web analytics

Tag: Religion

Categories
Bible Might is right (book)

Might is right, 5

Whatsoever a people believeth shall make it free, enslave it, or corrode its very marrow in strict accordance with natural order.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s interpolated note: This reminds me of what Savitri says about true religions (such as Indo-Aryan religion or National Socialism) and false ones (such as those derived from Semitic thought, especially for Aryan consumption).
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Consequently if a people place implicit faith in what philosophers teach them, they are liable to be duped. If many nations are so duped, their deception is a menace to the liberty of the world.

Freemen should never regulate their conduct by the suggestions or dicta of others, for when they do so, they are no longer free. No man ought to obey any contract, written or implied, except he himself has given his personal and formal adherence thereto, when in a state of mental maturity and unrestrained liberty. It is only slaves that are born into contracts, signed and sealed by their progenitors. The freeman is born free, lives free, and dies free. He is (even though living in an artificial civilisation) above all laws, all constitutions, all theories of right and wrong. He supports and defends them of course, as long as they suit his own end, but if they don’t, then he annihilates them by the easiest and most direct method.

There is no obligation upon any man to passive obedience, when his life, his liberty and his property are threatened by footpad, assassin or statesman.

One of Columbus’s lieutenants in the West Indies captured a Carib chief by means of a subtle stratagem. The chief was invited to a feast and when there, persuaded with honeyed words to don (on horseback) a set of brightly polished steel manacles; it being cunningly represented to him, that the irons were the regalia of sovereignty. He foolishly believed his astute flatterer, and when the chains were firmly clasped around his limbs, he was led away, to die of vermin, turning a mill in a Spanish dungeon.

What those glittering manacles were to the Indian chieftain, constitutions, laws, moral codes, and Hebrew dominated civilisations, are to the nations of the earth. Indeed, under the name of Progress and Social Evolution, mankind has been lured into foæted dungeons, where it labours unceasingly and for naught, in darkness, despair and shame. Like that Spanish lieutenant the masters of the earth first flatter their dupes, in order to more easily enchain them. Who talks nowadays of the ‘sovereign people’, without a laugh of derision? And yet it was once thought to be a term full of significance. Their ‘sovereignty’ is now acknowledged sham, and their freedom a dream. The sovereign people be—damned.

It is clear, therefore, that the man or nation that would retain liberty, or be really safe, must accept no formula as final—must trust in nothing written or unwritten, living or dead—must believe neither in special Jehovahs, nor weeping Saviours—neither in raging devils, nor in devilish philosophies—neither in ghosts, nor in idols, nor in laws—nor in woman, nor in man.

O threats of hell, and hopes of paradise,
One thing at least is certain—this life flies;
One thing is certain and all the rest is—lies,
The flower that once has bloomed forever dies.

Categories
Autobiography Friedrich Nietzsche Poetry

Crusade

against the Cross, 16

Can a book like Thus Spake Zarathustra, which I have heard of being recommended to high school kids to read, be a good book for our sacred words? I would say that if the System recommends it, it cannot be a good book, even though it sometimes says things so beautiful and profound that it is possible to quote it tersely.

In general, I don’t like Zarathustra for the same reason that I don’t like Mein Kampf: it cannot be read with the intensity of a novel that itches you to know the ending. For a book to be truly a work of art it is vital not only for its content to be germane but how it has been put together. While the content of the three volumes of The Gulag Archipelago is important, very few will read the trilogy because it is boring. It needed an editor to condense it into one, with Solzhenitsyn’s approval (as happened in real life), to make it both vital and aesthetic. Only then could I read it as if it was a highly entertaining novel! But it is still worth saying something about the book that would make Nietzsche famous.

This soul in sorrow was pregnant with ideas, pregnant with the sun (his Zarathustra begins with a hymn to the sun) and he gave birth to what he himself called ‘my son Zarathustra’. The eruption of feelings that motivated him to write, at the time of Richard Wagner’s death (Nietzsche sent a letter of condolence to Cosima), must be understood as the resolution of an intellectual crisis.

I never tire of repeating that his father and both his grandfathers were Lutherans; that his paternal grandfather was a Superintendent, the equivalent of a bishop, and that as a child Nietzsche was intensely pious. As he grew up, the hermit of Sils-Maria burst out of this iron pietism: a supernova-like explosion of feelings repressed during his upbringing, releasing the vital energy once locked up.

His translator, Hollingdale, makes a sharp observation about Nietzsche’s previous books. From the one he wrote on Schopenhauer onwards, they all led him to scepticism, not unlike the nihilism in vogue in the 19th century. This is one of the problems that contemporary racialists have detected: the loss of Christian faith doesn’t translate into, say, a scientific vision like those texts of Charles Darwin where he said that blacks, now considered an obsolete race of Homo sapiens, were to be exterminated. Instead, apostasy leads either to atheistic hyper-Christianity—the opposite of Darwin: negrolatry!—or to the nihilistic liberalism we complain so much about in the West’s darkest hour. In Nietzsche’s spiritual odyssey all his books, Hollingdale said, from the second of his Untimely Meditations to The Gay Science, he reached the end of the road: not axiological hyper-Christianity but nihilism. If Nietzsche had stayed there, let’s say as the typical 19th-century freethinker who so angered Wagner, he wouldn’t have gone down in the history of the great philosophers.

But he didn’t stay there. The pietistic armour that had imprisoned his spirit in a torment like that of the iron maiden had to fly into a thousand pieces. And this intellectual crisis gave birth to the religious figure of Zarathustra: a process begun in August 1881 when Nietzsche was assailed by the thought of the eternal return. It was then that he began to devise his philosophy of Amor fati without realising that, rather than in an iron maiden, he was locked in a sort of Russian doll. He blew up the first iron shell, yes: but he didn’t realise that it, in turn, was wrapped in another shell, insofar as Amor fati was but the post-theistic phase of ‘Thy will be done’, i.e. the phase without a personal god. In other words, with what Nietzsche calls in Zarathustra his ‘abysmal thinking’ we see that he was still a victim of the ogre of the pietistic superego.

To his astonishment, after having deluded himself that he would go to Bayreuth to ingratiate himself with all his old friends (remember the letter to his sister: ‘I no longer want to be alone and wish to learn to be a man again’), with Lou’s refusal he suddenly found himself on square one: alone. It is not surprising that Zarathustra begins with a hermit who wants to return to his village only to be mocked by the people, and has to return to his cave. The worst thing is that Nietzsche was to stay that way, alone, from the end of 1882 to the beginning of 1883.

In January of the latter year came the furious eruption: something which in my soliloquies I call the vindication of Id. Nietzsche underwent an inner transformation similar to those who suffer from colour blindness and are given special glasses so that they can see colours for the first time in their lives: they burst into tears. The tremendous eruption of feelings, thanks to which he was able to write the first part of Zarathustra, feelings so suppressed not only in Schulpforta but in the dense intergenerational atmosphere of clerics, would continue, later on, with the second and third parts: the latter even in a state of greater euphoria—the culmination of the book!—written in January 1884. The overman, the death of God, the will to power, Amor fati, the eternal return, the great noon: these were the intense colours that Nietzsche could at last see, so vivid that he couldn’t interrupt the weeping (by way of anticlimax, he would write the fourth part of Zarathustra at the end of 1884).

But the unconscious eruption of the central ideas of the Zarathustra had already been coming, as Hollingdale detectively surmised, from the earliest years of his life, albeit distorted and unrecognisably. Can you see, as I said to Thankmar this morning, why I try to protect myself from religious aggression (even horribler than Nietzsche’s Lutheran home) in a healthy way, instead of wayward defence mechanisms?

One of the reasons I generally dislike the book is that it suffers from the poets’ secrets that require the most erudite exegesis to unravel. For example, Werner Ross claims that the passage in Zarathustra that begins with ‘I saw his woman’ and then speaks of a ‘doll up lie’ and that ‘every time a saint and a goose mate’, when checked against Nietzsche’s letters he deduces that Elisabeth was the goose and Lou the doll up lie! And the same can be said of an important figure in Zarathustra: Ariadne. It is only thanks, years later, to the letters of madness that we discover that Ariadne was none other than Cosima Wagner! Why not state things clearly from the beginning, with the real names, as I do in my autobiography, instead of such esoteric circumlocutions that only the author understands?

In Thus Spake Zarathustra we see that Nietzsche’s alter ego didn’t offer his philosophy indiscriminately. First, he spoke to all the people gathered in the marketplace. But the death of God—the central theme of the first part—and the will to power are ideas that Zarathustra announces only to his disciples. And of the eternal return Zarathustra speaks exclusively to himself. Similarly, some chapters are narrative, others have a doctrinal character, and others of a lyrical nature represent the pinnacle of the work: oratory turned into music (a dozen years earlier Baudelaire had already created a new genre: poetic prose). Although in the second part of the book the central theme is the will to power, the final chapter of that part already brings to the fore, in a sinister manner, the revelation of the eternal return.

When studying the Zarathustra the reader must always bear in mind that the book is intended to be a shadow of the Lutheran translation of the Bible, known to Nietzsche in detail from the early years of his life, including Luther’s syntactical construction.

Zarathustra speaks again and again of the tablets of the law to be broken—Nietzsche even asked his publisher to put a black bar on each page to represent his new tablets of the law! The mixture of the biographical account of Zarathustra with doctrinal sentences was copied by Nietzsche from the Christian gospels, and it is not surprising that he wanted to elevate his Zarathustra to the status of holy scripture. In my humble opinion, writing a parable of his spiritual odyssey rather than a vindictive autobiography, with all the repudiation of the family that in the next century I would begin to write, was a preamble to the breakdown that had already been foreshadowed. In fact, this whole period from August 1881 to December 1888 may be regarded as the genesis of the wayward defence mechanism which, in January 1889, would burn out the mind of the alienated philosopher.

Moreover, the light we occasionally see in Zarathustra is not a light of dawn. It is a mere lightning light at midnight. It illuminates everything but only for a fraction of a second. Then the thickest darkness returns. But I would like to mention a snapshot of what the lightning illuminated.

After Kalki, the surviving Aryan will realise that the immeasurable universe wasn’t designed to visit it as the mad earthling of the 20th and 21st century fantasised, but to know himself to the extent of knowing the universe and the Gods. In the trillions of galaxies each intelligent species stays at home, on its own planet, given the impossibility of crossing those billions of light-years of distance with manned devices—a pointless enterprise because the men we would leave behind would remain forever inaccessible. These are the words I like best from Zarathustra: I love those who do not first seek behind the stars for a reason to go under and be a sacrifice, but who sacrifice themselves for the earth, that the earth may some day become the overman’s.

Hitler also said that over-humanity could only be achieved by the Aryan on Earth…

In the 1880s only Peter Gast, the enemy of the Church, became a kneeling apostle, and about Zarathustra he wrote to his mentor something the latter loved: ‘Of this book one must wish to spread it like the Bible’. Gast was unaware that this was impossible insofar as Nietzsche’s was an artificial religion; a true religion, as Savitri Devi tells us, comes into being only when it arises spontaneously from the collective unconscious (like National Socialism).

Nietzsche’s Zarathustrian defence mechanism was very similar to my own. When in the 1980s, a century after Nietzsche’s mental agony, I tried to exorcise my parental introjects I fell into the greatest hells because I didn’t yet realise—as Nietzsche’s Amor fati—that the mechanism I elaborated was also a kind of neo-theology inspired by New Testament stories. I have spoken at length about this in the last chapter of my Hojas Susurrantes and need not summarise it here.

When Nietzsche was buried, his friends surrounded his grave and recited some of Zarathustra’s poems.

Categories
Friedrich Nietzsche Philosophy Theology

Crusade

against the Cross, 15

Of French origin, although German was the family language, Lou Salomé’s Huguenot ancestors arrived in St Petersburg in 1810. Her father Gustav Salomé had a successful military career and was appointed inspector of the army by Tsar Alexander II. He later married Louise Wilm, of Danish descent, nineteen years younger. The marriage produced six children: after five boys, a cute girl who was named after her mother.

Louise (later called Lou) grew up in a male environment, just the opposite of Nietzsche, who grew up in a female environment after his father’s untimely death. Lou’s birth coincided with the day of the abolition of slavery in Russia. As liberalism—what we call neo-Christianity—claims more and more equality, the abolition of slavery was the antecedent of equal rights for women: an ideal that appeared early in Lou’s life. Thus, contrary to the rules of her time, the teenager refused to receive religious confirmation.

At the age of eighteen, Lou began her studies under the guidance of Pastor Hendrick Gillot, who had her study the philosophers. Thin, blonde, flirtatious and with deep blue eyes, Gillot soon fell in love with her, ready to leave his family to marry the precocious brat, but Lou rejected him outright and realised that she had to go abroad. Her mother decided to accompany her.

The first destination was Zurich, where Gottfried Kinkel, an apostle of women’s rights at universities, was teaching (the University of Zurich was the only university at the time that accepted women). Falling ill with a lung condition, Lou travelled to warmer climes in search of therapy, and with her mother came to Rome. Kinkel had recommended that they meet Malwilda von Meysenburg (Nietzsche’s very close friend), at whose house literary gatherings were held. In February 1882 Malwilda received the young Russian woman, who dressed sternly and never wore feminine ornaments. Paul Rée met her there and soon fell in love with her, but it occurred to both Rée and Malwilda to introduce Lou to Nietzsche.

He was then on one of his eternal healing journeys, always in search of a clear, cloudless sky, and had been to Messina. It is curious to note that when Nietzsche received Rée’s invitation, he replied with humour that indicated that he had overcome the depression that had led him to believe he would die at his father’s age: ‘I shall soon launch myself on the assault on her. —I need it in consideration of what I want to do for the next ten years’. He who yesterday was a candidate for death is now thinking of the great life!

When Nietzsche arrived in Rome he inquired where he could find Rée, and was told that he was visiting the Vatican. He went there to find him, who was with Lou, and asked them: ‘From which stars have we fallen to meet each other here?’ The retired professor was sixteen years older than Lou, who, at twenty-one, would soon captivate him with her feminine charms.

The ‘Trinity’, as the freethinkers Nietzsche, Rée and Lou called their alliance, had a problem: both father and son fell in love with the holy spirit, which would eventually arouse great jealousy on Nietzsche’s part, as they both made marriage proposals.

For Lou’s self-esteem—Rée bombarded her with letters—, it was in her interest to continue collecting men whose proposals she had rejected since her experience with her mentor Gillot. Thus, the following weeks and months passed with great sorrow for the lovers, who had never before faced such a woman. Nietzsche in particular, now almost in his forties, had fallen in love like an adolescent, so much so that he was now willing to go to Bayreuth if Lou would accompany him, and precisely at the premiere of Parsifal, even if it was a Christian play! Nietzsche would have given anything to travel with Lou to the premiere, and he wrote to his sister notifying her that he had regained his health, adding: ‘I no longer want to be alone and wish to learn to be a man again’. Elisabeth would meet Lou in Jena.

It is unnecessary to go into the details, but in discussing some of Nietzsche’s indecorous proposals, Elisabeth and Lou became deadly enemies—enemies, as only women can be to each other. Suffice it to say that the whole pathetic episode of Rée and Nietzsche’s falling in love, which separated the two friends, shows that this pair had no experience whatsoever with women, let alone liberated women. The philosopher who would preach that when a man goes out with a woman he should never forget the whip allowed himself to be photographed, literally, with a woman holding a whip behind him! Even in his amorous letters, the typical mistake of the inexperienced bachelor in his dealings with women is evident. Instead of being masculine, Nietzsche behaved like a supplicant bridegroom in search of the bride’s ‘yes’:

My dear Lou!

Sorry about yesterday!
A violent attack of my stupid headaches—today they have passed.
And today I see some things with new eyes.
At noon I’ll accompany Dornburg, but before that, we still have to talk for half an hour… yes?
Yes!
F.N.

It didn’t occur to the poorly pensioned man, clumsy and almost blind when he walked, that these weren’t ways of winning her over, least of all a woman of steel like Lou, brought up among Aryan men with connections in the army.

When Nietzsche would later become disappointed with Lou, he would write things like ‘frightfully repressed sensuality / delayed motherhood—due to sexual atrophy and delay’. Of course, at Schulpforta the children were never taught that male sexuality is literally a thousand per cent more intense than female sexuality, and perhaps Nietzsche believed that Lou’s sexuality wouldn’t be much different from his! Interestingly, in that list of Lou’s faults that Nietzsche noted, we read that one of them was that she was not ‘docile’.

Nietzsche had in mind not a new philosophical system but rather a new religion. And as a new religion that despised the weak and ennobled the strong, what he now needed was a new metaphysics and disciples, and in his fantasies he had designated Lou and Rée as the first. It didn’t occur to him that he was forcing things, that they both had their own goals in life. For example, the way he wanted to overcome the competition was incredibly clumsy. In Lebensrückblick (Life Review), Lou informs us that nothing had damaged her image of Nietzsche more than his attempts to demean Rée, and although the word wasn’t yet used, she blames him for lack of empathy: not realising that such a crude tactic was immediately detected as such.

Lou didn’t need Nietzsche. Nietzsche, the eternal bachelor whom Wagner had psychoanalysed well—to appease Eros the professor badly needed to get married!—did need Lou. Or rather, he didn’t need this liberated woman but one of the many ‘docile’ old-fashioned educated little women who at that time it wasn’t so difficult to ask for their hands. But the way Nietzsche wanted to pull her into his gravitational field was simply to imagine her as an apostle for his budding religion. In a letter to Overbeck, Nietzsche confessed: ‘At the moment—I don’t yet have a single disciple’. And in a missive to Malwilda, he clarifies: ‘By “disciple” I would understand a person who would swear an oath of unconditional fidelity to me—and for that, he would have to undergo a long period of trial and overcome difficult undertakings’.

The most sophisticated readers of Nietzsche’s work are unaware of his biography! It is very clear, from his own words, that he wanted to form a new cult. From this point of view the two scholarly, heavy treatises that Heidegger wrote about his favourite philosopher which begin with the lapidary sentence ‘Nietzsche, the name of the thinker attests to the content of his thought’ are rubbish! In the hundreds of pages that follow, Nietzsche the man is altogether missing, only his philosophical ‘insights’ are present!

Let’s not forget that Heidegger acknowledged to have read Luther. Much of the mission of the priest of holy words is to shake off the metaphysical cobwebs of the neo-theologians and to philosophise from the real world: the real biography of an Aryan man, the protection of his race and the analysis of his enemies.

It is more than significant that, before his death, the neo-theologian Heidegger claimed that philosophy had come to an end and that now ‘Only a God can save us’. He also claimed that for only a few months he had believed in National Socialism, and that during his ten months as rector of the University of Freiburg he refused NS orders to put up an anti-Jewry poster; to remove works by Jewish authors from the library, and to allow the burning of books at the university. But on one thing I agree with Heidegger: academic philosophy (i.e., neo-theology) is dead. The religion of sacred words must emerge, stripped now from all Christian vestiges, and not in the form of ontologies written in corrupted German.

Nietzsche wanted to create a religion very different from ours (the 14 and 4 words). In her Friedrich Nietzsche in seinen Werken, published when the philosopher was already mad, Lou would reveal juicy anecdotes that open a window into his mind. In their conversations, Nietzsche revealed to Lou that he wanted to spend a decade of his life studying the natural sciences in order to obtain a scientific basis for his theory of the eternal return! Lou adds: ‘Only after whole years of absolute silence did he intend… to appear among men as the master of the eternal return’. The following passage is key to understanding how Nietzsche wanted to drag Lou toward the dark side of the force so to speak, as if this woman was to become a sort of Sith apprentice in the wake of the philosopher’s terrible revelation:

Then he rose to take his leave, and as we stood on the threshold his features suddenly transformed. With a fixed expression on his face, casting fearful glances around him, as if a terrible danger threatened us should any curious person eavesdrop on his words, muffling the sound of his voice with a hand to his mouth, he announced to me in a whisper the ‘secret’ that Zarathustra had whispered into the ear of Life, to which Life would have replied: ‘Do you know, Zarathustra? No one knows’. There was something extravagant—indeed, sinister—in the way Nietzsche communicated to me ‘the eternal return of the identical’, and the incredible transcendence of this idea.

In Freemasonry, they speak of ‘The Great Secret’ that only the highest initiates can have access to. What Lou says was the great secret of the religion that Nietzsche now wanted to inaugurate.

That the pensioned philologist wanted to make a new religion out of such an idea is noticeable in that he even wanted to erase the fact that this idea was traceable to his readings of Heraclitus. Instead, he wanted us to believe that Zarathustra arrived at the great secret by himself. The critic of mysticism had himself fallen into the initiatory practices of the ancient Greeks. Recall that for the Pythagoreans some mathematical findings were to be hidden from the people. Only the initiated were qualified for this knowledge, such as the existence of the dodecahedron.

But Heraclitus was not Zarathustra. Nietzsche put something of his own into this doctrine since he didn’t want it to be merely an updating of the old one.

It is not the professional philosophers, like Heidegger et al, who get to the heart of the matter but the biographers, and sometimes the translators. If any scholars had to delve into the marrow of Nietzsche’s thought, it was his translators into English and Spanish: Reginald John Hollingdale (1930-2001) and Andrés Sánchez Pascual (1936-). It was precisely because of Sánchez Pascual’s translations that I began to read Nietzsche in 1976 when I was seventeen years old; translations accompanied by countless erudite footnotes, without which it would have been impossible for me to understand the obscure passages of Nietzsche’s legacy.

Hollingdale for his part made me see that Nietzsche had mixed what he had read in Schulpforta about Heraclitus with the ruthless Lutheran pietism with which he had been brought up—programmed, rather—: a mixture of Christian beatitudes with the terror of eternal damnation.

Let us remember what we have called on this site parental introjects, and that Nietzsche came from a family of theologians in both his father’s and his mother’s line. From his childhood, he had been imprinted with the idea of infinite individual responsibility in every personal affair, which would result in either reward or punishment. From this Nietzsche derived, according to R.J. Hollingdale, the idea of his new metaphysics. The question ‘Is this how you would do it an infinite number of times?’ or the imperative ‘Let us live in such a way that we wish to live again and live like this eternally!’ surpass even the categorical imperative of the other German philosopher whose Id had also been shattered by the bogeyman of the pietistic superego: Kant.

On the eternal return of the identical Nietzsche said that ‘a doctrine of this kind is to be taught as a new religion’, Zarathustra’s gospel. But even though it was a post-theistic religion, it was still in some ways the old one. This reminds me of what someone who was in Freemasonry once told me: that to enter that cult, the candidate was required to believe in the immortality of the human soul. In other words, it doesn’t matter that 19th-century Freemasons were rabid anti-clericals: they were still slaves to parental introjects (unlike Nietzsche, they even asked the novice to believe in the existence of God).

Hollingdale hit the nail. In his introduction to his translation of the Zarathustra, he interprets Nietzsche’s Amor fati as the Lutheran acceptance of life’s events as divinely willed, and the implication is that to hate our fate is blasphemous. For if in Lutheran pietism the events of life are divinely willed, it is impiety to wish that things should have turned out differently than they did.

Thus, the Nietzschean doctrine of eternal return was strongly influenced by Christian concepts of eternal life. Same song, different tune. When Hollingdale published a biography of Nietzsche, professor Marvin Rintala responded in The Review of Politics in January 1969 with a review saying that Hollingdale had failed to understand the essence of Pietist Lutheranism: ‘The great petition of the Lord’s Prayer is for Pietists “Thy will be done”.’ In his introduction to Penguin Books’ Thus spoke Zarathustra released after the biography of Nietzsche he had published, Hollingdale was honest enough to concede that he stood corrected, and writes: ‘This is much in line with the Christian origin of the conception of Zarathustra that I ought to have guessed even if I did not know it’.

Like the Freemasons, and despite the anti-clericalism that Nietzsche shared with them, none of them was free of the malware that our parents installed in our souls. With his Zarathustra, Nietzsche himself thus became a neo-theologian, and the same could be said of the much more recent New Age, and even of secular neo-Christianities as I have so often exposed on this site. There is always a neo-theological tail that drags even the most radical racialist into the abyss, as Balrog’s whip of fire dragged Gandalf into the bowels of the earth. Our mission is to cleanse these last vestiges of Christian programming, however recondite they may be hidden in the Aryan collective unconscious: something that can be done by fulfilling the commandment of the Delphic oracle, to know thyself (which is why I have written introspective autobiography).

But let us return to our biographee. By post, Nietzsche received a refusal from Lou, who went alone to Bayreuth where she had a great time and would even meet the great Wagner himself. (These were times when Nietzsche, for his part, was to receive the printing proofs of The Gay Science.) Never was he so close to despair and suicide as in the winter that followed his farewell to Lou. Eventually, this smart woman would write the novel Im Kampf um Gott (The Struggle for God). The central character is the son of a parish priest who falls in love with a girl…

‘Poor Nietzsche’—Wagner’s expression—didn’t impregnate Lou. But nine months after his amorous disaster, and in the greatest intoxication of Dionysian inspiration he ever suffered, he gave birth to his most beloved son, Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Like Dante who never savagely possessed the body of his Beatrice he coveted so much—which is what he really needed instead of terrorising the Aryan man with hellish nonsense—, Nietzsche thus transformed his tragicomic private life into the high flights of lyricism, pushing the expressive power of the German language to its limits like no other poet.

Categories
Israel / Palestine War!

Iran

In my post yesterday I highlighted in red an observation by Miguel Serrano about the two collective unconsciousness, and I complained that currently the white man’s soul is enslaved by the Jesus archetype and his commandment to love the enemy: a diametrically opposite archetype to that of the priest-warrior of Hinduism and Islam.

Although Serrano is no longer with us, it could be said that we share the same religion. The only thing I can add for the moment is that I hope the war between Iran and Israel that has just begun drags the usual suspects and reaches Kalki levels of destruction.

Amen.

Categories
Carl Gustav Jung Indo-European heritage

Miguel Serrano

The following is part of a 1994 interview conducted by Kerry Bolton with Miguel Serrano (original in Spanish, here):
 

You define yourself as an ‘Esoteric Hitlerist’. Please explain the term.

Hitler said that ‘whoever thinks that National Socialism is only a political movement doesn’t understand anything’. National Socialism was always Hitlerism, and Hitlerism always had an esoterical background. At the end of the 1930s and during the war years, it was not possible or convenient for this theme to be widely known. However, after the war and its apparent loss, there was no other way for Hitlerism than the esoteric development.

For me, Esoteric Hitlerism is being possessed by the archetypes of the collective unconscious, which the Greeks used to call Gods [emphasis by Editor]—among them Apollo, which is Wotan for the Germans and Vishnu or Shiva for the Hindus—and its development into the individual and collective souls of the actual Hitlerist warriors.

That means a new/old religion, with all of its rituals and myths which are necessary to discover or rediscover. Its central drama is the apparition on this earth of the person of Adolf Hitler, the last Avatar who came to produce this enormous storm of catastrophe to awake all those who are asleep and to open the New Age which will come after the Deluge. That is why we have started to count the beginning of the New Age after the birth of Hitler.

We are in the year 105.
 

How did you arrive at Hitlerism, both esoterically and exoterically?

I arrived at the exoteric Hitlerism from the political Left, very much impressed by the heroic death of the sixty-two young Chilean Nazi followers of my generation in 1938. During the War, I published a magazine in favour of the Axis, called La Nueva Edad (‘the New Era’) and suddenly I met some SS men and little later my Chilean Master, who revealed to me the secret roots of Hitlerism…
 

Does your esotericism imply any form of ritual or worship?

Yes, it does. We in Chile are the only ones who perform public ceremonies similar to those performed at the Congress of Nuremberg, like Autos sacramentales but now not in public anymore. The rituals can be performed in the Equinoxes and the solstices. Also, we use individual concentrations, sometimes in tiny groups…
 

To what extent does your esotericism relate to Jungian archetypes and the use of symbols such as runes?

The runes are significant magic symbols, but the code of their interpretation has been lost and its power is almost destroyed by the malicious vulgarisation made by the Jews. It is necessary to rescue them, as I did in my book Adolf Hitler, The Last Avatar. We must use some of them in our mental combat. However, it is not good to talk openly about all of this.
 

In what circumstances did you come to know Jung? We know that Jung recognised National Socialism as a resurgence of the Wotan ‘Shadow’ of the Germanic folk. Did Jung view the release of this archetype as a positive or a negative phenomenon?

In my book published in England and the US, C. G. Jung & Herman Hesse, A Record of Two Friendships, I explained the circumstances which brought me to meet Jung. He wrote the Foreword to my book The Visits of the Queen of Sheba.

I think that this Swiss professor knew better than anyone else in our time who Hitler really was. In the book of Professor McQuyre, Jung Speaking, published by Princeton University Press, three interviews of Prof. Jung on Hitler are reproduced. One is in The Observer of London, another in an American newspaper and the third in Radio Berlin, at the end of 1938. In these interviews, Jung stated that Hitler was possessed by the collective unconscious of the Aryan race. [Emphasis by Editor—Alas, today whites are literally possessed by the Jesus archetype!] This means that Hitler was the spokesman of the whole Aryan world…

Nevertheless, Jung was a cunning and opportunistic man, as I can see it today. When Hitler was in full power and National Socialism on top, Jung coined the term ‘Two collective unconscious’ [Emphasis by Editor], which was a lethal weapon against the Jews and the Freudians. After the war, this concept disappeared from his writings in such a way that today it is impossible to find it in his complete works. I have a book published in Argentina in 1939 under the name El Yo y el Inconsciente (‘Self and the Unconscious’) where it is explained. Moreover, Jung took a Jewish woman as a secretary.
 

What were the circumstances in which you came to know Ezra Pound? Pound is said to have repudiated his pro-fascist views towards the end of his life and to have regretted his former fascist associations. Is this true?

I met Ezra Pound for the first time in Venice. He was already mute at the time, but he broke his silence with me. I have told this in my book published in Spanish and German under the title Die Goldenen Band, and again in Adolf Hitler, el último Avatara. It is untrue that Pound regretted his pro-fascist views towards the end of his life. He didn’t speak or write at all, therefore he can’t have done this. I think he was in voluntary silence so that no one could force him to make an unwilling declaration. He once wrote: ‘Keep yourself to your old dreams so that our world will not lose hope’.
 

What were the esoteric currents behind the NSDAP and the Third Reich?

Hitlerism as Otto Rahn could say, was Luciferian (nothing to do with Satanism). Lucifer is the Morning Star and the Ruhne ‘Veneris’…
 

The National Socialist regime banned the Thule Society and other occult orders whose members had been involved with the founding of the NSDAP. Why were these orders banned? Did the Thulists and other occultists retain influence in the NS regime?

The Third Reich banned the Thule Society and other occult orders because there was much old nonsense in these clubs, as well as some connections with Freemasonic societies like the Golden Dawn…
 

Do you consider the SS to have been an esoteric order as some authors claim?

The SS was also influenced by the Templar Order, as Julius Evola said to me. There was an elite SS which was working with Tantrism. They didn’t have enough time to fulfil their conceptions. Anyhow, they tried hard to produce the Over-Man by using blood alchemy.
 

So you consider National Socialism to have been strictly a phenomenon arising to meet the needs of the 20th century, or to be more broadly part of an esoteric tradition?

There was an exoteric National Socialism until 1945. After this date, at the end of the war, what followed was the esoteric Hitlerism, which nobody will be able to stop now because it is the ‘constellation’ and revelation of an Archetype which was incarnated in the person of Adolf Hitler, who is immortal because of this fact. It is not a ‘fetishism’ to adore and be at the service of an Archetype. Quite the contrary, this means to be a founder or a warrior-priest of a new-old Religion.
 

How do you view Christianity in relation to National Socialism and fascism, considering many fascist leaders such as Leon Degrelle came to National Socialism from Catholicism?

Hitlerism and Christianity are completely opposed, as are Paganism and Christianity. Christianity has been completely spoiled by Judaism. My dearest friend and comrade Leon Degrelle had great doubts at the end of his life, I am afraid. And by special disposition asked to be cremated like Baldur. This was an Aryan decision and not a Christian one.
 

You are, I believe, a worshiper of Shiva. To what extent is National Socialism a reflection of Hindu cosmology as propounded, for example, by Savitri Devi?

Shiva is the same as Wotan. Both of them at the beginning were only heroes of the polar or hyperborean race, the embodiment of an Archetype. The legend has made them Gods. The first race had the power called odil, vril, which has now been lost. The task of the esoteric Hitlerists is to try to recover this power and become like Shiva or Wotan again: the Over-Man.
 

Do you consider history as cyclic, and if so, do you consider, like Oswald Spengler, the West to be in irreversible decline? Should we seek to ‘save the West’, or—as Nietzsche said—‘to push the falling’ so that something new might emerge?

We are now at the end of the cycle of the Kali-Yuga. It is like a harvest; the exact number of grains have matured and very few have done so. A new age will be about the Sun again in a New Earth, or the soul of the actual Earth. We struggle to save the soul of this Earth, and to avoid that she may perish along with everything else… The ‘acceleration of time’ will come even before what we can think or expect.
 

What role do you think Russia will take in future world affairs? Many liberals and Zionists are fearful of a ‘fascist’ takeover of Russia. Do you think it is likely?

I am always afraid of Russia; there is a seed of madness in this area of the world, surely because of the mixture of the Mongolian and yellow races. The ‘Charter of Charlotenburg’ envisaged for Russia a very serious and deep ethnic division: the Viking and German stock with Europe, and the rest with Asia, Mongolia and China. To have fascism and Nazism in Russia it is necessary to understand the racial problem. The prospect of an open Hitlerist resurgence after decades of propaganda seems remote.
 

How do you view the future of National Socialism? Will National Socialism emerge perhaps under another name and another symbol; or do you see Hitler and the swastika as enduring symbols, perhaps even archetypes with an enduring power of their own?

At this moment I cannot predict the prospect of a Hitlerist resurgence. The only thing that I can say is that I am always surprised that despite decades of brainwashing propaganda, young people are born again as Nazis and admirers of Hitler as if they were ‘reincarnated’ to follow the struggle on Earth. This gives me hope and new energy to continue with the fight.

Hitler and the swastika are enduring and eternal symbols, certainly archetypes with ‘enduring powers of their own’. The Archetype will do the world by itself, even without our best knowledge and beyond our will and our limited span of life. That is our hope, our belief and the only thing that I know.
 

The Chilean military junta was called ‘fascist’ but let in the global corporations and adopted the free market economics of Milton Friedman et al. How did you view the Junta?

The Junta was a disaster for Chile, as were all professional military. Hitlerism and Nazism are completely the opposite of a military dictatorship; Franco was a traitor who destroyed the Falange. General Vargas destroyed fascist ‘integralism’ in Brazil; Antonescu destroyed the Iron Guard in Romania; the military in Chile helped to kill the young Nazis in 1938, and Pinochet helped the Jews coming into Chile as well as Friedman’s liberal super-capitalism.

I was always openly against Pinochet’s regime, totally separating Hitlerism from his dictatorship. Hitlerism is a cosmogonic conception, a totalitarian and theocratic Weltanschauung, in opposition to the totalitarian and demoniac cosmogonic conception of the Jews.
 

What is your view of Islam which presently seems to be the only major force standing in the way of global consumerism and usury?

My view of Islam is not favourable at all. They are also a fanatic monotheistic people, and we are pagans and polytheists.
 

I have read that you have made references to Lucifer. How do you view Lucifer, and is there a connection between Luciferianism and Esoteric Hitlerism?

Yes, I am a Luciferian in the sense that Lucifer is the Morning Star, the ‘most beautiful light’, and the Morning Star is a God-Goddess, Venus. It is more than a planet, it is a comet that has stopped where it is now, to recall to men its divine and spiritual origin and to show them the way to recover it.
 

What is your opinion of ‘neo-Nazism’, which often seems to be influenced by a superficial American-style bigotry rather than a deeper European philosophy? What is your opinion of such neo-Nazi leaders as Lincoln Rockwell?

I will not speak badly of Rockwell. I think he was touched by the lightning of the Archetype and was killed to be reborn in the ‘Last Battalion’. His loyal follower Matt Koehl has been trying hard to keep some spark of the fire alive, even amid this superficial ‘American-style bigotry’.
 

What do you consider Man’s destiny to be? Nietzschean Over-Man? What about space colonisation as the ultimate expression of the Faustian soul?

There is no destiny for all of mankind, only for some. To recover their divinity, but not as ‘unconscious Gods’, but fully conscious, as a total man, in the sense of Jungian ‘individuation’: a God conscious of himself which is only possible to achieve on this Earth. To obtain this is the meaning of Esoteric Hitlerism.
 

Parting word:

I want to express to the young comrades in England, Australia, and New Zealand and the English- and German-speaking world at large, that none of these things will be obtained if we don’t give a synchronistic battle also in the physical world against the Great Enemy, even at the risk of losing our mortal life.

In this, we have a common ideal with the Muslims, who think to die in battle to reach the Heaven of Allah. We believe that if we are killed or murdered for our ideals we will come to Walhalla, where Wotan and our Walkiria will give us, centuplicated, all of that which we were unable to achieve in our warrior life on Earth—but only if we are real Esoteric Hitlerist Warriors!

Categories
Exterminationism God Kali Yuga

Moloch = Yahweh


In the seminal essay ‘The Red Giant’ a Swede said:

Secular Christianity has thrown out god and Christ, but keeps the Christian ethics (inversion of values etc.). And the Christian ethics actually gets heightened and unfettered in Secular Christianity (I have written much about that in my blog). With Christ as part of the equation, the Christian ethics of the Gospels became balanced. Humans were seen as imperfect and it was Christ who covered for us with his self-sacrifice. In Secular Christianity each person has to be like Jesus himself, doing self-sacrifice, since there’s no other way to realize Christian ethics. On top of that, with the Industrial Revolution and the surplus it created in our societies, we came to the point where all the good deeds of Christian ethics could finally be executed by giving off our surplus to all the poor and weak foreign people around the world: food, Western medicine, and other aid.

And on pages 131ff of my Day of Wrath I introduced my readers to psychohistory, which includes this paragraph:

The culture that the Europeans brought included family violence. But unlike them, in the conquered people the anxieties that the children arose, based in turn on the abuses the natives had suffered as children, were enough to kill the source that triggered the anxiety. Children have been in the garbage bin where the adults dump the unrecognised parts of their psyches. It is expected that the child bin will absorb the ill moods of his custodians to prevent the adult feels overwhelmed by her anxieties. If I murder the soul of my son I thus kill the naughty child that once inhabited me.

The Aryan neo-Christian, after WW2, always prefers self-sacrifice to his race. That is the defence mechanism that kills the source that triggered his anxiety after WW2 propaganda took hold of his psyche. He always chooses this new Moloch who used to make self-sacrifice by roasting his firstborn alive rather than perpetuating his race openly (perpetuating as the Germans of the Third Reich did).

Why do they make this sacrifice? Because their false self was structured with the new foundational myth after that war. But why this dominance of the false self if the white man before WW2 had a reasonable self-image? Why today’s zeitgeist always throws away the Aryan, sacrifices, annihilates and denies him and chooses the anti-Nazi fiction that covers the collective unconscious today?

Because the false self that virtually every Aryan has installed today is a Semitic malware, a parental deity in the collective unconscious since Constantine but only now fully triumphed. It is a Moloch that demands a tribute of Aryan blood, and the Aryans, including the white nationalists who continue to worship the god of the Jews, offer this blood constantly. (Remember that these nationalists are completely unable to distinguish between mudblood and Aryan precisely because of the Semitic malware that has taken hold of them.) And this Semitic Moloch demands not just one but an infinity of sacrifices, and won’t be satiated until the extinction of the white man is accomplished.

It all originated with our stupid Christian parents installing this Semitic malware in our psyches from our early childhoods. Secular liberalism in its Wokist phase is a missionary religion, like that of the Jew Saul (St Paul). Both Jewry and white Wokery try to convert others to sacrifice Aryan blood to this new Moloch and even the followers, once they fall into this cult, are sacrificed as they will leave no white offspring. Everything is done to fulfil the unquenchable, voracious thirst of this new Moloch whose strength is none other than the post-WW2 foundational myth.

This false self is the new God of the white man. It is the religion of the second part of the 20th century and the first part of the 21st century. It is a new divinity. The Aryan has to sacrifice himself to this new voracious God: sacrifice his true self. It is a human sacrifice: the false self (Wokism) replaces the true self (Nazism), and a new covenant is sealed between the Aryan and the Semitic god who wants to exterminate him. That covenant is perfectly antithetical to the covenant between the Semitic god and Abraham, who promised him and his descendants that their offspring would be as abundant as the stars (the old covenant). From the moment of the new covenant a religion was created: the religion of exterminating the Aryan on the initiative of the Aryan himself who always obeys the god of the Jews, including white nationalists.

Wokism (i.e. atheistic hyper-Christianity), I said, is a missionary religion. They try to convince you, Aryan man, that it is your duty to disappear from the face of the earth. Like the Muslims during their first conquests, they give you two choices: submit to the new religion or die.

When I first entered the forums supposedly defending the West from the invasion of migrants, I encountered a non-Jew counter-jihadist Christian who believed that Jewish tradition was the antidote to this Moloch claimant. False. As I wrote in Day of Wrath:

In the past, the shadow of infanticide covered the world, but the Phoenicians and their biblical ancestors, the Canaanites, performed sacrifices that turn pale the Mesoamerican sacrifices of children.

The Tophet, located in the valley of Gehenna, was a place near Jerusalem where it is believed that children were burned alive to the god Moloch Baal. Later it became synonymous with hell, and the generic name ‘tophet’ would be transferred to the sacrificial site of the cemetery at Carthage and other Mediterranean cities like Motya, Tharros and Hadrumetum, where bones have been found of Carthaginian and Phoenician children.

According to a traditional reading of the Bible, stories of sacrifice by the Hebrews were relapses of the chosen people to pagan customs. Recent studies, such as Jon Levenson’s The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son: The Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity have suggested that the ancient Hebrews did not differ much from the neighbouring towns but that they were typical examples of the Semitic peoples of Canaan. The cult of Yahweh was only gradually imposed in a group while the cult of Baal was still part of the fabric of the Hebrew-Canaanite culture. Such religion had not been a syncretistic custom that the most purist Hebrews rejected from their ‘neighbour’ Canaanites: it was part of their roots.

The god of the Jews, the god of the Carthaginians and Phoenicians, the god who sacrificed Jesus, is ultimately the same odious thing. What we really need is an infinite hatred of all things Semitic, starting with Judeo-Christianity: the Trojan horse that brought this infection into our collective unconscious.

Categories
Roger Penrose

AI and NS

Interacting with a computer with a voice doesn’t mean that we are looking at a generation of Artificial Intelligence (AI) that is taking steps towards becoming a conscious entity, say, like HAL 9000 from Kubrick’s film (I recently saw again 2001: A Space Odyssey on Blu-ray).

I recently said that Alfredo Jalife is the only one talking on Mexican social media about the JQ. Yesterday I watched a programme by Jalife, who speaks Arabic, where he mentioned how much the pro-Zionist media in Mexico hides about the Gaza conflict. In the same way, the System constantly bombards us with false information about science. Those who are under the impression that what the System calls AI is similar to HAL 9000 or the boy David of the Spielberg-Kubrick production film A.I., should watch the videos of Roger Penrose, of whom I have already spoken more than once on this site and even read one of his books. Having cleared that up, I would like to comment on a few things in Gaedhal’s recent communiqué:

Someone posted on Linkedin concerning AI diversity. That person had a number of grievances against AI. One of the grievances was that AI was too atheistic. AI should be representative of ‘all humanity’. If only 23% of the planet is atheistic, then AI should reflect this. However, in my view, AI is simply practising Methodological Naturalism. The non-theistic answer, as per Ockham’s razor, is always more parsimonious than any theistic answer. This is why Hitchens is correct in saying that to understand Ockham’s razor is to end religion.

But it is here that we see the tremendous power of total autobiography and a one hundred percent Aryan religion, with its injunction to know thyself in order to know the universe and the Gods (something that today’s Christian commenter on this site still fails to understand).

The point is that when one gets into the depths of one’s psyche through decades of introspection, retrospection and sorting through all the rough autobiographical material in ordered books, it becomes more than clear that religion, and the notion of a personal god, are parental introjects.

We are not like the fictional HAL 9000. The human is not a Homo sapiens sapiens but Homo sapiens fidelius, as is more than clear from the mutually exclusive worldviews held by man in so many different cultures. Even atheists are not sapiens sapiens but sapiens fidelius because their psyche is imbued with a religious egalitarianism that is nothing but malware inherited from Christianity. Only he who really knows himself can be said to be Homo sapiens sapiens. The rest of humanity is at the stage of blind faith in the face of parental and social programming: something that atheists like Hitchens never realised. Gaedhal continues lecturing us about Occam’s razor:

Why don’t the dead visit us after they die? One can multiply entities to explain why our loved ones would move heaven and earth to communicate with us on Earth, and why, after they die, and move on to post-mortem felicity, all we get is radio silence. In the words of William Lane Craig ‘moves can be made’ to explain both an afterlife and the total silence of our loved ones after death. However, the explanation with the least moves made is simply that there is no afterlife. And again, I am not a pure atheist. I am not a strict materialist. I hope against human hope that there might be some sort of afterlife. However, I can hope for whatever I want. Hope is an evolved survival mechanism. What I hope for, and what is evident are two separate things. The fact is that the most parsimonious explanation for why we don’t hear from our loved ones after death is because there is no afterlife.

And so when AI is asked a question, the most parsimonious answer will always be non-theistic. This might be ‘warmed over Humeanism’, however, once we begin to multiply entities then there is no logical stopping point to this. I was on Wikipedia, and I got the sense that it is an epistemic mystery why the simplest explanation is the most probable explanation. However, one way to demystify this a little is, if we add one explanatory entity needlessly… then why not two? Does the warpage of space-time explain gravity best or do the noodly appendages of the Flying Spaghetti Monster pressing everything down best explain it—the ‘theory’ of intelligent falling. Once we begin to ‘make…’ needless Craig-ian ‘moves’ then there is no logical stopping point between adding one needless explanatory entity and The-Flying-Spaghetti-Monster-dunnit.

And besides: this isn’t even true. I was asking Bing AI about the Trinity, and it informed me that certain ideas about the Trinity are ‘heretical’. An atheistic AI would not say such a thing. An atheistic AI would laugh at the nonsensical notion of a Trinity of gods. There are no ‘correct’ or ‘incorrect’ views of the Trinity. ‘Trinity’ is an Orwellian word. Trinitas in Latin means ‘three-one-ness’. However, if something is three then it cannot be one. If something is one, then it cannot be three. ‘Trinity’ is as Orwellian a concept as ‘black-whiteness’ or positive-negativity’ etc.

Once again: precisely because what the deceptive System calls AI has no more conscience than a washing machine, but is a sort of encyclopaedia of accepted knowledge, it can only regurgitate what humans programmed into it. It’s true that Penrose’s seminal book on this subject, The Emperor’s New Mind (i.e., it’s a collective illusion that computers have minds), contains a lot of mathematics but I am surprised that a Nobel laureate like him can explain his ideas in such a didactic and comprehensible way in his YouTube videos.

However, as I said before, wokeness such as this is atheistic hyperchristianity. There are always more and more lowly specimens of humanity to exalt. There are always ‘oppressors’ out there who must be humbled. That Marxist Hymn, the Magnificat, has simply been secularised. Even the thoughts of AI must be policed. Even AI must not commit adultery of the heart. Even AI must treat the first as last and the last as first. But does wringing one’s hands about the lack of diversity in AI really make the lives of the disadvantaged any more tolerable? The perceived lack of diversity in AI seems like a very boutique thing to be ‘sore vexed’ in one’s spirit, about.

And again: there are real issues with things like predatory capitalism and there are real dangers to AI. There are people being exploited and abused out there. However, in my view, the perceived bias towards atheism in AI is neither a problem nor a danger. Bing AI, at present, just seems to be a glorified search engine, and search engines, as we well know, are way way way too skewed and biased towards theism and apologetics. When I was asking AI about what the belief that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost were each a third of God called, AI listed its sources. Apologetics websites, and even a Fatima-extremist Catholic website were its sources. If anything, AI is way too biased in favour of theism and Christianity in particular.

One of the reasons why, although Hitler endowed us with the best worldview ever devised, I do not use the term National Socialism to describe myself is because National Socialism had two facets: the exoteric, in which Providence was spoken of in a Christian sense, and the esoteric, where Hitler manifested his pantheistic ideas to his inner circle.

This double facet of National Socialism, necessary in the Germany of the last century, is no longer necessary now since, although many whites remain Christians, none of us has political power as Hitler did. In other words, it is time to talk about the esoteric facet of Hitler’s legacy repudiating the exoteric one since if the Aryan doesn’t wake up to the truth about Christianity (which includes the egalitarian scale of values that atheists like the late Hitchens have maintained), he will become extinct.

I call myself a priest of sacred words because it is time to dismiss the exoteric facet (say, American white nationalism) and promulgate the esoteric side of Hitler’s legacy. If I used the term ‘National Socialist’, a reader of Mein Kampf or the Führer’s public speeches could point out to me quite a few quotes in which Hitler appears to be a Christian. In fact, some years ago Mark Weber made a collection of those religious quotes, omitting what Hitler told to his inner circle of his friends.

Categories
Autobiography

Trifold sheet

In my post on Tuesday, I linked to a leaflet, ‘Introducing the New Order,’ from which I barely quoted a few words. But other words are so accurate, concerning the new religion that should cover the whole West, that I can’t resist quoting them. In the first paragraphs, we read:

The New Order is a unique and unusual concept.

It is a National Socialist vanguard organization that is simultaneously a revolutionary idea, a spiritual faith, and a great historic movement.

The program of the New Order is summarized in its name. Our goal is nothing less than a whole new dispensation on Earth—a regenerate New Order—to replace the present Old Order, which stands for everything corrupt, decadent, degenerate, unnatural and diseased in this world.

As its antithesis, the New Order represents a call for a great awakening in the spirit of our Race, a rebirth of natural values in human affairs, and for nothing less than a whole new way of life, a whole new folk, a whole new culture, and a new type of man.

In the central part of the triptych, we can read:

A Community of Faith. We are first of all a spiritual community, a community of belief representing the most sacred Cause of all time—a Cause consecrated by the blood sacrifice of tens of thousands of heroes and martyrs as well as that of the author of the faith himself. It is the first task of this community to furnish the spiritual foundations for the coming New Order and for a great new age on Earth.

And on the other side of the page, we read that the New Order represents a continuation of the struggle for a new world that began in 1919, referring to Adolf Hitler’s initial efforts. After a few sentences, George Lincoln Rockwell is mentioned and also the year 1959 (when, by the way, I was already in this world). Then it is mentioned that Matt Koehl took up the torch in 1967 after Rockwell was assassinated; and after more explanatory words the date 1983 is mentioned, when the New Order replaced the old name of the organisation. This is followed by a sentence that I liked:

Participation in the activities of the New Order is through invitation only… The road to membership is not easy. It begins with a personal decision to devote one’s life and one’s destiny to the sacred cause of Adolf Hitler and the National Socialist struggle for our Race above every other consideration.

Finally, almost at the conclusion we can read:

You can start to build the New Order of Adolf Hitler in your own life today.

The first step is to sever all emotional ties to the Old Order and all of its corruption. The second step lies in embracing the vision and ideals of the New Order. The third step is to commit yourself to live in accordance with your National Socialist convictions today.

Not only do will you experience a personal renewal which gives your life real purpose, meaning and value, but you discover your identity as a “fragment of the future”…

The printed material, including this trifold sheet, can be requested by mail (I think only on payment of the postal charge). After what happened to Eduardo Velasco, the Spaniard who disappeared together with his site Evropa Soberana, it seems to me that those who have National Socialism as their religion should belong to this organisation.

Categories
Hitler's Religion (book) 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
God Hans F. K. Günther Hitler's Religion (book) Martin Bormann Nordicism Richard Weikart Roger Penrose

Hitler’s Religion: Chapter 8

Editor’s Note: We will now read excerpts from ‘Who was Hitler’s Lord?’, the eighth chapter of Hitler’s Religion by Richard Weikart:
 

______ 卐 ______

 

One of the most famous quotations from Hitler’s Mein Kampf is, “Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.” Some construe this to mean Hitler believed in the Christian God and saw his war fighting against Jews as part of a religious battle that had been waged for centuries. Even though Hitler did not overtly appeal to Christianity in this statement, his use of the terms “Almighty Creator” and “Lord” would have been understood by many of his contemporaries (and those who currently ignore Hitler’s many anti-Christian utterances) as the Christian God. Anti-Semites in the Catholic or Protestant churches would have applauded him for doing “the work of the Lord.”

Nonetheless, there are major problems with suggesting that this statement indicates Hitler’s Lord was the Christian God. The aim of Hitler’s anti-Semitism—the “Lord’s work” he thought he was doing—was radically different from the goal of traditional Christian anti-Semitism (as mentioned in chapter six). The context itself suggests Hitler had some other kind of God in mind. Hitler was fulminating against the “Jewish doctrine of Marxism,” which he thought “rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature.” In the sentence immediately preceding his famous quotation about doing the work of the Lord, Hitler stated, “Eternal Nature inexorably avenges the infringement of her commands.” Four important points emerge from this. First, Hitler personified nature in this passage, ascribing to it characteristics that would normally be associated with God. Second, Hitler called nature eternal. If he thought nature existed forever, as this statement indicated, then the God he believed in could not have created nature sometime in the past. Thus Hitler’s God was not even a deistic, much less a theistic, God. The “Almighty Creator” he mentioned in the following sentence could not have created nature, making it highly probable that Hitler’s “Creator” was nature. Third, Hitler believed that nature’s commands defined morality, since he claimed nature issues commands…

Thus, the “Lord” on whose behalf Hitler was fighting the Jews was none other than nature deified. Samuel Koehne seems to agree with this interpretation, stating in a recent article, “At times he [Hitler] conflated this ‘divine will’ and ‘Nature,’ or the ‘commands’ of ‘Eternal Nature’ and the ‘will of the Almighty Creator.’” When Hitler called nature eternal in Mein Kampf, this was not just a slip of the pen (or typewriter). He referred to nature as eternal on several occasions throughout his career…

I am not, of course, the first person to conclude Hitler was a pantheist. In 1935, a religious commentator George Shuster placed the dominant German religious beliefs in the 1930s into five categories: Catholicism, Lutheranism, Judaism, neo-pantheism, and negativity toward religion. Though Hitler was influenced by the first two, his deepest cravings evinced pantheism, according to Shuster. Pius XI did not specifically mention Hitler in his encyclical Mit brennender Sorge, but he did combat therein the “pantheistic confusion” he saw in Nazi ideology. Shortly after World War II, the German theologian Walter Künneth interpreted Hitler’s religion as a form of apostasy from Christianity. He argued that when Hitler used terms like God, Almighty, and Creator, as he was wont to do, he redefined these terms in a pantheistic direction. Künneth stated, “In proper translation Hitler meant by ‘Creator’ the ‘eternal nature,’ by ‘Almighty’ and ‘Providence’ he meant the lawfulness of life, and by the ‘will of the Lord’ he meant the duty of people to submit themselves to the demands of the race.”

Robert Pois argues not only that Nazism advocated a religion of nature, but that it was central to the Nazi project. Their “religion was one which could and did serve to rationalize mass-murder,” he asserts. He only spends a few pages discussing Hitler’s own religious views, but he does portray Hitler as a pantheist who exalted “pitiless natural laws” above humanity. “What Hitler had done,” according to Pois, “was to wed a putatively scientific view of the universe to a form of pantheistic mysticism presumably congruent with adherence to ‘natural laws.’” In Pois’s view, Hitler’s pantheistic perspective was part of the Nazi revolt against the Christian faith and its values. Hitler “had virtually deified nature and he most assuredly identified God (or Providence) with it.” Pois might overstate the role played by the “religion of nature” in the Nazi Party, but he does demonstrate that it was not uncommon. André Mineau argues that the SS was inclined toward pantheism, stating, “The SS view of religion was a form of naturalistic pantheism that had integrated the biological paradigm.”

A number of other scholars who have analyzed Hitler’s religion concur it was pantheistic… Thomas Schirrmacher, in the most extensive and thorough analysis of Hitler’s religion to date, emphasizes the anti-Christian character of Hitler’s theology. However, Schirrmacher interprets Hitler as a non-Christian monotheist, specifically rejecting the idea that Hitler was a pantheist or deist. Oddly, however, Schirrmacher admits Hitler used the terms God, Almighty, and Creator synonymously with the rule of nature and the laws of nature.

Before I explain Hitler’s pantheistic religion in greater depth, it is important to understand that pantheism was an influential religious perspective in German-speaking lands (and elsewhere in Europe) before and during Hitler’s time. By the early twentieth century, two forms of pantheism had emerged, which I will call mystical pantheism and scientific pantheism. Mystical pantheists believed that the cosmos had a mind or will that was supreme, while scientific pantheists stressed determinism, i.e., the strict rule of natural laws. According to scientific pantheism, the laws of nature are an expression of the will of God and thus inescapable and ironclad. Mystical pantheism disagreed with this view, denying that science could fathom the mind of the universe. Mystical pantheism sometimes had affinities or even overlapped with animism, polytheistic nature-gods, or occultism. Scientific pantheism, on the other hand, shared similarities with atheism…
 

______ 卐 ______

 

Editor’s note

This is central to understanding what I call the religion of holy words, and only those philosophers who have speculated in astrophysical mysteries, as Roger Penrose has done, would understand anything. I mean how the beauty of the alphabet with which God created the universe (mathematics), to quote Galileo, is related to the beauty of Nature and the Aryan race in particular.

To defend Aryan beauty is to defend the emerging God that is being born with the pure, unpolluted Aryans, as can also be seen in this new series of images on European beauty that I have started in the new incarnation of this site. He who doesn’t feel beauty to the extent of wanting to preserve it, has not been initiated into the mysteries of our religion.

Weikart continues:

______ 卐 ______

 

Some forms of anti-Semitism in the late nineteenth century favored pantheism as an antidote to the supposedly Jewish features of monotheism. For instance, Eduard von Hartmann, who is sometimes regarded as a forerunner of Freud because of his philosophizing about the unconscious, promoted pantheism as a replacement for Christianity in 1874. He believed Christianity was in its death throes. Hartmann was a popularizer of Schopenhauer’s philosophy, though he blended it with Schelling’s pantheism. Hartmann praised pantheism as the original religion of the Aryans, while denigrating monotheism as an inferior Semitic religion…

(The NS regime honored the German Darwinian biologist and pantheist Ernst Haeckel by including his portrait in the 1936 “Exhibition of Great Germans” in Berlin.)

Another early twentieth-century figure who shared many affinities with Hitler’s religious views was Hans F. K. Günther, whom Hitler admired for his writings on Nordic racism. Hitler was so enthusiastic about Günther’s work that he pressed Wilhelm Frick to appoint him to a professorship in social anthropology at the University of Jena in 1930, and Hitler attended his inaugural lecture. When Hitler instituted a Nazi Party Prize for Art and Science at the 1935 Nuremberg Party Rally, he bestowed the first prize for science on Günther. In 1934, Günther discussed Nordic religion in his book Piety of a Nordic Kind. (The copy of this book that I examined was owned by the Adolf Hitler School, an elite Nazi educational institution, so, clearly the Nazis approved of this work.) In this book, Günther examined the religiosity of the Indo-Germanic people, not the specific content of their religions, yet he admitted that pantheism or some kind of mysticism is more compatible with Nordic religious inclinations than theism is. Like Hitler, he believed that the world is eternal, and he dismissed as an “Eastern” invention the idea that God created the world (“Eastern” likely meant Jewish in this context—it clearly was not referring to South or East Asian religions.) He also denied body-soul dualism, the need for redemption, and the existence of an afterlife, claiming instead that true religion should focus on this world…

Martin Bormann’s outspoken pantheistic views also seem similar to Hitler’s religion, and though he probably did not influence Hitler, he was able to disseminate his views to other Nazi Party leaders. In June 1941, Bormann, the head of the Nazi Party apparatus and one of the most powerful figures in the final four years of the Third Reich, issued a statement on the relationship between National Socialism and Christianity to all the Gauleiter. He told them that Nazis do not understand God as a human-like being sitting somewhere in the cosmos, but rather as the vastness of the universe itself. He continued,

“The force which moves all these bodies in the universe, in accordance with natural law, is what we call the Almighty or God. The assertion that this world-force can worry about the fate of every individual, every bacillus on earth, and that it can be influenced by so-called prayer or other astonishing things, is based either on a suitable dose of naiveté or on outright commercial effrontery.”

Bormann then equated morality with the laws of nature, which are the will of God. Though Rosenberg was critical of Bormann’s style, even he noted the content of Bormann’s missive was similar to Hitler’s ruminations during his Table Talks.

Bormann also equated God with nature in his private correspondence. In February 1940, he wrote to Rosenberg and encouraged him to help develop a handbook of moral instruction for the youth, so they could replace religion classes with moral education. One of the moral laws that Bormann wanted included was “love for the all-ensouled nature, in which God manifests himself even in animals and plants”…

When we examine Hitler’s religious statements in depth, we find that he often expressed views of nature and God that seem closer to pantheism than to any other religious position. Also, his friends and associates noticed that he had an extremely intense love of nature. His boyhood friend August Kubizek noted that Hitler loved nature “in a very personal way. He viewed nature as a whole. He called it the ‘Outside.’ This word from his mouth sounded so familiar, as though he had called it ‘Home’”…

Wagener also recalled Hitler discussing the celebration of Christmas. After noting that Christmas had originated as a pagan ceremony at the time of the winter solstice, Hitler indicated his approval for celebrating Christmas, but not in honor of Jesus’s birth. He asked, “Now, why shouldn’t our young people be led back to nature?” He hoped that Christmas festivities could lead children away from the church and “into the great outdoors, to show them the powerful workings of divine creation and make vivid to them the eternal rotation of the earth and the world and life.” He desired the Hitler Youth to introduce Christmas traditions in which “the young people should be led back to nature, they should recognize nature as the giver of life and energy. It is only in the freedom of nature that a human being can also open himself to a higher morality and a higher ethic.” Thus, Christmas Hitler-style would draw young people away from the church while fostering veneration for nature as the highest entity…

In a monologue in February 1942, Hitler discussed his plans for the observatory and planetarium he wanted to erect near his former hometown of Linz, Austria, which he intended to turn into a cultural capital of his Third Reich. Perched on a hill above Linz, the planetarium would replace the Catholic baroque pilgrimage church currently located there.

The church —this “temple of idols,” Hitler called it—would be torn down to make way for the observatory, which would become a Nazi pilgrimage site. The slogan on the observatory would read, “The heavens proclaim the glory of the Eternal One.” Hitler dreamed of tens of thousands of visitors flowing through this planetarium every Sunday, so they could comprehend the immense vastness of the universe. Thus Sunday would be a time to venerate nature, not the Christian God. Hitler hoped this contemplation of nature would instill in Germans a kind of religiosity that would replace the “superstition” of the churches.

He wanted people to be religious, but in an anticlerical (pfaffenfeindlichen) fashion. “We can do nothing better,” he said, “than to direct ever more people to these wonders of nature.” At the observatory, Hitler thought, people could learn, “A person can comprehend this and that, but he cannot dominate nature; he must know that he is a being dependent on the creation.” Hitler envisioned this observatory and planetarium as the new temples for the worship of nature. He was so serious about building the observatory that he had one of his favorite architects, Professor Gieseler, begin drawing up plans for it in 1942.

Another way that Hitler endowed nature with the attributes usually associated with God was by portraying it as the source of morality. In Mein Kampf, Hitler argued humans can never master nature but have to submit to its laws. An individual

“… must understand the fundamental necessity of Nature’s rule, and realize how much his existence is subjected to these laws of eternal fight and upward struggle. Then he will feel that in a universe where planets revolve around suns, and moons turn about planets, where force alone forever masters weakness, compelling it to be an obedient slave or else crushing it, there can be no special laws for man. For him, too, the eternal principles of this ultimate wisdom hold sway. He can try to comprehend them; but escape them, never.”

Nature dictates moral and social laws to humans, just as it controls the physical laws of the universe. Hitler reiterated this theme of nature being the source of morality several times in Mein Kampf, including passages discussed earlier in this chapter…

According to Hitler’s secretary Christa Schroeder, Hitler often discussed religion and the churches with the secretaries. She testified, “He had no kind of tie to the church. He considered the Christian religion an outdated, hypocritical and human-ensnaring institution. His religion was the laws of nature.” Schroeder confirmed what seems obvious from reading through Hitler’s monologues: he rejected Christianity and worshipped nature…

Hitler had little or no reason to pose as a pantheist, because this would not have appealed to a very large constituency. However, he had very strong political reasons to pose as a believer in a more traditional kind of God. Savvy politician that he was, he wanted to appeal to Germans of all religious persuasions, so he used more traditional God-language to win popular support. This is consistent with his own statements about the relationship between religion and propaganda, and it squares with what we know about his hypocritical use of Christian themes.

Another strong possibility is that Hitler’s view of God was not pantheistic, but panentheistic. Friedrich Tomberg argues this, claiming that Hitler embraced a panentheism that believed “everything is in nature, but nature is in God.” This would allow Hitler to equate nature with God, because panentheists see nature as divine. However, they also see God as having an existence beyond nature, too. A panentheist could construe God as intervening in history in some ways, though usually not in miraculous events. This could correspond roughly with the way Hitler described God blessing or favoring the German Volk.