is the primary cause, only genuine apostasy will save us.

Categories
Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums (books)

Christianity’s Criminal History, 150

 

For the context of these translations click here

The Ascension of the Carolingians

 

‘…with the help of Christ, King of kings and Lord of lords.’ – Chronicle of Fredegar

‘Soon the Franks attacked with ships and darts, riddled them in the waters and killed them. Thus the Franks finally triumphed over their enemies and conquered much spoil of war, having taken many prisoners. And with their victorious leader the Franks ravaged the land of the Goths. The most famous cities of Nimes, Agde and Béziers he razed to the ground, with the walls of the houses and the city, and set fire to them. He also destroyed the suburbs and fortifications of that territory. When he, who in all his decisions was guided by Christ, in whom alone is the good of victory, had defeated the army of his enemies, he returned safe and sound to his territory’. – Chronicle of Fredegar

‘The profession of the Carolingians was war. They learned nothing else, for nothing else were they educated, and by nothing else could they accredit themselves.’ – Wolfgang Braunfels

The political events of those years lie in a dense fog. The second half of the 7th century ranks among the ‘darkest epochs’ of medieval history because at the end of the Chronicle of Fredegar in 643 the contemporary sources are almost completely silent…

St Gertrude, who at the age of twelve had already taken a vow of perpetual chastity, was ‘consumed by her asceticism’. Already at the age of thirty she retired, handing over the exhausting office of abbess to Wulfetrud, her niece, so that everything would remain in the family. She survived only three more years ‘in prayer and penance’ (Van Uytfanghe). And during the celebration of the holy mass she followed the holy martyr Foillan into paradise. Her cult, however, spread rapidly from Brabant to Germany and Poland. Moreover, it became one of the best-known communities of saints in the Middle Ages.

Consequently, Gertrude became first the patron saint of wanderers and then the patron saint of the good death (‘May St. Gertrude prepare a place for you!’). From the 15th century onwards, her protection against rats and mice was invoked. In iconography, she appears in the habit of an abbess or princely dress, including a princess’s crown or hat, but with mice around her, which climb up her abbess’s staff or perch on her bosom. A symbol of impurity and evil, the mice, in fact, ‘disturbed her in her pious meditation’. A whole tangle of entanglements and clerical propaganda!
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s note: ‘God’, in the pantheistic sense we recently read in Weikart’s book on Hitler, rewards those who comply with the laws of Nature. The Jews have been complying with those laws and that’s why they are in power. The white assholes, on the other hand, with their Christianity and neochristianity that has reached the Woke movement of today, violate those laws for which they are being punished—and will continue to be punished until (1) their extinction or (2) they transvalue their values and comply with Nature’s laws (exterminate your enemy, etc.).

This case of the Belgian Gertrude of Nivelles (628-659 c.e.), represented here on glass window, was a bad omen for the future of the white race. A cute nymphet taking perpetual vows of chastity? Compare it with David Lane’s 14 words! One could imagine the Jewish or Moorish nymphs and nymphets of the nascent Islam of that time taking perpetual vows of virginity! But the most pathetic thing is that, even today, the so-called defenders of the Aryan haven’t been able to repudiate this whole Catholic thing that caused so much damage with its vows of celibacy. Deschner continues:
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Armed mission among the Frisians

Alongside the Saxons (and the Bretons), it was the Frisians who put up the fiercest resistance to the Franks. It took Christian soldiers and missionaries a whole century to subdue them.

The Frisians were a people of peasants, fishermen and merchants, who didn’t abandon their tribal settlement by the North Sea in the coastal territories between the Ems and Weser, even during the migrations of the Nordic peoples. Perhaps as early as the middle of the 6th century, the Frisians were (partly) subdued under the rule of Chlothar I. What is certain is that in 630 King Dagobert gave the Bishop of Cologne the castle of Utrecht with the task of converting them. During the bloody feuds under Dagobert’s successors, Frisia’s potential and economy flourished, and some foreign preachers resumed conversion attempts, to no avail. Bishop Wilfrid of York, vigilant of Roman observance, wasn’t happy…

Pepin himself made his fortress of Traiectum (Utrecht) the seat of Willibrord ‘because the spread of Christianity among the Germans strengthened his political influence on the border of the kingdom’ (Buchner). ‘Frankish rule and Christian mission were mutually supportive’ (Levison). ‘Political and ecclesiastical interests went hand in hand in the new mission territory’ (Zwolfer). All this has long been proven and undisputed. First the sword of the nobility, then the loquacity of the clergy, and finally the general bloodletting.

On Pepin’s death the pagan Frisian duke Redbad, who called himself king, repulsed the Franks. He reconquered the territories west of the Alter Rhein, and without Frankish rule the Christian Church collapsed. Only after Redbad died in 719 did the Franks break into West Frisia. Charles Martell, who supported Willibrord’s ministry with magnificent donations and tax concessions, marched three times against the Frisians and in two wars against Duke Bobo (733 and 734). He seized the whole of central Frisia while eastern Frisia, at one with the Saxons, could only be subdued by Charles ‘the Great’.

Categories
Racial right

Enemy of whites

A couple of days ago an article by Tobias Langdon was published in The Occidental Observer, ‘The Cuckoo Cult: Mainstream Christianity Is Now an Implacable Enemy of the White West’.

Langdon’s article is typical of white nationalist (WN) webzines, who see the speck in someone else’s eye (Judaism) but never the log in their own (Christianity). It is an article that, as is typical of the movement, is all framed as JQ, as if whites are innocent that a Semitic cult took over the Roman Empire and continue to worship the god of the Jews to this day, including many contributors and commenters to Kevin MacDonald’s webzine.

Langdon’s article informs us, for example, that it was at Jewish instigation that the Second Vatican Council changed its stance towards the Jews. This denotes, as is so often the case in WN, complete ignorance of historical fact. The Roman Catholic Church began not only by murdering the Aryan religion of whites, but by legalising, from the 5th century onwards, Judaism and Christianity as the only religions tolerated by the Empire: a situation that persisted until the late 18th century. Many times I have quoted the culmination of the masthead of this site, but as WNsts have not responded to us I have to link it again.

Another fallacy is what Langdon tells us about Protestantism: ‘Jews have tamed and corrupted American Protestantism too’. Why is the American racial right unable to assimilate what American William Pierce said about Luther? I’ll go ahead and answer: because they are Christians or sympathisers of Christianity, and Pierce wasn’t.

Fortunately, as of today several commenters rebutted what Langdon said, and the moderator allowed the following comments from

Stan Wood:

This article ends, without explanation, with the same pretzel logic it condemns. Why should a nihilistic Semitic cult be vital to the salvation of ‘the West?’ Christianity is the original Marxism and the foundation of Political Correctness. Is ‘the West’ a euphemism for the species of hominin commonly referred to as ‘Whites?’ If so, it isn’t logical that a Middle Eastern god or cult of mixed-raced desert dwellers should be vital to ending our extermination; an ongoing genocide engineered by this same tribe of destroyers.

And speaking of genocidal engineering, it’s evident in many ways that Christianty is designed to weaken and destroy the White race for the benefit of the unholy self-proclaimed Chosen of the Judean God of Genocide; a projection of Judean psychopathy.

The only way out of the ongoing racial holocaust is for our species to regain our identity. Identifying with Middle Eastern beggars, their racist folklore, and their Semitic Buddhism, is exactly what has brought us under their power.

Our people need a racial religion or philosophy that meets the higher, purer standards of a race noted for being ‘white’. We do not need a fictionalized mixed-race Marxist hippie of questionable reputation and harmful dogma, and the scion of our mortal enemies and their God of Genocide, as our idol.

From its European beginnings in Rome, to today, Christianity is a Marxist, Antifa (anti-nationalist), anarchist death cult. In its Roman Catholic permutation, it created Hell on Earth for millions of White Europeans, for centuries, and works diligently today for the genocide of Whites by ethnic replacement.

We need to practice our own unique spirituality for healing and repairing our identity. We need to draw from our past mythologies, folklore, and traditions; and from our White collective unconscious. This is the foundation from which we will build something new and better. Semitic religion? Never again!

Luke:

‘Christianity is central to the sickness, but will also be central to the cure’.

I hear this same oxymoronic view being parroted by far too many on the pro-White alternative right, and I keep waiting for anyone who seriously believes this to explain how it is even remotely possible to un-brainwash the millions of White Christians who have allowed the jews to switch off their racial survival instincts and to fall in love with the very same race who works 24/7, 365 to do everything possible to destroy and genocide White Europeans off the face of the Earth.

I’ve tried to gently bring up the topic of jews and their… hatred for White Europeans and point out their leading role in the Great White Race Replacement agenda with a few marginally ‘Christian’ people I know… and these self-hating, self-loathing, white guilt ridden idiots will immediately start foaming at the mouth and blurting out every memorized bible passage that they can remember.

Fourth Horseman:

I appreciate Langdon’s writings here, but he completely misses the boat on this one. To claim that ‘Christian’ is not ‘Judeo’ is to totally overlook the history: Jesus, Joseph, Mary, the Twelve Apostles, the Gospel writers, and ‘Saint’ Paul—all ethnic Jews. The Bible, OT and NT, is a Jewish construction intended strictly for the benefit of Jews. The ‘Jesus miracles’ are nonsense—obvious fiction intended to sway gullible Gentiles. Paul’s constructed theology, based (perhaps) on a tiny core of historical truth, works directly against Roman rule and simultaneously corrupts its Gentile believers. Langdon needs to read Nietzsche’s The Antichrist.

Dorfmann:

Do Christians value their religion more than their race? Yes. Can any member of any race be a Christian? Yes. Do Christians believe everyone is a child of God? Yes. Does Christianity have irrevocable ties to Judaism? Yes… What more do we really need to know? Of course, it’s pointless to debate Christians on this subject as they have deep psychological needs that transcend rationality. But I hope non-Christian White racial activists understand the threat Christianity poses not only to our race, but to the entire planet itself.

Frederick Ford:

Christianity (& conversion religions), in general, is a multiracial, multicultural cult that preceded the eventually downfall of the White race through its message of universal human unity through morality—which is still used for international law and universal human rights. [Note of the Editor: what we call secular Christianity or neochristianity.]

Thaddeus Noble:

Christianity is, and was from inception, a Jewish plan to groom Gentiles into supporting Jews agendas. Starting literally from birth (baptism), gentile children are force fed pro-Jew propaganda starting with the Old Testament fiction on into the New Testament fiction. Bible schools, weekly Sunday schools, church services, church youth groups, summer bible camps, etc. The pro-Jew propaganda never ends.

The strange thing is that none of these commenters cites any of our featured essays or books that demonstrate, in a more learned way, what they have said informally. It’s weird that no one mentions, or links, The West’s Darkest Hour in WN forums.

This is why: unlike Langdon, this site demonstrates that mainstream Christianity has always been an enemy of the white West.

Categories
American civil war Conservatism

The American Civil War

Yesterday I was leafing through For Cause and Comrades by James M. McPherson and Apostles of Disunion: Southern Secession Commissioners and the Causes of War by Charles B. Dew. But it was not what I was looking for, even though McPherson begins his book with the splendid phrase, ‘Harriet Beecher Stowe insisted that she did not write Uncle Tom’s Cabin; God did’. What I was looking for was a book that dealt with the Yankee mentality, like the Lincoln quotes that Robert Morgan has been digging up and which we have collected here. Obviously, it is easier for me to try to capture the zeitgeist of the 1930s in Spain than to capture the zeitgeist of the 1860s in the US. Nevertheless, I think Morgan is right that both Jared Taylor and Gregory Hood have misled American racialists into believing that Lincoln or the founding fathers were racists.

Among the American racial right, the one who has read the most about US history is Hunter Wallace from whom I got the data to show that Taylor, to provide a rosy picture of American racial history, had cherry-picked his cherries like the pretty girl I reproduced in this article. But that’s just a blog entry. Is there a book out there that sets out, in a more scholarly way, what Morgan has been saying, for years, in the comments section of racialist forums? Ignorant as I am on this subject, I don’t know what the exact bibliography is. Nevertheless, as an introduction to the subject I feel like reading the novel Gore Vidal wrote about Lincoln. As long-time visitors to this site will recall, I had been collecting a huge number of passages from Vidal’s novel about Emperor Julian: the most important historical novel I have ever read.

These are novels where it would be an outrage to read them on screen (PDFs of the books by the normies McPherson and Dew can be accessed on the internet). It is essential to have Vidal’s novels on paper in order to enjoy them. I must be honest on this point: the chapter on Julian in Edward Gibbon’s The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire bored me to tears and I couldn’t grasp any of the zeitgeister of the 4th-century c.e. Only Vidal was able to transport me to that world.

Yesterday I was saying that, despite General Franco’s victory, Spain today has subscribed to Wokism. In the totalitarian world we live in, it is impossible to find a recent novel or film that portrays historical events from our point of view. Yesterday, for example, I watched a large part of the Spanish film Mientras Dure la Guerra. I stopped it as soon as Miguel de Unamuno was shown speaking out against Día de la Raza (literally, Day of Race) and Nazi anti-Semitism.

Spaniards aren’t ready to repudiate Wokism because, as I said yesterday, totalitarian egalitarianism has its remote roots in universalist Catholicism since Constantine. And something similar could be said about Americans, who aren’t ready to see the ultimate truth about the American Civil War because they cling to a Protestantism that is also universalist and egalitarian (the aforementioned Dew, for example, ends Apostles of Disunion with an enthusiastic chapter on Obama because he was delighted that a black man had become president). Nor could Hunter Wallace of Occidental Dissent make an honest reading of the Yankee mentality because that would lead him to the apostasy of his Lutheranism.

In short, neither conservative Spaniards nor conservative Americans will ever understand why the European and American right always loses (and will lose, unless they get to the religious root of the matter). Although the title of this post is about the American war of secession, I would like to end it with the words that a commenter posted last year on this site about the Spanish party Vox: a party branded as fascist in both Spain and Latin America:

Vox is absolute garbage. They are anti-racist and extremely pro-Jew and Israel (it’s the holy land of the Christians). The first black man in the Spanish parliament was put there by Vox! The same is true in neighbouring Portugal, where so-called far-right parties are always trying to “prove” they’re not racists by pushing non-Whites as political candidates. They’re cuckolds (or traitors), all of them! Christians cannot be trusted as they are still infected by the inversion of values promoted by that Jewish weapon against Aryans called Christianity. “Wokeness” is just the latest mutation of Christianity. It’s just that now it doesn’t have Yahweh or Jesus: every single one of the believers is a Jesus! Everything is so fucked up now that it’s getting really hard to distinguish between enemies and retards everywhere in the West.

Syntax has been corrected. The original comment can be read here.

Categories
Hate

Responding to the Jew

I rarely talk to normies or Jews on the internet. But now that I was checking my Twitter account, the software automatically feeds users with some recent tweets from notable people and I came across a recent popular tweet from Jew Lex Fridman (‘Hate is a poison that destroys the mind. Choose love’). I responded by simply quoting Mauricio (‘You need to transvalue your views on Hate and War. Hate is a source of pure, raw power. The best source of Power. Aryans need to re-learn how to tap into that source and use it effectively to destroy their enemies completely, forever’), although I had originally entertained the idea of quoting what Alex Linder says about hate: that defaming it is a psyop of our enemies to disarm us.

This is precisely what has happened throughout the West. Jung said that an archetype can literally possess the soul of humans through the collective unconscious. And the archetype that after World War II took over the white man, including atheists, is the Jesus-as-a-hippy archetype: peace and love (think of the best movie filmed about this archetype: Jesus Christ Superstar, a movie by Norman Jewison). Hence the cure is to show racialists, as we recently saw in Weikart’s book on Hitler, that the German Chancellor knew that Christianity was, from its inception, a Semitic plot to brainwash the white man.

What is really alarming is that I have seen words very similar to Fridman’s written by the admins of very popular blogs of the American racial right. That’s why I have said that the Christians in the cartoon above are worse, in the sense of incredibly and unimaginably stupid and even more dangerous, than any subversive tribesman.

Categories
Hitler's Religion (book) Racial right Richard Weikart

A brief reflection on Weikart’s book

It doesn’t matter that Richard Weikart is a Christian. I find his scholarship impeccable. He did us a great service even if that was never his intention because he forces those white nationalist sympathisers of National Socialism to take sides.

A considerable percentage of these sympathisers in America are Christians. The facts about Hitler’s biography that Weikart unearthed will put them at a crossroads: either they reject Judeo-Christianity, which Hitler called ‘pestilence’, or they repudiate the Führer.

Categories
Hitler's Religion (book) Nature Richard Weikart

Hitler’s Religion: Conclusion

In mid-January of 1940, Hitler was discussing with his colleagues a rather frequent topic of his conversations and monologues: the church. After he sarcastically imitated Niemöller, the Confessing Church leader who was incarcerated in a concentration camp, someone in his entourage indicated to him that posterity might not be able to figure out what Hitler’s own religious views were, because he never openly stated his beliefs. The person who brought this to Hitler’s attention had clearly noticed the discrepancy between his private expressions of intense antipathy to Christianity and his public religious image. Since many in Hitler’s entourage were also intensely anti-Christian, perhaps they were trying to provoke him to state his personal religious views publicly. In any case, this observation about the inscrutability of Hitler’s religious views still has merit today—even though we have far more information about Hitler available to us than most of his contemporaries had.

That, of course, does not mean everyone draws the same conclusion. As we have seen, some people today interpret Hitler as an atheist, while others insist he was a Christian…

Interestingly, when Hitler was confronted in January 1940 with the observation that people might not know where he stood religiously, he suggested that, on the contrary, it should not be difficult for people to figure it out. After all, he asserted, he had never allowed any clergy to participate in his party meetings or even in funerals for party comrades. He continued, “The Christian-Jewish pestilence is surely approaching its end now…”

Hitler clearly thought that anyone should be able to figure out that he was not a Christian. Nonetheless, Rosenberg reported in his diary later that year that Hitler had determined that he should divulge his negative views about Christianity in his last testament “so that no doubt about his position can surface. As head of state he naturally held back—but nevertheless after the war clear consequences will follow.” Many times, Hitler told his colleagues that he would reckon with Christianity after the successful conclusion of the war…

So, what did Hitler not believe? He continually rejected Christianity, calling it a Jewish plot to undermine the heroic ideals of the (Aryan-dominated) Roman Empire. He did not accept the deity of Jesus, the resurrection of Jesus, or indeed any of the miracles of Jesus. There is no evidence that he believed in a triune God. Though he esteemed Jesus as an Aryan fighter against Jewish materialism who was martyred for his anti-Jewish stance, he did not ascribe to Jesus’s death any significance in human salvation. Indeed, he did not believe in salvation at all in the Christian sense of the term, because he denied a personal afterlife. Despite his public invocations to God, Hitler also did not believe in the efficacy of prayer. His God responded to people and judged them according to their works, not their words. Although he spurned Christianity, this did not lead him to disbelieve in every form of deity, however. He overtly rejected atheism, associating it with “Jewish-Bolshevism.” Further, he explicitly condemned mysticism, occultism, and neo-paganism. Thus, it is evident Hitler was neither a Christian, atheist, occultist, nor neo-paganist.

While this narrows the range of religious options slightly, it still leaves us with agnosticism, pantheism, panentheism, deism, and non-Christian theism. A reasonable case could be made for more than one of these options. In order solve this puzzle, however, one must not only examine the full panoply of Hitler’s religious statements but also decipher how to weigh those statements. Are his private statements more revealing of his true convictions than his public speeches? Probably, but even his private statements must be used cautiously. Are his books a better indication of his personal beliefs than his speeches? This is likely, because he seemed to be more systematic in explaining his worldview in Mein Kampf and in his Second Book. However, they also served propaganda purposes and must be used carefully as well…

One problem is that Hitler often portrayed God as an impersonal force, yet sometimes he implied God did take a personal interest in humanity, or at least in the German people’s destiny. Though he usually insisted that God does not intervene in the natural cause-and-effect relationships in the universe, at times he seemed to ascribe a role to Providence in history…

One of the reasons that I do not think Hitler was a theist is because he did not seem to think God could contravene the laws of nature. Hitler often called the laws of nature eternal and inviolable, thus embracing determinism. He interpreted history as a course of events determined by the racial composition of people, not by their religion or other cultural factors. The way to understand humanity and history, according to Hitler, was to study the laws of nature. He considered science, not religious revelation, the most reliable path to knowledge. What Hitler thought science revealed was that races are unequal and locked in an ineluctable struggle for existence, which would determine the future destiny of humanity…

Evil or sin, in Hitler’s opinion, was anything that produced biological degeneration. Thus, Hitler thought he was operating in complete harmony with God’s will by sterilizing people with disabilities and forbidding the intermarriage of Germans and Jews. Killing the weak to make way for the strong was part of the divine plan revealed in nature, in Hitler’s view. Thus, even murdering disabled Germans, launching expansionist wars to wrest territory from allegedly inferior races, and murdering millions of Jews, Sinti, Roma, Slavs, and others defined as subhumans, was not only morally permissible but also obedience to the voice of God. After all, that was how nature operated, producing superabundantly and then destroying most of the progeny in the Darwinian struggle for existence. Hitler often reminded his fellow Germans that even if this seemed ruthless, it was actually wise. In any case, he warned that they could not moralize about it, because humans were completely subject to the laws of nature.

In the end, while recognizing that Hitler’s position was somewhat muddled, it seems evident his religion was closest to pantheism. He often deified nature, calling it eternal and all-powerful at various times throughout his career. He frequently used the word “nature” interchangeably with God, Providence, or the Almighty. While on some occasions he claimed God had created people or organisms, at other times (or sometimes in the same breath) he claimed nature had created them. Further, he wanted to cultivate a certain veneration of nature through a reinvented Christmas festival that turned the focus away from Christianity. He also hoped to build an observatory-planetarium complex in Linz that would serve as a religious pilgrimage site to dazzle Germans with the wonders of the cosmos. Overall, it appears a pantheist worldview was where Hitler felt closest to home…

[H]opefully this study of Hitler’s religion sheds light on a number of important issues. First, his anti-Christianity obviously shaped the persecution of the Christian churches during the Third Reich. Second, his religious hypocrisy helped explain his ability to appeal to a broad constituency…

Finally, and most importantly, his religion did not provide him any transcendent morality. Whatever Hitler’s stance on other religious issues, his morality was entirely of this world, derived from his understanding of the workings of nature. In my view, this was the most pernicious element of his religion. Hitler followed what he considered the dictates of nature by stealing, killing, and destroying. Ultimately, however, he perished, because his God could not give him life.

 

______ 卐 ______

 

Editor’s note:

I included this final paragraph from Richard Weikart’s book only to show that the Christian author of Hitler’s Religion saw Hitler in photographic negative: white he saw black, black white; dark grey light grey, and light grey dark grey.

Once one transvalues values, it becomes clear that ‘the Jewish-Christian pestilence’, to use Uncle Adolf’s words, is what is driving the Aryan on the path to extinction.

What Weikart and the rest of the Christians and secular neochristians ignore is that one can only gain power by obeying the laws of Nature, not by violating them as they do (here Hitler hit the nail on the head). In fact, violating Nature’s laws will lead to a catastrophe greater than what happened after World War II.

Hitler did love Mother Nature. Above, Alpine view of the Berghof chalet, 1936 (Heinrich Hoffmann Collection, Bavarian State Library).

Categories
Axiology Ethnic cleansing Eugenics God Hitler's Religion (book) Miscegenation Nature Racial right Richard Weikart

Hitler’s Religion: Chapter 10

On April 10, 1923, Hitler fulminated, “The liberation [of Germany] requires more than diligence; to become free requires pride, will, spite, hate, hate, and once again, hate.” A year earlier, he told a Munich crowd, “Christianity prescribes to us faith, hope and love. Love and hope cannot help us; only faith can, because it begets the will.” Hitler preached hate, spurned Christian love, and later ordered the murder of millions of innocent [sic] people, including Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, and people with disabilities.

 

______ 卐 ______

 

Note of the Editor: This is where we see the gulf between me and not only the author of Hitler’s Religion, but with white nationalists who don’t know how to hate to the point of becoming exterminationists.

 

______ 卐 ______

 

The notion that Hitler was a Nietzschean promoting an aristocratic morality and spurning the so-called slave morality of Christianity was a position already popularized in the 1930s and 1940s by Hermann Rauschning, a Nazi leader who jumped ship well before Hitler launched his war of aggression and genocide. Rauschning became a vociferous critic of Hitler from exile. On the basis of his personal contacts with Hitler, he claimed Hitler was an “Antichrist” waging a “deliberately planned battle against the dignified, immortal foundation of human society; the message from Mount Sinai.” Rauschning called this “Hitler’s Battle Against the Ten Commandments.” According to Rauschning, Hitler said he was fighting against “the curse of so-called morals, idolized to protect the weak from the strong in the face of the immortal law of battle, the great law of divine nature. Against the so-called ten commandments [sic], against them we are fighting.” Rauschning’s work is controversial and must be used cautiously, because he is not always accurate in his description of Hitler’s religious and philosophical stance. Nonetheless, it is interesting he intimated that Hitler’s religious position was either pantheistic or at least close to pantheism, since he put the words “divine nature” in Hitler’s mouth. He also testified that Hitler stated, “For our Volk it is decisive, whether they uphold the Jewish Christian faith with its morality of sympathy, or a strong heroic faith in God in nature, in God in one’s own Volk, in God in one’s own destiny, in one’s own blood.”

More recently, the German philosopher Gunnar Heinsohn has taken Rauschning’s position even further, arguing that the reason Hitler wanted to annihilate the Jews was to extinguish their moral teaching promoting the sanctity of life. No doubt Heinsohn is correct when he explains that Hitler embraced a social Darwinist position that was the polar opposite of Judaism’s ethics, which forbade murder and enjoined loving one’s neighbor. However, the problems with Heinsohn’s position are legion. First, most Christians believe in the Ten Commandments, too, and the prohibition against murder is just as pronounced in the Christian tradition as in Judaism, so why didn’t Hitler kill all Christians in his zeal to eliminate this ethical code?
 

______ 卐 ______

 

Note of the Editor: As Savitri Devi said, Hitler was one thing, Kalki will be another…

 

______ 卐 ______

 

When Hitler pursued policies that most of us consider evil, he was not, in his mind, abandoning moral considerations. On the contrary, he was convinced that what he was doing was not only morally justified, but morally praise-worthy.

I argued this point extensively in my previous book, Hitler’s Ethic: The Nazi Pursuit of Evolutionary Progress, where I identify Hitler’s ethical position as a racist form of evolutionary ethics. Hitler believed that whatever promoted evolutionary progress was morally good, and anything that hindered progress or led to biological degeneration was reprehensible. In his view, any moral system, code, or commandments must be judged according to how it contributes to the biological advancement (or regression) of humanity. His belief that the Aryan or Nordic race was superior to all other races led him to this corollary: Whatever benefits the Nordic race is moral. Wolfgang Bialas’s recent analysis of Nazi ethics agrees largely with this interpretation of Hitler’s thought. Bialas states, “The Nazi worldview clearly had an ethical dimension, rooted in notions of an evolutionary ethic that legitimized the struggle for existence.” Indeed, so many historians have argued that social Darwinism was a central tenet of Nazi ideology that this idea is considered commonplace.

Since Hitler based his ethical views on natural laws, especially evolutionary laws, this means that Christian ethics were not sacrosanct. Some elements of Christian morality might, in Hitler’s view, comport with the laws of nature and thus be valid. Other Christian commandments, however, needed to be discarded as relics of the benighted, prescientific past. Indeed, many historians have noted the fundamentally anti-Christian thrust of Hitler’s ethics. Alan Bullock, an early biographer of Hitler, explains, “In Hitler’s eyes Christianity was a religion fit only for slaves; he detested its ethics in particular. Its teaching, he declared, was a rebellion against the natural law of selection by struggle and the survival of the fittest.” Another biographer, Joachim Fest, notes that Hitler wanted to replace Judeo-Christian morality with the “indubitable will of Nature.” Claudia Koonz, in her insightful study titled The Nazi Conscience, argues that Nazism preached and practiced a coherent moral ideology that was an “absolutist secular faith” contrary to Christianity. The Holocaust historian Robert Wistrich also stresses the anti-Christian character of the Nazi moral vision, stating, “For at the heart of Nazism, despite its cunning pretense of ‘positive Christianity,’ there was a deep-seated rejection of the entire civilization that had been built on Judeo-Christian ethics.” Ulf Schmidt, who specializes in the history of medicine and medical ethics under Nazism, likewise interprets Nazi ideology as a departure from Christian moral teaching. He asserts, “Nazism reveals a fundamental break with Judeo-Christian ethics, an attack against a traditional belief system based on altruism and compassion”…

By the time he made this statement in October 1941, German physicians following his orders had murdered over 70,000 Germans with disabilities, and German killing squads operating in Soviet territories had massacred multitudes of Jews and communist officials…

Another way that Hitler’s morality diverged from Christian norms was that he ignored or reinterpreted what Jesus called the most important commandment: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength.” Hitler did love nature, so perhaps in some sense he did love his pantheistic God. However, Jesus was quoting from the Old Testament, where the Lord specified was Yahweh. Hitler certainly did not love that God, whom he identified as the God of the Jews.

Further, Hitler continually insisted that God was inscrutable and unknowable, unlike in Christianity, where one could cultivate a personal, loving relationship with Him. One cannot communicate with the impersonal kind of God that Hitler believed in. (I do not give much weight to Hitler’s public invocations to God in his speeches, since they seem to have been intended for his audience, not as a sincere effort to communicate with God.) In any case, Hitler never encouraged people to love God and cultivate a relationship with Him, so whatever positions he took on other questions of ethics, he missed the central tenet of Christian morality…

What Hitler thought he discovered through reason was that nature was ruled by the struggle for existence, and humans could not escape this natural law. He believed that the struggle for existence had produced everything, including humanity, and would continue to lead to biological progress. Gilmer Blackburn expresses a view widely shared by historians when he explains the primacy of struggle in Hitler’s worldview: “If the Nazi dictator entertained convictions that could be termed ‘religious,’ his creed began and ended with the struggle for existence.” In Hitler’s view, then, morality consisted of submitting to the universal law of the struggle for existence by fighting one’s enemies and triumphing—or else perishing —in the contest. Only through this struggle could humanity thrive and progress. Trying to evade the struggle would only lead to decline and biological degeneration.
 

______ 卐 ______

 

Note of the Editor: What to make of the pacifism of Greg Johnson and other white nationalist pundits, for whom the concept of Holy Racial Wars is anathema?

 

______ 卐 ______

 

He then scoffed at those who thought they could contravene the laws of nature and extinguish the instinct for preservation: “For only then [if the self-preservation instinct could be eliminated] could one try to implement the statutes of a League of Nations or the Geneva Convention, in the place of the law of the all-powerful nature (Allgewalt Natur) that has been valid since the beginning of all life on this earth.” He then asserted that the “unbreakable laws of nature” will continue to hold sway over the struggle for existence between humans in the future. Hitler’s use of the term “all-powerful nature” (Allgewalt Natur) implies pantheism, since it ascribes to nature a characteristic—omnipotence— exclusive to deity. Further, he clearly invoked natural laws, especially the struggle for existence, as the arbiter of morality…“Whether man agrees to or rejects this harsh law makes absolutely no difference,” he said. “Man cannot change it; whoever tries to withdraw from this struggle for life does not erase the law but only the basis of his own existence”…

Hitler deduced two key principles from the need to wage the struggle for existence: the right to destroy those who are weaker and the right to take living space, i.e., land, from them. These themes reverberate through many of Hitler’s speeches and writings, and found their ultimate fulfillment in his genocidal policies during World War II…

In another passage in Mein Kampf which addresses the need to promote population expansion, he articulated the social Darwinist perspective that this process would result in the weak perishing in the competition for limited resources… He then spelled out the consequences of his pro-natalist policy more clearly: “A stronger race will drive out the weak, for the vital urge in its ultimate form will, time and again, burst all the absurd fetters of the so-called humanity of individuals, in order to replace it by the humanity of Nature which destroys the weak to give his place to the strong”…

In the struggle for existence in nature, many organisms are exterminated, so, Hitler queried, why should we suppose that this would be different for human races, some of which are not far separated from apes? Hitler warned against moralizing about this struggle or the destruction of the inferior creatures of the earth (such as other human races), stating, “On this earth the right of the stronger holds sway, the right of struggle and the right of victory; if you think that rights prevail, then you are deceiving yourself.” The struggle is good in itself, Hitler claimed, because it prevents degeneration, which would otherwise occur…

During World War II, Hitler continually justified his genocidal policies by appealing to the laws of nature, especially in “secret speeches” given to military cadets and officers. (Some of these “secret speeches” had thousands in attendance; in this respect, they were hardly secret. However, they are called “secret speeches” because they were not open to the general public and not published at the time, as many of Hitler’s speeches were.) In May 1944, Hitler lectured his military leadership about the reasons they needed to be relentlessly harsh in the war. Hitler insisted that nature knows nothing of tolerance, but rather eliminates the weak:

“There is no tolerance in nature. Nature is, if I take ‘tolerant’ as a human concept, the most intolerant thing that has ever existed. It destroys everything that is not capable of living, that will not or cannot defend itself; it eliminates them…”

Later in this speech, Hitler broached the topic of his harsh anti-Jewish policies, and though he did not specifically mention the mass extermination of the Jews, he certainly implied it. He insisted that his policy of “driving out” the Jews was “just as nature does it, not brutal, but rational, in order to preserve the better ones [i.e., the Germans].” He then answered those who might wonder if this could have been accomplished in a less cruel fashion: “We stand in a struggle for life and death.” Anything that helped the Aryans preserve their race in this struggle was morally right, Hitler informed them. Thus, cruelty, oppression, murder, and even genocide were morally justified, in his view, if they advanced the cause of the German people.

During his Nuremberg Party Congress address in 1929, Hitler indicated one of the corollaries to his view that the strong should prevail over the weak: infanticide for those deemed inferior. He hoped to take the “natural process of selection” into his own hands if he came to power by “acting deliberately according to racial laws.” He then praised Sparta for having practiced infanticide, and he criticized modern European societies for setting up institutions to care for the weak and sickly…

By killing approximately 200,000 disabled Germans during World War II, Hitler thought he was pleasing God.

When Hitler spoke about the triumph of the stronger in the struggle for existence, he was of course rooting for the home team: the German people, whom he believed to be racially superior, because they had substantial portions of so-called Aryan or Nordic racial elements in their blood. Though at times Hitler called the German Volk a creation of God and indeed “the highest image of the Lord,” on many other occasions he actually deified the German Volk. In his May Day speech in 1923, he told his audience that National Socialists needed to learn to love their Fatherland and Volk with a fanatical love that “allows no other idols beside it.” Seeing divinity in the German Volk is consistent with a pantheistic view, where God pervades everything.

Hitler’s devotion to the German Volk was in some ways even more pronounced than his devotion to the inscrutable God, because the German Volk was closer at hand. Hitler never quite figured out how to worship his unknowable Providence, but he did find ways to serve the German people (or, at least, he thought he was serving them). He often claimed that the German Volk was supreme on this earth and the object of his complete faith and commitment. In October 1935, he denied that he was subject to anyone except his own conscience. Then he continued, “And this conscience has but one single commander (Befehlsgeber): our Volk!” Two days earlier, he made a similar statement: “The Volk alone is our Lord (Herr), and we serve this Volk according to our best knowledge and conscience.” Both these statements would be blasphemous for anyone believing in a monotheistic god that transcends the German Volk. If Hitler had been a monotheist, he should have confessed God as the commander of his conscience, not the Volk. If he were a Christian, he should have confessed Jesus as his Lord.

 

______ 卐 ______

 

Note of the Editor: If white nationalists had their race as their God and not Jesus, they would celebrate Uncle Adolf’s birthday every April 20, not Jesus’ putative birthday. Think of Parrish’s Daybreak painting on this site to see what we mean by God: not just any kind of life but the most sublime, including majestic Nature.

 

______ 卐 ______

 

Just a few days after he came to power in February 1933, he preached to his fellow Germans that the Volk was the highest value they could pursue. They were engaged in a struggle in which the goal was “the preservation of this Volk and this soil, the preservation of this Volk for the future, in the realization that this alone can constitute our reason for being”…

Hitler served a God and cultivated a conscience that did not care if some people were exterminated in the global struggle for existence. His God only cared about the strongest, the ablest, and the most intelligent—and Hitler was convinced that the German people embodied these traits better than any other race.

 

______ 卐 ______

 

Editor’s note: If the Western traitors had not thrown so much manure on Hitler’s memory, his words and not those of David Lane would be our sacred words, as Adolf’s precede Dave’s.
 

______ 卐 ______

 

How did Hitler’s vision of the supremacy of the German Volk and his utter disregard for other peoples fit into the Christian command to love your neighbor as yourself, which Jesus called the second most important commandment?… Hitler’s insistence that Germans should hate or harm their racial enemies, rather than love them, demonstrates once again his opposition to Christian morality…

When Hans Frank asked Hitler what he read at the Western Front during World War I, Hitler replied that at first he read the Gospels. Later, he gladly set them aside, he said, in part because “the story about turning the other cheek, when one receives a blow, is not a good prescription for the Front.” In December 1941, Goebbels recorded in his diary that Hitler rejected Christianity because of its Sermon on the Mount morality.

Christianity, Hitler claimed, “is Jewish in its entire essence. A religion that proceeds from the principle that one should love his enemies, may not kill, and must offer the left cheek when struck on the right one, is not suitable for a manly doctrine of defending one’s Fatherland. Christianity is in fact a doctrine of decay. For a modern person it deserves only intellectual disdain.”

Hitler’s contempt for Christian morality, including some of the Ten Commandments (such as the prohibition on killing), was palpable. Certainly many versions of Christianity had interpreted loving one’s enemies and turning the other cheek in such a way that did not apply to many areas of life, such as warfare. However, no one committed to Christian morality would directly criticize a commandment of Jesus—or one of the Ten Commandments—as Hitler did.

Not only did Hitler not consider other races part of the same moral community with the German Volk, but he also construed them as competitors in the racial struggle for existence. Thus he held that destroying people of other races is not only morally permissible, but morally good and right…

In 1933, Hitler could not publicly spell out what suppressing other races meant, because he was still trying hard to deceive the world into thinking he was a man of peace so he could remilitarize without outside interference. However, after the genocidal war on the Eastern Front was in full swing, Hitler divulged his racial philosophy in all its brutality to his entourage. In a monologue in October 1941, Hitler expounded his philosophy of conquest and racial annihilation. He planned to sift through the people in the conquered territories of the East to find racially desirable elements that could be preserved. However, Russians living in the cities “must completely die off. We need not have any pangs of conscience about this,” because “we do not have any responsibility toward these people.” The Germans’ task, Hitler asserted, was to settle these territories with Germans and treat the natives as American Indians had been treated.

Hitler denied, however, that he had any hatred for these people. Rather, he was acting with cool deliberation. He remarked, “I am approaching this matter ice-cold. I feel that I am only the executor of a historical will [i.e., a will guiding historical development]”… Hitler asserted: “Heaven only recognizes power.” He then sarcastically dismissed the “principle that all humans should love one another”…

Hitler considered expansionist warfare a part of the God-ordained racial struggle. This was a constant theme in Mein Kampf and in many of his speeches, especially during World War II. It was also the primary message of his Second Book, where he claimed that the earth is not given once and for all to anyone, but rather is on loan from Providence to those courageous enough to take possession of it and strong enough to hold onto it. Once again, Hitler thought the stronger race had God on its side, even as it crushed the weaker. “Therefore,” he asserted, “every healthy native people sees nothing sinful in the acquisition of land, but rather something natural.” The “modern pacifist,” he continued, “who repudiates this most holy right” lives off past injustices.
 

______ 卐 ______

 

Editor’s note: Once more: Johnson et al…

 

______ 卐 ______

 
In a December 1940 speech, Hitler enunciated similar social Darwinist themes that virtually quoted from his Second Book and reiterated major points he made in Mein Kampf. People ignore these wise but harsh laws at their peril, according to Hitler, because those not strong enough to prevail in the struggle have forfeited their right to exist.

In a monologue in October 1941, Hitler contrasted his philosophy of expansionist warfare with Christianity. He presented war as essentially a struggle over land and resources, and, as he did so often in other venues, justified killing in warfare by appealing to the pitiless struggle in nature. War, he stated, “corresponds to the principle in nature, ever to bring about selection through struggle: The law of existence demands uninterrupted killing, so that the better will live. Christianity is rebellion against this fundamental principle, a protest against the creation; followed consistently, it would lead to the breeding of the inferior”…

Hitler’s belief that nature imposed a moral imperative to expand the population had profound implications for his views on sexual morality. His pro-natalist sexual morality had some points of contact with traditional Christian views, since the Catholic Church opposed contraception, abortion, prostitution, and homosexuality. However, Hitler’s opposition was based on entirely different premises. Hitler only opposed them to the extent that they interfered with increasing the number of healthy Nordic babies, which was the ultimate goal of his sexual morality. In the case of contraception and abortion, Hitler favored contraception and abortion for those deemed biologically inferior. In July 1933, Hitler passed a decree that resulted in the compulsory sterilization of about 350–400,000 Germans with disabilities. While prohibiting abortion for healthy Germans, abortions for Germans with disabilities were required, and Jews and other racial “undesirables” were allowed to practice abortion.

One of the most important commandments in Hitler’s sexual morality was thou shalt not mix your blood with other races. While the Catholic Church forbade intermarriage between Catholics and non-Catholics, Hitler forbade intermarriage and sexual relations between Germans and Jews, regardless of their religious convictions.
 

______ 卐 ______

 

Note of the Editor: As my ancestors were Spanish, I am fascinated by the origins of the tragedy of ancient Hispania. When the values were standing, the Visigoths burned at the stake those who interbred with the Iberian mudbloods. That all changed with what the Visigothic king Recceswinth did, who, being duped by the Christians, transvalued the most vital value: from trying to keep the bloodline pure to what would become in Spain the burning at the stake of heretics. The astronomic blunder of Recceswinth dates back to the 7th century. Weikart, as a good Christian, lives under the sky of the inverted values bequeathed to us by Christianity; so in this passage, and his book in general, he sees everything in a photographic negative (as does every Christian and neochristian in the West who condemns Hitlers’ eugenics).

 

______ 卐 ______

 

For Hitler, it was a sin— punishable by law after the Nuremberg Laws were promulgated in 1935— for a Catholic of Aryan descent to marry a Catholic with Jewish grandparents. Hitler also forbade intermarriage of Germans with Slavs but encouraged German intermarriage with the Norwegians or Dutch, because they were deemed fellow Nordic peoples…

Goebbels noted that Hitler was not prudish but viewed sexual morality from an entirely different perspective than Christians did. Hitler thought, “We must also view this question [sexual morality] from the standpoint of its utility for the Volk. That is our morality.” The main point, according to Hitler, was to get as many children as possible for the Volk.

Because he favored marriage and procreation, Hitler was incensed that the Catholic Church taught celibacy for priests and nuns. In his view, this robbed the German people of its potential and weakened it in its struggle with other races. In October 1941, Hitler lamented that Catholicism encouraged some women to forgo marriage. However, even more important than marriage, Hitler intoned, was that women bear children: “Nature doesn’t care at all, whether before-hand a declaration is made in the presence of witnesses! Nature wants the woman to have a child.” This demonstrates once again that, for Hitler, nature dictated morality. In this case, the morality it dictated was that extramarital sexual relations were perfectly fine, as long as they resulted in more healthy German babies.

Categories
Eduardo Velasco Friedrich Nietzsche

Embryonic idea

How did Christianity become liberalism? At the core of liberal thought we encounter individualism, egalitarianism and universalism. When European civilisation reached its peak before the decline of ancient Greece and Rome—think of the paradigms of Sparta and Republican Rome—values were not individualistic but social; not egalitarian but aristocratic, not universalistic but ethnocentric.

Christianity transvalued such values. By introducing spiritual terror with the doctrine of eternal damnation, it inverted social values into individualistic values (as it obsessed us in medieval times with the idea of personal salvation). Through the catholicism of the Church of Rome (‘catholic’ means ‘universal’), Christianity broke down ethnic barriers to the extent of turning the so-called Second Rome, Constantinople, into a hodgepodge of ethnicities very similar to what the globalists are trying to do today in the West.

When I was a teenager and read Nietzsche for the first time (Twilight of the Idols and The Antichrist by the way), I didn’t understand why Nietzsche would put a constellation of notable, more or less secular people, side by side with Christians and fulminate them all equally. It took me decades to come across the reason for all this in a text we christened here ‘The Red Giant’, to the effect that Christianity is in its most destructive phase, the secular phase, after burning its religious phase. But it was only by studying Evropa Soberana’s article on the wars between Judea and Rome that I connected the dots between the JQ and the CQ.

Both the red giant essay and Evropa Soberana’s essay were written for the internet. In the wake of last month’s accident, I recently said that I shuddered that a website could be so fragile. Now that Blogger has taken down Evropa Soberana’s site since last year, I am more aware than ever that these post-Nietzschean ideas are more fragile than I thought. Given that the Spanish author who blogged under the pen name Evropa Soberana has not uploaded his site since it was taken down (as I did after WordPress took mine down last month), I have come to think that, perhaps, this Spaniard has died.

People who are perfectly aware of the Christian question could be counted on the fingers of one hand. The CQ, as the ultimate diagnosis of white man’s disease, is for the moment an embryonic idea. None of us is wealthy enough to set up a publishing house to guard these ideas for posterity precisely because it is an embryonic idea of which Nietzsche was its precursor. My only hope is that death doesn’t surprise me and I can continue blogging for another two or three decades…