“Hatred is a gift placed in our hearts by the
Gods to protect what we love—embrace it!”
Himmler affirms that Christianity was an obstructive relic that historically prevented a solution to the Jewish—and racial—problems.
“Today we are burdened by the questions of denominations, the church and Christianity. The Jewish question is no longer discussed today. And yet people used to ask themselves: Can a Jew who has become a Christian be treated so badly? Because of this religious bias, for a long time it was believed that the diversity (differences) of the races could not be recognised.
All of that is over for you today, but don’t think that means you have less important tasks.”
“The first time I wore a fine linen chiton,” writes The Hellenist, “decades of trauma from wearing profane democracy clothes were instantly purged from my weary spirit. Virtue begins with clothing and ends in justice.”
Part of the transvaluation of all values will even involve changing our clothing, in the sense that we will no longer dress as Christians or atheist neochristians do now.
The ancient Romans, heirs to the culture of ancient Hellas, called integrity probitas. This leads to maturity of judgment, consilium. Let us be virtuous in our thinking in order to reach maturity:
Do you really believe that if the ancient Spartans had conquered the American continent, you would now have a philosemite president north of the Rio Grande (or the abject miscegenation with Native Americans south of that river that contaminated the Iberian blood forever)?
Since our hypothetical American Spartans wouldn’t have betrayed their Gods to worship a Semitic god, this is my question to white nationalists: Do you sincerely believe that these American Greeks, with a collective unconscious never conquered by the Bible, would have rolled out the red carpet for the Hebrews (as so many Zionist Christians do now)?
Reconquering your lands, once of the Aryans, begins with an internal jihad: probing within oneself, with due probitas, these kinds of questions.
The NS Worldview rejects Christianity as racially universalist and fundamentally foreign to the Germanic way of life.
The Christian fundamental laws, which were forcibly imposed on the Germanic people, stand in stark contrast to the Nordic-Germanic worldview. The Church teaches the equality of all people. It also puts this into practice within its sphere of influence. Anyone can become a Christian, whether Aryan, Jew, or Black. Thus, a unified humanity was to be created by eliminating all racial differences between peoples.
The dogmas of the Catholic Church originated in the Orient. They were shaped under Byzantine influence. The Germanic way of life, which alone corresponded to the German national character, had to give way to an unnatural Christian dogma.
The dogma of the Catholic Church states that human life on earth is filled with sin. The better afterlife is supposed to redeem them from it. “Love your enemies,” “Thou shalt not kill” are fundamental tenets of this faith. Motherhood, for the Germanic woman the fulfillment of her existence, is sinful.
The unnatural seclusion in a monastery or convent is pleasing to God. With all these beliefs, Christianity was alien to the nature of the Nordic-Germanic people. Through the doctrine that all people are equal before God, the Church destroyed racial consciousness. The Jewish blood element penetrated and weakened the peoples.
Only Adolf Hitler’s various laws for the preservation of the purity of Germanic blood and the elimination of foreign races from the national community put a stop to this.
I’d like to change the subject slightly.
I don’t want to talk about all the torture in this Mexican prison related to the cartels. But I do want to mention that in one type of execution, the victims had their eyes and feet taped, were wrapped in plastic, and put alive into a freezer meant for livestock. After a couple of days, the Mexicans were frozen solid. They called a butcher and cut them into small squares, which were later fed to the pigs.
This was a common practice around 2011 or 2012, not too far from the US.
Incredibly, many of these felons who had belonged to cartels are already free because, regarding the sanctity of human life, Mexican criminal law follows Christian mandates (“Love your enemies,” “Thou shalt not kill”). There is no death penalty in Mexico (these freezing were apparently done under the orders of the cartel, not the Mexican state).
In an ethnostate the ethical way, according to our scale of values, would be to kill them all. There wouldn’t be any prisoners, not even those like the gigantic penitentiaries Bukele built in El Salvador. These kinds of criminals would simply be wiped out.
Considering that many cartel members are free (I’ve most likely run into them on the street) and wield enormous power in this country—veritable states within a state!—do you grasp our concept of transvaluation of all values? Human life has no value except the value our internal ethics assign to it.
Remember, there are ten episodes of this interview. This is the fifth.
At the beginning, Joel Webb quotes a text that blames only Judaism for liberalism. I call this self-righteous monocausalism, since it’s obvious that Christians are the biggest culprits (even early Church Fathers criticized Jews for their selective compassion, saying it wasn’t universalist but ethnocentric). As always, this pair seems to have no idea that the doctrines of the religion they profess have axiological consequences.
Later, Nick Fuentes says he believes in the historicity of Christian child sacrifices by Jews in the Middle Ages: something I don’t believe was historical. But Fuentes is right to criticize Napoleon for “emancipating” the Jews in Europe, something that didn’t happen in Russia (in my opinion, because the Russians didn’t go through a Renaissance and an Enlightenment that eventually transformed into neochristianity).
That’s worse than any toxic message from Jews on Netflix or any other mass media outlet. I challenge anyone who doubts this to read my autobiography, Hojas Susurrantes, and still claim that the doctrine of eternal damnation wasn’t worse than Jewish subversion for the mental health of white men. The most ironic thing about this is that this pair ignores the fact that the core of the New Testament was written by Jews.
But shortly afterward, Fuentes said something very true: that the message of forgiveness is absent in the Old Testament, that it only appears in the Gospel (for example, with words like “forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing”), and that the Old Testament speaks more of exterminating enemy peoples.
What Fuentes ignores is that the Old Testament message is the right one if the Aryans were to adopt it (as Himmler’s SS did). This pair takes the out-group altruism inspired by Christianity for granted: it’s a morality that Christians don’t even question (nor do atheist neochristians).
In this fifth instalment of the interview, we again note what Gaedhal once said: the dissident right is more primitive than liberal Christians, insofar as they wholesale ignore academic studies of the New Testament that differ from fundamentalist dogma (for example, Webbon speaks of the Transfiguration as if it were a historical event).
The blatant dishonesty comes soon after, when Webbon says, “Christian faith and reason are not at odds with one another.” If they were honest, these Christians would be familiar with the critical literature on New Testament historicity written since the time of Reimarus.
I make these comments from that series to show how lost American white nationalism is, even though Webbon isn’t one of them (Fuentes does consider himself a white nationalist). This episode proves it.
Later, Webbon asks Fuentes what transformed the healthy antisemitism of yesteryear into today’s pathological philosemitism. Fuentes blames modernism and liberalism. I wonder if Nick knows that we call liberalism “neochristianity” on this site? (new visitors who haven’t read our quotes from Tom Holland’s book should read them now).
Shortly after, Webbon says: “The engine of liberalism is egalitarianism: the complete flattening of every natural distinction…” Although Webbon mentions race and gender, he sees the speck in someone else’s eye but not his own. Following the destruction of the Greco-Roman world, it was Judeo-Christians who introduced egalitarianism into European culture. (Although both detest the word “Judeo-Christian”, they also ignore that early Christians were mostly Semites from the Roman Empire: so the term is legitimate.)
Note that, when they later discuss Protestant currents like dispensationalism, some factions of that current accept the salvation of Jews—that is, no post-mortem damnation for the chosen people. However, they don’t extend this courtesy to so-called “pagans” (those who refuse to worship the god of the Jews). How can this pair not realise that this type of doctrine will sooner or later develop a philosemite theology (not only Protestant, but also Catholic after the Second Vatican Council)?
Fuentes then says that the foundation of liberalism and modernity is the concept of the human psyche as a tabula rasa, a “blank slate”: that we are all born as persons, and therefore equal. He fails to realise that this belief was spawned by elemental Christian teachings: that, unlike animals, all humans are born with a “soul”, and that “God” doesn’t distinguish between “souls”.
Do you see why we call liberalism neochristianity? Later, they both agree that we must wait for the Jews to convert to Christianity and that, in the meantime, Jews have rights and shouldn’t be mistreated. Compare this to the Germans of the last century, who transvalued Christian values into values similar to those of Titus and Hadrian during Rome’s wars against Judea.
Do you finally understand what our slogan means?
Umwertuung Aller Werte!
Transvaluation of all values!
Tucker Carlson asks a beautiful blonde who is behind the destruction of the white race through mass migration. Neither of them knows the answer.
The typical white nationalist would say it is the Jews, but that doesn’t explain things like white suicide in the Roman Empire through gradual miscegenation that culminated in Constantinople, or what the Spanish and Portuguese did in the Americas since the 16th century. Nor does it take into account the beginning of the repudiation of anti-miscegenation laws in some US states long before the Jews took over the country.
As I have already said, to understand what archetype has taken hold of the Aryan collective unconscious, it is necessary to look at the cultural aspect, specifically bestsellers. Ivanhoe in the 19th century idealised Jewry; Ben-Hur portrayed the Romans as the bad guys and the Jew as the good guy, and Uncle Tom’s Cabin portrayed the black man as the good guy and the Dixie landowners as the bad guys. These super-bestselling novels have something in common: they weren’t authored under Jewish influence but by Christians who vehemently subscribed to Christian ethics.
In our century, the above-mentioned novels have lost their power to X-ray the soul of the contemporary white man. But now we can do so with the television hits that the white masses loved: the zeitgeist of our century.
Yesterday I finished watching, skipping what I already remembered from the first time I saw the series, Breaking Bad including the sequel movie, El Camino: where Jesse Pinkman is the main character (Walter White had died at the end of Breaking Bad). I don’t want to dwell much on my repetitions but, like the novels mentioned (one European and the other two American), the good guy in the film perfectly portrays what I have called neochristianity on this site.
The scenes that bothered me the most were when Jesse, in a fit of St Francis-like madness (Francis gave away the clothes his father made to the poor of Assisi), gave away to the people on the street the millions of dollars that Walter had worked so hard to earn. But worst of all is that, prior to that neo-Franciscan fit, half of Jesse’s millions were destined, as he asked his lawyer Saul, for a Hispanic woman and her mestizo son…
There’s the answer to Tucker’s question!
As I said, regarding Tucker’s question a white nationalist would automatically blame Jewry, exonerating the white man. From our POV, one must take into account the great hits of Western culture as X-rays that portray the particular archetype that has taken hold of the Aryan psyche. And it is clear that this archetype is Christian ethics, which, although authored by rabbis in the form of the New Testament, has been internalised by the Aryan to the very core of his being (which is why I recently used the image of the xenomorph stuck deep in the throat of a white man).
This is what white nationalists don’t want to see. But if they don’t see it they will become extinct.
There is no point in criticising Jewry if one doesn’t perform a radical operation on one’s own soul to remove the xenomorph (the Bible in a nutshell: “Old Testament exterminationism for me; universal love for thee”). And this is done, of course, by transvaluing all Christian values including things like raping the Sabine women to create not a New Jerusalem but a New Rome; genociding the people of Jerusalem without Titus’ contemporaries feeling the slightest remorse, and even the (occasional, not normative) recreation with ephebes for centurions who haven’t seen their wives for years and want to take certain liberties with their cupbearers before battle.
All of this—mass rape of women to found Rome, occasional acceptance of pederasty, or having feelings opposite to those of Jesse Pinkman in a genocidal campaign—is completely alien to white nationalists precisely because they have the xenomorph embedded in their brains.
For Americans, who unlike Europeans were born into Christianity, it will be very difficult to transvaluate Xtian values.
The concept of transvaluation is not fully understood. I doubt that even the Christian and neochristian (i.e., atheist) racialists who visit this site understand it.
If we take into consideration what I recently said in my previous post in the context of Greco-Roman pederasty, we could educate visitors with this reasoning:
During Rome’s wars against Judea, Titus was given the responsibility of putting an end to the rebellious kikes, a task he carried out successfully after besieging and conquering Jerusalem in 70 c.e., whose temple was looted and destroyed by his troops in the burning of the city. His victory was rewarded with a triumph and commemorated with the construction of the Arch of Titus.
They even made a statue of him modelled on Polykleitos’ Doryphoros (79-81 c.e.), which is in the Vatican Museum. As can be seen in the statue, a pope didn’t tolerate penises and ordered all the statues in the Church’s custody to be “castrated”.
The Nazis didn’t finish revaluing all values. It was a process that in the 1930s was just beginning. If National Socialism had developed over the last eighty years, there might already have been attempts to sculpt the Aryan warriors of our century inspired by Polykleitos or other classic sculptors. But at the time, national socialists still carried the shame or guilt inherited from Judeo-Christianity: it would have been inconceivable to sculpt statues of Hitler naked even if, like Titus, he had won the war against the Judea of our times.
Transvaluing includes putting naked statues of every Aryan hero in public squares, as the Greeks and Romans did, and not having them hidden and “castrated” by deranged popes in Judeo-Christian enclosures.
Sometimes I wonder, besides myself, who has transvalued all Judeo-Christian values?
Nick Fuentes says that, for St Paul, the “concession” was to marry in the sense that celibacy is better.
See the inferiority of Christianity to Judaism: the stars promised to Abraham were his future kike descendants without demonising sex. But in Judeo-Christianity sex is sinful for gentiles (i.e., white people from the Mediterranean). The god of the Jews “concedes” us marriage so that we don’t burn with lust, but the highest state is non-reproductive celibacy, and Fuentes even talks about monasteries.
Then Nick confuses marital masculinity with a feminised husband. Since I’ve been talking about Breaking Bad, let’s say that Nick confuses masculinity with a character like Walter White: a “man” who put his family above everything else. On the other hand, we see true masculinity in Sparta, pre-imperial Rome, the Goths, the Vikings and National Socialism where there is Männerbund, unlike the decadent 21st-century America so well represented in the gynocentric scenes of Breaking Bad.
In practice, Nick’s Catholic recipe is perfect for the dysgenics that has been perpetrated in Europe since Christianity was imposed on whites. This dysgenics (“Are you smart? Go to the monastery and don’t reproduce!”) caused the IQ of Jews to rise over the centuries while the IQ of whites dropped. This perverse eugenics / dysgenics reached the point where Jews now have the highest IQ: a genetic courtesy of Christianity that Nick and other racialists stupidly cling. Just look at Nick’s statement in his interview with Joel Webbon: “The priesthood, the monastic life is the most masculine thing that a guy can do…”
Above, Ascyltos, and Giton playing the role of Ganymede, in Fellini Satyricon. Zeus was capable of countless love affairs not only with goddesses but with women. On one occasion, he even fancied Ganymede and abducted him to see what the androgynous ephebe tasted like. But for Nick the masculine man is not represented by Zeus but by the Aryan humiliated with a ton of guilt—the monk—if he fails to love the Jewish god.
In sharp contrast to the Greco-Roman ethos, above we see Franciscan and Benedictine monks in the film The Name of the Rose.
Webbon then quotes Paul’s epistle to the Corinthians; he says that celibacy is a gift, and talks to Nick about “fleshy appetites” in the Christian sense. Compare this with the Greco-Romans. Their Gods were openly rapists; it was Christianity that made us feel guilty about that. Fuentes, incidentally, is a virgin as he recently confessed to Piers Morgan: something inconceivable to the ancient Greeks and Romans of his age.
Are you beginning to understand what the Judeo-Christian inversion of values was? For kikes sexuality isn’t sinful but Paul preaches something else to us, and these idiots—not just Nick but Christian racialists in general—are incapable of seeing the Jewish psyop!
A little later in the interview, Nick says that many put family above God (that is, above the Semitic god with his double standard for Jews and gentiles). That’s why Fuentes goes on to say that the pinnacle of masculinity is the celibate monk.
At minute 40, Nick says that since women are ultimate conformists to the System, they can betray you if you marry in this anti-white male era. Let’s illustrate this with Skyler who, in an episode of Breaking Bad, goes to a female psychotherapist who suggests Skyler to report her husband Walter to the police for drug trafficking. Walter had been foolish enough to confess everything to his wife in private, when you should never tell women anything about serious matters, such as committing illegal acts or having an affair with Ganymede: they are incapable of understanding the male drives.
Do you see why we should only have lunches and dinners with heterosexual soldiers? Even after the Spartans were married they didn’t eat with their wives but with other tough guys where they could talk as rudely as I do on this site.
The previous entry, “4 Words Explained!,” is fundamental. Together with the rephrased quotes from Francis Parker Yockey that appear in a post linked to the featured article, it reflects what it means to “transvalue all values.” These words are a Nietzschean formula that indicates the only path to saving the Aryan from the extinction it suffers throughout the West.
It is very illuminating to compare our POV with that of the granddaddy of the American racial right. In his recent article, Jared Taylor has realised that his nation’s project has failed. In fact, his article is titled “The American Experiment Has Failed (Adapted from remarks given at the American Renaissance conference, Nov. 15, 2025).” Taylor simply describes the bare facts of why the US has failed. But he ignores the aetiology of white decline:
I cannot foresee the political will to persuade or force 100 million citizens to bugger off. It wouldn’t be practical and in some cases I would argue it wouldn’t be moral. American Indians: where are they supposed to go? And we brought blacks here against their will.
This is Christian ethics. A Christian, Nick Fuentes, was once asked what book he would recommend. Since Nick isn’t a scholar he didn’t know what to say. I would say that the most important books to have come from the pen of an American are The Turner Diaries (fiction) and Who We Are (nonfiction): both by William Pierce. Let’s read another passage from Taylor, taken from his most recent lecture at AmRen:
I envy the simple choice our ancestors had: Kill the enemy or die trying. If the choice were that simple, every man in this room would do his duty, cheerfully.
Why is it that the racial right, unlike our ancestors—and unlike the Russians who are killing lots of Ukrainians right now!—no longer wants to kill the enemy?
Taylor’s article, originally published in AmRen, has been reposted on The Unz Review. As of this writing, I don’t see a single comment in the discussion threads of either forum reminding visitors of Pierce’s great novel, which in my opinion is the only way for white Americans to reclaim their territory: by exterminating all non-whites who refused to leave.
The problem with Taylor’s piece is that it describes the problem but doesn’t offer a deep analysis of why Aryans in general, and white Americans in particular, lost their Lebenskraft. Revilo Oliver said that if a race loses its thirst for life, that thirst can never be recovered; and all indications are that since 1945, whites have lost it around the world. I don’t know if I should be as pessimistic as Oliver because, unlike him, I believe that the energy devolution that will occur this century, and at the beginning of the next, will open one last window of opportunity for Aryans to redeem themselves from their ethnosuicidal sins.
Last month I was posting videos about how children’s stories had a completely different origin from the later fairy tales, and I gave the example of Snow White and Hansel and Gretel (in the original stories they were infanticidal mothers, not stepmothers: an important topic of my writings on child abuse at home). Now I’d like to talk about Jack and the Beanstalk.
The key symbol is the harp or the story to lull the white man to sleep (the rulers have offered their subjects a false story or worldview). But let’s take it one step at a time.
If my predictions are correct, Mother Nature (stealing the harp) will help the Jack of this century to seize the riches of the entire Jewish oligarchy and traitorous whites. In a video titled The Crash Course, originally published in October 2008, Chris Martenson, based on neo-Malthusian concepts, tries to explain energy devolution. A couple of years ago, Martenson developed these concepts into a book that can be purchased on Amazon.
The basic reason why the Aryan has lost his Lebenskraft (life force) is due to the incredible comfort of living, since the 1950s, in an environment of false abundance (peak oil), coupled with the Christian ethics that even atheists suffer from, and the current story or anti-Nazi “harp” to lull the white man to sleep.
Very well. Since oil will become increasingly scarce, if what the neo-Malthusians say is true, that means billions of humans will die unnatural deaths. At any event, all of them were born because of capitalist greed and the Christian ethics whose ideal is to help every coloured child. Nature will punish this white man’s sin of pride by exterminating the vast majority of humans, whom we here call “Neanderthals.”
Something of this kind happened in the Middle Ages. The Black Death of the 14th century was a devastating bubonic plague pandemic that swept through Eurasia and North Africa, reaching its peak between 1347 and 1353. It is estimated to have caused the death of between 80 and 200 million people, wiping out between 30 and 60 per cent of the European population.
This new plague, now in the form of an energy devolution, will be our great window of opportunity. Well, I won’t be around when billions die, but adding something of my own making to the video’s metaphor, there’s a difference between the harp and playing it.
The harp—billions dead in a century that will dwarf the Black Death of the 14th century—requires a musician. And that musician is the Aryan of the future, an SS Nazi redivivus. Playing the harp means repudiating Christian ethics, which is nothing more than stupidly following the commandments that some 1st-century Jews wrote for Gentile consumption, the so-called New Testament.
So if Nature itself will provide us with the harp that will kill billions, we also have to do our part and learn how to play it: kill the remaining non-whites (see, for example, what happened to all the Chinese by the end of The Turner’s Diaries).
This is something that Jared Taylor and his readers will never dare to say: we must sacrifice the religion of our parents, which is nothing more than a Jewish psyop so that the Aryan will immolate himself.
Editor’s Note: A visitor of this site sent me this some time ago:
______ 卐 ______
This book is available on Amazon.
Germany and the United Kingdom are the two European countries where animal protection has undoubtedly had an earlier development. In the German case, though, the animal protection and nature conservation provisions, at the centre of the first legislative measures taken by the Nazi regime, were characterised by a non-negligible degree of detail and systematization. Indeed, the animal protection and nature conservation agenda was first developed in 1933, with Adolf Hitler’s ascension to power and the institution of the Reich’s Association for Animal Protection (Reichstierschutzbund). Undeniably, the resulting laws covered aspects that were only touched upon much later by similar EU legislation, such as welfare measures during transport or at the time of slaughter. This shows the validity and scientific character with which the Nazi animal legislation was planned.
Whilst Nazi symbology disappeared, dragged along by the damnatio memoriae of a regime that imposed a heavy burden on Germany’s international reputation, the animal protection legislation, although repealed like the rest of the laws enacted during the Nazi period, have proven as a foundation for the current animal protection laws of Austria and Germany. This constitutes a good proof that said laws were a faithful reflection of a mentality deeply rooted in the Germanic spirit.
______ 卐 ______
After the seizure of power by the National Socialists, new hopes aroused and German conservationists lobbied for new pieces of legislation to protect the Heimat (homeland), its animals, and its nature.
Indeed, in the first two years of the National Socialist regime, from 1933 to 1935, the government enacted a wide series of specific animal and nature protection laws. Extensive new legislation came into force in the fields of animal welfare, hunting and environmental law, while forest law has never been completed. These could be built on the existing legal bases at the level of state laws and local decrees, as well as on the draft laws of the Weimar Republic.
The first legislative steps of the Reich’s government aimed to finally settle the debate on animal protection with a comprehensive legal text. It is impressive, in terms of speed and promptness, that the Nazis were able to emanate three pieces of legislation regarding animal welfare and protection, namely the Law on the Slaughter of Animals (RGB1139/1933), the Amendment to the Criminal Provisions (RGB1 156/1933) introducing the provision on animal abuse, and the Reich’s Law on Animal Protection (RGBII 132/1933). Within less than a year, from April to November 1933, the Reich’s Cabinet ended the long lasting issue and promoted the new legislation with extensive propaganda measures.
Then in 1934, and again 1935, the legislator’s focus shifted from farm animals and pets to wildlife, as the main concern started to be the extinction in Germany of animals such as bears, wolves, bison and wild horses. In fact, unlike governments overseas and in other European countries, in 1934 Germany became the first nation in modern times to place the wolf under protection.
The objective was to create conservation and breeding programmes and pass new and more uniform laws on nature and species conservation, as well as hunting. This objective was met on July 3, 1934 and on June 26, 1935 when the Reich’s Law on Hunting (RGBI I 73/1934) and the Reich’s Law on Nature Conservation (RGB1 I 68/1935) came respectively into force.
German Romanticism
Of utmost importance for the construction of the German national identity were certain notions and theories regarding man’s connections to nature and animal life that were expressed by the German romantic poetry, music and social thought. Being at the height of Romanticism, the German Volk was longing for the absolute, ready to subordinate the welfare of the single individual in the battle for life.
Collective identification was conveyed throughout the cult of genius, the veneration of nature, nostalgia for the remote past, the exaltation of passion, the suspicion of science, and salvation through art. [emphasis by Ed.] These ideas shaped Nazi thinking. All late Romantics—from Charles Darwin, or better Ernst Haeckel in Germany, to Richard Wagner—had venerated nature as an inexorable power that produced storms and earthquakes that annihilated entire species and peoples; industrialisation reached that point where human beings began to claim such power for themselves. Rather than a social movement, nature conservation was to be considered a sentiment.
According to the German biologist and environmentalist Walther Schoenichen, member of the NSDAP since 1932 and Head of the Reich’s Office for Nature Conservation until 1938, “The idea of conservation is essentially an outgrowth of Romanticism.”
In this context, the thought of Friedrich Nietzsche was influential. His works had been adapted and selectively used by Nazism, especially his rejection of intellectual culture and the embrace of the animal instinct in humans. In particular, great importance on the animal origin and character of man, was placed on Nietzsche’s conception of the “blond beast” or Raubtier, namely of man as a predator. By celebrating the beast in man in a mythical way, as a type of “secret idol” with qualities like vitality, unscrupulousness, blind will, and obedience, the new Germans were to be part animal, rejecting a certain side of their humanity. The compassion normally reserved to humans was to be redirected toward animals[Wow! This sentence sums up my ethics in a nutshell! —Ed.], and the cold aggressiveness of animal instinct became the model rigorous German. This was, in fact, part of the intent of the animal protection laws.
Another important argument was the one regarding the moral status of animals—a preoccupation that influenced Nazi thinking, calling for a remedy to early wrongs towards animals and calling for the protection of nature as a moral imperative. To this extent, the critique of Ernst Haeckel —German biologist, zoologist, philosopher of the late 19th and early 20th century, and highly influential populariser of Social Darwinism (he wrote at a time when the application of Darwinism to psychological and social phenomena was still in its infancy)— “religion is emblematic to understanding the Nazi transposition of this idea.” Haeckel attacked primarily Christianity for putting man above animals and nature, and for isolating man from nature and generating disrespect towards animals. He believed that man and animals had the same natural and moral status and that much of human morality stemmed from animals. Furthermore, he maintained that humans had much to learn from animals, like using the laws of nature to reform human society, the function of which—like animal societies—was to survive and biological fitness was essential to both. Not surprisingly, he supported “racial hygiene” through euthanasia.
Clearly, Hitler and other exponents of National Socialism endorsed and adapted this, as well as other main theories of the so-called Social Darwinism. Heredity, struggle, and natural selection were fundamental to their conception of both the natural and the social realms. It was the task of Nazism to create a community in harmony with the eternal laws of nature. As Goebbels commented in his diaries:
Man should not feel so superior to animals. He has no reason to. Man believes that he alone has intelligence, a soul, and the power of speech. Has not the animal these things? Just because we, with our dull senses, cannot recognise them, it does not prove that they are not there.
A third significant Romantic concept, particularly expressed by philosophers such as Richard Wagner, promoted synthesis over analysis, unity and wholeness over disintegration and atomism, and Volk legend over scientific truth[compare Wagner’s approach with American “race realism” —Ed.]. According to this view, an organic unity should not be mentally analysed and physically dissected. Therefore, mechanistic science was perceived as destructive for dissolving the whole into fragments, thereby losing the invisible force that makes the whole more than just the sum of its parts.
By defining it as the “curse of vivisection”, Wagner urged the closing down of laboratories and the removal of scientists and as both evil and Jewish, and associated it to the capitalists torturing the proletariat.
Nazis assumed a critical attitude towards science and opposed to this particular approach to it, which was attributed to the Jews, because it represented the separation of man from his connections with nature and ultimately from his own spirit. As Arnold Arluke and Boria Sax state, Nazis wanted a science that was influenced more by Goethe than by Newton. A science closer to poetry and art:
As Man stands to Nature, so stands Art to Man. When Nature had developed in itself those attributes, which included the conditions for the existence of Man, then Man spontaneously evolved. In like manner, as soon as human life had engendered from itself the conditions for the manifestment of Art-work, this too stepped self-begotten into life.
Rejection of anthropocentrism
The Nazi traditions of nature preservation and their romantic longings can be recollected into one essential aspect, which explicitly characterised their strict provisions on animal protection, i.e. the rejection of the anthropocentric view[this is very important to grasp our religion of the four words! —Ed.]. Animals were not to be protected for the sake of human interests but for their own sake. However Nazi ideologues apparently replaced the anthropocentric conception with a hierarchical one, which not only met the Nazi requirements of organizational efficiency but was also a way of fitting into the cosmic order, a way of being part of a whole.
According to the Austrian biologist Ludwig von Bertalaffny’s philosophy of biology, organisms were, by definition, organised things. As the founder of the General Systems Theory (GST) and member of the NSDAP since 1938, Bertalaffny related his views to the totalitarian ideology of Nazism and to the Führerprinzip in particular.
More concretely, his theory developed a new scientific doctrine of “wholeness”, replacing the philosophical Theory of Categories. He considered it indisputable that sociological phenomena, thus the human society, should be ordered in a hierarchical manner, like nature. He also praised the law enacted by Hermann Göring, which placed all decisions regarding the administration of nature under total centralised control.
______ 卐 ______
It is not a coincidence that in a famous caricature, Göring is portrayed as the liberator and leader of all lab animals that give him the Nazi salute in sign of gratitude. On this matter, he is remembered for another extreme political statement:
I […] will commit to concentration camps those who still think they can continue to treat animals as inanimate property […]. The fairy tales and sagas of the Nordic people, especially the German people, show the spirit of close contact, which all Aryan people possess, with the animals. It is the more incomprehensible, therefore, that justice, up to now, did not agree with the spirit of the people on this point as it did on many others. Under the influence of foreign [i.e., Jewish] conceptions of justice and a strange comprehension of law, through the unhappy fact that the exercise of justice was in the hands of people alien to the nation […] the animal was considered a dead thing under the law […]. This does not correspond to the German spirit and most decidedly does not conform to the ideas of National Socialism.
Editor's interpolated note: The hatred I feel when I hear a Judeo-Christian say that God (the nonexistent god of the Jews) put animals in the world for our benefit, makes me write my "four words".
Hitler once declared:
I have always known to be of the opinion that there is nothing better than being a lawyer for those who cannot defend themselves. In the Third Reich there must be no more animal cruelty.
______ 卐 ______
Their vision of the future included a world where animals would not be unnecessarily harmed. Hunting became a symbol of the past civilization, meat eating became a symbol of decayed peoples, and vegetarianism became a symbol of the new, pure civilization that was to be Germany’s future. We also know from direct testimonies, that Nazi leaders took pride in presenting themselves as friends of the animals; as Heinrich Himmler—the Reich’s Head of the SS (“Reichsführer-SS”)—stated, Germans were:
[…] the only nation of the world with a decent attitude towards animals.
Also Hermann Göring was of the same opinion, when he stated that:
The German people have always shown their great love of animals and the question of animal protection was always near their hearts. For thousands of years the German people have always looked upon their household and farmyard animals as their companions, in the case of horses as their fighting companions… To the German, animals are not merely creatures in the organic sense, but creatures who lead their own lives and who are endowed with perceptive facilities, who feel pain and experience joy and prove to be faithful and attached.
Indeed, the Holocaust itself may have depended on this unique cultural conception of what it meant to be human in relation to animals as a metaphor of what it meant to be Aryan in relation to other races. From this newly acquired perspective, one can conclude that what is considered to be as cruel and inhumane behaviour toward human beings by today’s standards, was seen by the Nazis as acceptable behaviour toward “subhumans”. What may be regarded as paradoxically humane behaviour toward animals, in light of the human tragedy, was seen in Nazi Germany as quite consistent given the belief of a common stem of certain higher humans and animals and their special bond with nature. Therefore, racial and eugenic laws on one side and the animal protection and nature conservation normative complex on the other, did indeed have a common denominator, which is mostly visible when studying the emanated laws in the context they were created in.
It is evident that the Nazi German identity relied on the blurring of boundaries between humans and animals, as well as constructing a unique phylogenetic hierarchy that altered conventional human-animal distinctions and imperatives. This blurring was visible, for example, in the abolishing of moral distinctions between animals and people, leading to the result that animals could be considered “higher” than some people. This was also apparent in the highly-debated concern for animals held by many prominent Nazi Germans.
On the one hand, animals were considered virtuous, innocent, and embodied ideal qualities absent in most humans, to the extent that to hunt or eat animals was defiling, a sign of decay and perversion. People, on the other hand, were seen with hatred, dread, and disappointment. In fact, to kill certain people was part of the quest for purity. Additionally, this blurring was evident in the Nazi alliance with animals, both portrayed as victims of their Jewish oppressors, i.e. the vivisectionists and slaughterers.
Finally, this blurring was visible in the animalization of German Nazis, in how they represented themselves as well as other humans. To cope with what they considered as the threat of genetic pollution of their pure, holistic, natural Volk, Germans were encouraged to fight with the same hard-headed determination as any other species in nature.
In this video uploaded today, Megyn Kelly appears accompanied by Tucker Carlson at a public event to talk about his decision to interview Nick Fuentes.
Tucker proves the whole point of this blogsite, The West’s Darkest Hour! He used the term “Christian ethics” to explain why he isn’t an anti-Semite; said that a Jew, Paul the Apostle is “my personal hero” and regarding neochristianity he added: “That’s where the idea of human rights comes from”!
He also explains that when such Xtian ethics are removed from the Aryan collective unconscious, exterminationism arises (which he calls “genocide”).
