PDA

View Full Version : Mein Kampf: Atheism vs Religion



Hanna
Thursday, January 7th, 2010, 11:05 PM
Hitler wrote Mein Kampf while he was in prison, however these speeches was given when he came in power:


"National Socialism and religion cannot exist together..."

"The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity..."

"Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things."

"Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure."

"The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity..."

"Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse..."

"...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little..."

"Christianity <is> the liar..."

"We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State."

"The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity."

"Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer..."

"The decisive falsification of Jesus' doctrine was the work of St.Paul. He gave himself to this work... for the purposes of personal exploitation..."

"Didn't the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, ******s? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it's in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St.Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea."

"Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery..."

"When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease."

Do any of you think atheism is responsible for nationalism? However I do no think Stalin nor Hitler was atheist.


Link to Hitler's table talk: http://nobeliefs.com/HitlerSources.htm (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fnobelief s.com%2FHitlerSources.htm)

Angus
Thursday, January 7th, 2010, 11:11 PM
Im almost positive Hitler was Catholic, but i could be wrong.

rainman
Friday, January 8th, 2010, 08:00 PM
Great quotes! Let me explain:

National Socialism is a spiritual movement. It has belief in "God" however vaguly defined that may be. Hitler wasn't too strong on his attacks against Christianity because of its popularity. There had to be a transition from one to the other. Christianity is basically a religion that teaches people to be weak, obey authority, and to praise the sick and the weak. Charity means helping the weak at the expense of the strong. Stupid and ignorant is considered "godly" whereas intelligent and educated is of the devil. Strong is of the devil, poor, meek and humble godly.

Christianity is the same thing as Marxism which is the same thing as modern liberalism essentially. That is cultivate the weak. Prop up failures. etc. All of these philosophies have been largely pushed onto the population by Jews who themselves do not teach their own people the same. They use it as a tool to weaken other people so they can enslave them. Yet the other source of it is also that weak people make a weak religion. The combination of jews nudging it on and speaking publicly and the large masses of imbeciles who have a natural tendency towards degeneracy has propelled the philosophy.

Christianity is a perversion of the original ideas of God and spirituality. You don't need to be an Atheist to go against it. All religions of the world up until Christianity believe in a relationship with God- a oneness with God and the cosmos in some form. Christianity teaches us to be slaves to God, slaves to human authority to give up all worldly wealth, all power, all strength and to be devoid of life. It is a religion of death. Jews teach their chldren to be leaders, to dominate, to seek out wealth at all costs then on the other hand try to get all other people to weaken themselves to make it easier to exploit them and suck them dry.

According the Bible itself "God is Logos" Logos is logic (often mistranslated as the word). Logic can be considered the laws of nature, something innate in all existance. When Hitler refers to the laws of nature or nature's way this is what he is referencing- the true concept of God. Logic always was, it came before all creation, it is creation, and it transcends it. 2+2 is always four.

christianity is a total perversion in everything. It seeks to rip people away from God telling them they have no connection to God other than through obedience to authority. The protestants went against this at least a little. The original goal of the first Christian church was world domination. It failed. When that failued new ways were devised. Communism. Now modern liberal democracies, New World Order etc.

Anlef
Friday, January 8th, 2010, 08:57 PM
Good Lord, another raging diatribe against Christianity.


Great quotes! Let me explain:

National Socialism is a spiritual movement. It has belief in "God" however vaguly defined that may be. Hitler wasn't too strong on his attacks against Christianity because of its popularity. There had to be a transition from one to the other. Christianity is basically a religion that teaches people to be weak, obey authority, and to praise the sick and the weak. Charity means helping the weak at the expense of the strong. Stupid and ignorant is considered "godly" whereas intelligent and educated is of the devil. Strong is of the devil, poor, meek and humble godly.

What's wrong with obeying authority? Christianity doesn't teach people to "praise the sick and the weak", it teaches people to help the sick and the weak. Helping the sick and the weak is by definition at the expense of the strong. Why is that so bad? As if our heathen ancestors didn't help the sick and the weak. Also, everybody has weaker as well as stronger qualities, which means everyone can both need as well as offer help.

And stupid and ignorant is considered "godly"? Give me a break man.


Christianity is the same thing as Marxism which is the same thing as modern liberalism essentially. That is cultivate the weak. Prop up failures. etc. All of these philosophies have been largely pushed onto the population by Jews who themselves do not teach their own people the same. They use it as a tool to weaken other people so they can enslave them. Yet the other source of it is also that weak people make a weak religion. The combination of jews nudging it on and speaking publicly and the large masses of imbeciles who have a natural tendency towards degeneracy has propelled the philosophy.

I would agree Marxism and Liberalism are perversions of Christianity. But guess what: all belief systems, views and religions can have their evil offshoots. It's not like one ends up with Marxism or Liberalism if one is consistently Christian.

The idea that the Jews pushed Christianity or Christian-like philosophies onto non-Jews is, with all due respect, preposterous. Jesus was vilified by the Jews. And, among other reasons, the Jews were historically hated for it by European Christians. According to many if not most European Christians throughout the ages, the Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus.


Christianity is a perversion of the original ideas of God and spirituality. You don't need to be an Atheist to go against it. All religions of the world up until Christianity believe in a relationship with God- a oneness with God and the cosmos in some form. Christianity teaches us to be slaves to God, slaves to human authority to give up all worldly wealth, all power, all strength and to be devoid of life. It is a religion of death.

Christianity teaches us to serve and love God as we serve and love our own father. Also, to transcend the need for worldy wealth and to guard against unchecked power is virtuous. Furthermore, if Christianity is a religion of death, then how come it's Christian families and areas that are usually most fertile? Suicide is a capital sin in Christianity; if anything, Christians do not take the gift of life for granted.


Jews teach their chldren to be leaders, to dominate, to seek out wealth at all costs then on the other hand try to get all other people to weaken themselves to make it easier to exploit them and suck them dry.

In other words, they're acting as you wish Germanics would act. So you despise them for being what Germanics should be like.


According the Bible itself "God is Logos" Logos is logic (often mistranslated as the word). Logic can be considered the laws of nature, something innate in all existance. When Hitler refers to the laws of nature or nature's way this is what he is referencing- the true concept of God. Logic always was, it came before all creation, it is creation, and it transcends it. 2+2 is always four.

Logos is above and beyond nature, that's the whole idea.


christianity is a total perversion in everything. It seeks to rip people away from God telling them they have no connection to God other than through obedience to authority. The protestants went against this at least a little. The original goal of the first Christian church was world domination. It failed. When that failued new ways were devised. Communism. Now modern liberal democracies, New World Order etc.

So by telling someone he should obey his father, I am ripping him from his father? That doesn't make any sense.

You say that Communism is like some plan B (for world domination) by the people behind the Church. Any evidence for this? Christians and communists have mostly hated each other's guts. The Church was anti-communist, and the communists were anti-Christian. That many of today's Christians are liberals is because Liberalism is a far stealthier and more cunning evil. In fact, Liberalism is mostly at odds with Christianity. The right-most people opposing Liberalism in most countries are usually Christians. Right wing heathen anti-liberals practically don't even exist, as an indication of how marginal they are.

Oski
Friday, January 8th, 2010, 10:17 PM
Right wing heathen anti-liberals practically don't even exist, as an indication of how marginal they are.

I exist ;)

Jäger
Saturday, January 9th, 2010, 02:13 AM
What's wrong with obeying authority?
If this is absolute, as it is with christianity, it gives justification to the worst of tyrannies.


Christianity doesn't teach people to "praise the sick and the weak", it teaches people to help the sick and the weak.
In christianity, helping the sick and the weak is an end in itself, a direct connection to heaven so to say, that is the problem.


The idea that the Jews pushed Christianity or Christian-like philosophies onto non-Jews is, with all due respect, preposterous.
Jesus was jewish.


Christianity teaches us to serve and love God as we serve and love our own father.
No, christianity makes it very clear, that god is above our father, and father's father, etc.


Also, to transcend the need for worldy wealth and to guard against unchecked power is virtuous.
No, it's degenerate. Worldly wealth means an advantage in survival.


Furthermore, if Christianity is a religion of death, then how come it's Christian families and areas that are usually most fertile?
It is not, it is about breeding slaves, en mass.


Suicide is a capital sin in Christianity; if anything, Christians do not take the gift of life for granted.
Exactly, this is necessary, or all christians would try to escape the hell of worldly earth, and go directly into heaven.
However, suicide is not bad per se, it has (sometimes) very redeeming qualities, which escapes christians.


In other words, they're acting as you wish Germanics would act.
Not at all. Germanics have been striveing for worldly wealth ever since, and suicide was a way of keeping honor, etc.


Logos is above and beyond nature, that's the whole idea.
Can it go against logic? Most christians have a problem with this question :D

Kogen
Saturday, January 9th, 2010, 04:15 AM
Can you really call Jesus Jewish?

The actual man was - of course, but that long-haired German-looking man named Jesus that most Europeans worshiped was not him; he was a fictional European hero and something to aspire to. Christians at the time even referred to themselves as "the Christian race", looking down upon all sorts of Arabs, Negros, et cetera as 'Pagan races'. One had to be of European stock to be a Christian. This can also be seen in the Catholic Church through South America, as the 'natives' could be converted and 'saved', but they could not be servants of the Church, as that was restricted to the Christian race. Jews also did not fall under this category unless they were so mixed that they seemed European (anyone with some sense knows that many are).

And looking to the founders of modern Christian writings; it was not Jesus who wrote it. Paul wrote what most people follow, and if you want to blame the weak morality on someone, blame him - not Jesus.

Jäger
Saturday, January 9th, 2010, 09:13 AM
The actual man was - of course, but that long-haired German-looking man named Jesus that most Europeans worshiped was not him; he was a fictional European hero and something to aspire to.
The bible, an integral part of said belief, is a book written mostly by jews, and contains mostly stories about jews. No stories about Germanics, nothing at all.


And looking to the founders of modern Christian writings; it was not Jesus who wrote it. Paul wrote what most people follow, and if you want to blame the weak morality on someone, blame him - not Jesus.
Paul, another jew.
Here is what this jew told the Galater (Greko-Celtics in nowadays Turkey):

There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. - 3,28-29

Very well said, jew. He just made all christians to jews, in any case this works actively against social cohesion, and this was planned, for there shouldn't be slaves or free men anymore, since jews were the oppressed (slaves), it was their weapon to free themselves from Roman rule.

Ward
Saturday, January 9th, 2010, 09:54 AM
Do any of you think atheism is responsible for nationalism? However I do no think Stalin nor Hitler was atheist.


Link to Hitler's table talk: http://nobeliefs.com/HitlerSources.htm (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fnobelief s.com%2FHitlerSources.htm)

Seems like I remember hearing that "Hitler's Table Talk" was apocryphal. The parts of it I have read are interesting nonetheless, and some of it strikes me as authentic.

Anyway, from all that I've gathered about Hitler over the years, my sense is that he was, for the most part, an atheist. I think he most likely hoped that Christianity would begin to fade into history as the new NS epoch unfolded, but otherwise it seems to me that in general he was largely indifferent towards religious matters so long as they weren't hostile towards NS. Perhaps during his final days in the bunker he took on a harsher view of Christianity, but I'm not sure.

One thing is for sure, Hitler was wise enough not to turn society upside down a la the Bolsheviks. He had the good sense not to openly assail and defile a thousand-plus years of German tradition and history stretching back to the feats of the Carolingians and the establishment of the First Reich.

Hanna
Saturday, January 9th, 2010, 02:42 PM
Christianity is a perversion of the original ideas of God and spirituality. You don't need to be an Atheist to go against it. make it easier to exploit them and suck them dry.le away from God telling them they have no connection to God other than through obedience to authority. The protestants went against this at least a little. The original goal of the first Christian church was world domination. It failed. When that failued new ways were devised. Communism. Now modern liberal democracies, New World Order etc.

Religions are not perfect because human beings are not perfect...Yes I do agree with you, national socialism nor stalinism are godless doctrines. The messiah replaced with other beliefs such as master race,proletariat followed with the Third Reich and everything you could think of Nazism and Communism. But still these doctrines could be seen as religious too, isn't it?

velvet
Saturday, January 9th, 2010, 04:01 PM
Yes I do agree with you, national socialism nor stalinism are godless doctrines. The messiah replaced with other beliefs such as master race,proletariat followed with the Third Reich and everything you could think of Nazism and Communism. But still these doctrines could be seen as religious too, isn't it?

In national socialism there was a religious element incorporated, which was independend of the state system and its organisation on social levels.
Systems like Communism, NWO etc indeed attempt to become the religion themselves and the leading figure becomes 'god', the religious service becomes the service to the state and so on.

So there is a big difference in the structure. Hitler was clever enough to understand that a radical eradication of one religion wouldnt be very beneficial, but rather he allowed it to slowly die a natural death. I dont think that he was at large really indifferent though, regardless whether he himself was an atheist or not. He knew quite well that a spiritual element is needed and that this element cannot be a human or a state and christianity he had identified as generally hostile to NS. This incorporation though was handled by Himmler, not by Hitler.

Thyriusz
Saturday, January 9th, 2010, 04:31 PM
Hitler was clever enough to understand that a radical eradication of one religion wouldnt be very beneficial, but rather he allowed it to slowly die a natural death.

Exactly.
You can not that easily take away a peoples faith, it is a long process , it takes part education and part self-discovery of our origin. Our Elite knew that.
But in the end (or rather the glorious beginning) Christianity would fade and the true faith of the Blood rise.

Bittereinder
Sunday, January 10th, 2010, 05:41 AM
Religions are not perfect because human beings are not perfect...Yes I do agree with you, national socialism nor stalinism are godless doctrines. The messiah replaced with other beliefs such as master race,proletariat followed with the Third Reich and everything you could think of Nazism and Communism. But still these doctrines could be seen as religious too, isn't it?

National Socialism could be considered a religion only in the sense that it focuses on the Ultimate Truth concerning Nature and the Race's place within the natural order of things. Unlike semitic religions National Socialism is based upon undisputable observations pertaining to nature which to a large extent removes much of the human defect inherent in other doctrines.

Most religions (especialy the semitic religions) and doctrines rebels against this logic and attempts to replace this truth with flawed human inventions, it seeks to detach us from nature of which we are the culmination (at this point in time). The processes which shaped us and the universe are still at work and our folly is the continued disregard humans’ show for this truth which will lead to our utter destruction. National Socialism seeks to negate this, all other doctrines embrace this facade to our detriment which is why fear is a major part of all religions and the loving yet wrathful god figure is the held forth as the only way to salvation.

IMO National Socialism is the polar opposite of religion, keeping with this contrast, unlike religion National Socialism does not seek to destroy everything set against it, simply because the Ultimate Truth in this case is true.

rainman
Sunday, January 10th, 2010, 09:10 PM
The inner teachings of Judaism doesn't teach those things. Simply what they tell everyone else is detached from logic and so forth.

I actaully find a lot of common ground with Judaism and some salagable elements to Christianity. But if you put one bad egg in an omlet the whole omlet is bad. You can bring forth all the good things about Christianity all day long but it's the bad parts that cause me to reject it. The other things is obiously: what interest do I have in Jewish bloodlines and Jewish history. The culture doesn't fit me because I'm not Jewish. It just doesn't make sense to me for non-Jews to carry around a book of Jewish genealogy as their most respected book.

Chlodovech
Monday, January 11th, 2010, 04:22 AM
There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. - 3,28-29

Very well said, jew. He just made all christians to jews, in any case this works actively against social cohesion, and this was planned, for there shouldn't be slaves or free men anymore, since jews were the oppressed (slaves), it was their weapon to free themselves from Roman rule.

Paul says you are one in Christ, it's a spiritual concept, nothing more, nothing less. He does not say you are all of one blood, which would be unlikely as Paul identified himself as Jewish.

The notion of 'equality' of Christianity is, likewise, a spiritual equality, dealing with the afterlife - as, according to the faith, everybody will be judged by the same judge, using the same standard for all souls. This does not away with the fundamental unequality of life - or the difference between a man and a woman, for that matter. Or the difference between tribes and nations.

Christ's life was about revealing God to the world again, not about advancing this or that socio-political or racial agenda. That would've gone against His message of a kingdom not of this earth.


If this is absolute, as it is with christianity, it gives justification to the worst of tyrannies.

And the greatest of civilizations.
Also, protestants have a whole other view of obeying authority than myself. Yet we catholics can refuse to do things going against our conscience, nonetheless.

I think people often underestimate the diversity of opinion among Catholic judges, politicians or clerics - the Church is not a monolith, neither is its tradition. There are many shades of Catholicism, and while there are clear boundaries (the authority of the pope, and the gospels), within those boundaries a lot is possible, the various religious orders and societies out there are proof of it.

velvet
Monday, January 11th, 2010, 12:27 PM
Gee, dont want to battle with you, but still cant hold my mouth :(



If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise
Paul says you are one in Christ, it's a spiritual concept, nothing more, nothing less. He does not say you are all of one blood, which would be unlikely as Paul identified himself as Jewish.

This is not just a spiritual concept, but one that includes blood too.
And it is exactly this why I will never understand how anyone can want to be christian. It is a Jewish belief, spread by Jews into the world upon the gentiles. A book full of hate against gentiles, and since noone except Jews can ever have this blood, this is hate against yourself. :|



I think people often underestimate the diversity of opinion among Catholic judges, politicians or clerics - the Church is not a monolith, neither is its tradition. There are many shades of Catholicism, and while there are clear boundaries (the authority of the pope, and the gospels), within those boundaries a lot is possible, the various religious orders and societies out there are proof of it.

It just prooves that there is no coherent opinion about what 'christianity' is. Everyone picks out parts he likes and pushs aside those he doesnt like and calls it 'christianity'. Hence countless sects and subsects and not even among the followers of one sect there is a coherent opinion of what it is about.

And even more important. It didnt manage within the last 1000 years to have a lasting impact on society and the people, and I cannot see how it could have any in future. Christianity is a made up belief which never had any coherent message to begin with, it will never become coherent, and it will forever stay hostile to gentiles.

Gentile is commonly translated in the book of hate as unbeliever, but this is not what the word really means. It means non-Jew. You can go on twist arguments so long to fit into 'unbeliever', but on that way you neglect and dismiss the truth and on this non-truth you then base your belief.... Can this ever become 'right'? Dont think so :(

Grimsteinr
Monday, January 11th, 2010, 03:01 PM
I follow the Ancestral Gods of Our Folk, the Germanic Gods & Goddesses.
As I see it...Jesus's message was meant for the Jews, a Desert People.

As I understand it, Paul, after his "vision, hallucination, on the road", made himself the "Apostle to the Gentiles". Modern Christianity, as I see it, is more "Paul-anity" than Christianity. This self-proclaimed "Apostle to the Gentiles" authored more books of the New Testament than any other writer. There is contained, in the Books he authored, much more of Paul's Teaching than you will find of Jesus's Teaching in the whole NT.

I myself was a Catholic type Christian, for the 1st 40 years of my life. I've read the OT a couple times and the NT several times. I have been through several years of Bible study.
I became convinced that I was following a false faith, for Our Folk. I'm not trying to convert anyone or disparaging anyone's faith. I'm just explaining about mine.
I'll stick with the Ancestral Gods of our Germanic Folk. They speak to me, in my spirit and my blood.
YMMV.............

Jäger
Monday, January 11th, 2010, 03:50 PM
Paul says you are one in Christ, it's a spiritual concept, nothing more, nothing less.
Bleh, Paul said this to the Galater, because they were converting to judaism, after they heard, that only jews are chosen before god.
So he had to tell them, that if they believed in christ, they become "Abraham's seeds", the very expression used for the chosen people in the AT, a blood relation.
Spiritual or not, it is a destructive attitude. How should anyone feel comfort in the fact, that he will loose his roots, once he comes before christ?


I think people often underestimate the diversity of opinion among Catholic judges, politicians or clerics - the Church is not a monolith, neither is its tradition.
Thus, this exemplifies the irrelevance for our future efforts. Why would we tolerate a religion, which no one really knows what it means anyways?

Vindefense
Monday, January 11th, 2010, 04:06 PM
IMO National Socialism is the polar opposite of religion, keeping with this contrast, unlike religion National Socialism does not seek to destroy everything set against it, simply because the Ultimate Truth in this case is true.

Overall, I think you are correct but reading through Mein Kampf, I also see that Hitler was at the same time incredibly brilliant and incredibly ignorant. While he did have a great understanding of the natural world he also ignored vital details. Such as his desire to turn a natural system, that appears everywhere in nature in a localized form, into a nationalized world view that would eventually serve as a religion in itself.

It should be noted that this concept did not originate in the minds of the Germanic people but in those ancient Greek and Roman philosophers who substituted the spirituality of the folk with the artificial belief in the State. This was the natural conclusion to Germany's National Socialism. It is no surprise then, that all of the spiritual leaders at the time who did not promote this supremacy of the State doctrine, were either ran out of Germany or interned. Unsurprising as well that the Catholic church did not fall in this category since it has been used since it's very conception to universalize religion and usher in a Uni-State.

I also have to seriously question the view that Germanic values were being restored in the Reich. Especially since locally ran communities were sacrificed for nationalization. The Germanic law, based on the decision of juries was abolished in favor of civic "equity law" based on the decision of a judge. Natural rights were replaced with Civil rights, on and on. To me, this is more congruent with Romantic policy and directly opposed to Germanic tradition.

Anlef
Monday, January 11th, 2010, 09:24 PM
If this is absolute, as it is with christianity, it gives justification to the worst of tyrannies.

Care to explain?


In christianity, helping the sick and the weak is an end in itself, a direct connection to heaven so to say, that is the problem.

If helping the sick and the weak is a ticket to heaven, like you suggest, then it’s not an end in itself, like you say, but a means. The bottom line is that helping the sick and the poor is a duty, something our heathen ancestors also understood. Together we stand, divided we fall.


Jesus was jewish.

Yeah, so? Jesus was a Jew who challenged many of the Jewish ways. And apart from that, the point remains: the idea that ‘the Jews’ pushed Christianity is preposterous.


No, christianity makes it very clear, that god is above our father, and father's father, etc.

I never said Allfather wasn’t above our fathers. The point was that we’re not slaves to God, just like we’re not slaves to our fathers.


No, it's degenerate. Worldly wealth means an advantage in survival.

Mere worldly wealth leads to decadence, and thus childlessness, not survival. Only wealth infused with strong spiritual notions is sound. Besides, if anything, Christians have proved to be capable of producing much worldly wealth. Only since the West (including the Germanic world) has become de-christianised has it gone to shit in a frenzy of hedonism and darkness.


It is not, it is about breeding slaves, en mass.

Face it: if there is a Supreme Being, then we are His children, whether you like it or not. We owe Him loyalty. If God wanted slaves, he wouldn’t have granted us Free Will.

Furthermore, it was the heathen world that was rife with slavery. Real slavery. The kind where Germanics enslaved fellow Germanics, or where Germanics enslaved exotic folk and thus imported foreign blood.


Exactly, this is necessary, or all christians would try to escape the hell of worldly earth, and go directly into heaven.
However, suicide is not bad per se, it has (sometimes) very redeeming qualities, which escapes christians.

Christians don’t experience the worldly earth as a hell. Life is a gift, not a burden. Besides, to view worldly earth as a hell would be a sin, a gnostic heresy.


Not at all. Germanics have been striveing for worldly wealth ever since, and suicide was a way of keeping honor, etc.

What? That’s not what Rainman was talking about.


Can it go against logic? Most christians have a problem with this question :D

Can what go against logic? Nature?

Jäger
Tuesday, January 12th, 2010, 12:10 PM
Care to explain?
"1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation." - Romans 13,1-2

I certainly do not intend to accept our current frG "high power" (and they even have the blessings of the current pope).


The bottom line is that helping the sick and the poor is a duty, something our heathen ancestors also understood.
What source are you referring to?


Yeah, so? Jesus was a Jew who challenged many of the Jewish ways. And apart from that, the point remains: the idea that ‘the Jews’ pushed Christianity is preposterous.
If you are clinging to the phrase "the jews", then you have the general dissent of exceptions, however, it doesn't change the fact that some jews pushed christianity, it is irrelevant of christianity went against jewish ways, because it was not intended for jews anyway.


I never said Allfather wasn’t above our fathers. The point was that we’re not slaves to God, just like we’re not slaves to our fathers.
[...]
If God wanted slaves, he wouldn’t have granted us Free Will.
That is word acrobatics, if going against gods words, or being just infidel, means punishment, then it is nothing else than being a slave.
This is a paramount difference to most heathen religions, where you get neither rewarded for believing, nor are you punished for disbelief.
This carrot and stick principle of christianity is exactly what makes it tailored for slaves.


Mere worldly wealth leads to decadence, and thus childlessness, not survival. Only wealth infused with strong spiritual notions is sound.
I agree. However, christianity does not propagate worldly wealth paired with spirituality:
"25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." - Mark 10,25


Besides, if anything, Christians have proved to be capable of producing much worldly wealth.
No, Europeans have done so, of which only a few actually have read the bible. Not seldom they even resisted against "high powers". Mostly they did things they shouldn't have done. Or is god satisfied with mere lip services?


Only since the West (including the Germanic world) has become de-christianised has it gone to shit in a frenzy of hedonism and darkness.
christianity had its merit, it certainly was a center of spirituality, of which without any alternative we might have perished. European men have shaped christianity, and made it sometimes more and sometimes less useful for us.
However, we need something more stable. The sheer possibilities of interpretation is an immense drawback, truth can never lie in guesswork.
We need stories, stories of fate, and of symbolism.
Stories about jews, written by jews, are certainly not the way to go to find spirituality for our Volk.


Furthermore, it was the heathen world that was rife with slavery. Real slavery.
No, you mean "honest slavery", at least there was no deception about it. However, at all times, everywhere on this earth, all people are divided in the free and the slaves. There is no escaping it.
Problems came into being, when slaves had the rights of the free, christianity pushed for this, and strengthened their position, that was exactly what it was about to begin with.
Do you know which people took over the christian faith first, where it grew? Among the slaves of Rome, it was their light at the end of the tunnel of this "unfair" world. They could actually sack the rewards of christianity with very little efforts, after all, they had very little, and thus very little to abdicate, very little to seduce them.


Christians don’t experience the worldly earth as a hell.
I think the meaning came across, there are simply situations in life, where (if you truly believed you came into heaven) you'd go for suicide rather than enduring the pain.


What? That’s not what Rainman was talking about.
It is still true though.


Can what go against logic? Nature?
God, is god free of logic, not bound by logic laws?
Can he create a stone, which he can't lift up?

rainman
Tuesday, January 12th, 2010, 07:05 PM
Germanics helped each other. Those who were disruptive to the good of the whole died. If you robbed your brother, started fights without reason, were clearly defective you were either left to die or killed. It was simple survival. There is a difference between working together as a group and propping up the weak and defective.

Anyway I think I would be an Atheist in the Christian sense and so would Hitler, in that I don't see God as a human being. He can't lift up a rock that he made because he isn't a physical entity. Yet I believe and feel a spiritual component to life and the presense of this spirit, whatever you may call it. I think Hitler alluded to that. But it is also the mysetery teachings of Judaism and Christianity. God is never described as a physical person in the Bible. If you supplement the word "God" with spirit or logic it still makes sense by and large. Just as Jesus is a symbol of the sun. How can someone turn water into wine? Well it's a simple fermenting process. Logic, knowledge can. How can one turn one loaf of bread into 1,000. By planting seeds. The original meaning was gnostic we are god, god is within us etc. Spirit being something that acts upon man. With modern Christianity the shift is put on something outside of ones self as being the source of strength, wisdom etc.

Jäger
Wednesday, January 13th, 2010, 12:21 PM
Yet I believe and feel a spiritual component to life and the presense of this spirit, whatever you may call it.
It is already an anti-spiritualistic, and an illogical, thing to use the singular here.
Monotheism is a disease.

Ward
Saturday, January 16th, 2010, 09:50 AM
It should be noted that this concept did not originate in the minds of the Germanic people but in those ancient Greek and Roman philosophers who substituted the spirituality of the folk with the artificial belief in the State.

I think that's a fair assessment. As Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf:

"Roman history correctly conceived in extremely broad outlines is and remains the best mentor, not only for today, but probably for all time. The Hellenic ideal of culture should also remain preserved for us in its exemplary beauty. We must not allow the greater racial community to be torn asunder by the differences of the individual peoples. The struggle that rages today is for very great aims. A culture combining millenniums and embracing Hellenism and Germanism is fighting for its existence." [Link] (http://www.crusader.net/texts/mk/mkv2ch02.html)


I also have to seriously question the view that Germanic values were being restored in the Reich. Especially since locally ran communities were sacrificed for nationalization. The Germanic law, based on the decision of juries was abolished in favor of civic "equity law" based on the decision of a judge. Natural rights were replaced with Civil rights, on and on. To me, this is more congruent with Romantic policy and directly opposed to Germanic tradition.

Here I have to respectfully disagree, as I think the question of what constitutes "Germanic values" is open for debate. My sense is that cultural values in the Germanic world began to vary as Germanics began splitting into different tribes. Indeed, we can see the results of this divergence right here on this board in the wide variety of perspectives of its members.

Some here would argue that true Germanic values revolve around ideals of freedom and liberty that were best realized in the form of government established by America's founding fathers. However, in my view, our founding fathers borrowed just as heavily from ancient Greece and Rome as Hitler, even if they drew from different philosophical aspects of them. I mean, it's no accident that almost all of our political terminology is rooted in Latin or Greek.



Why would we tolerate a religion, which no one really knows what it means anyways?

One could say the same about Germanic neo-paganism, as there exists a variety of contrasting and conflicting interpretations of it.


This is a paramount difference to most heathen religions, where you get neither rewarded for believing, nor are you punished for disbelief. This carrot and stick principle of christianity is exactly what makes it tailored for slaves.

Are you the same Jäger who enthusiastically endorsed the principle of the "carrot and the stick" in the thread on hair-dyeing?


I agree. However, christianity does not propagate worldly wealth paired with spirituality:
"25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." - Mark 10,25

This is simply not true, although they did find unscrupulous Jewish financiers to be a sleazy breed, but who can blame them for that?


It is already an anti-spiritualistic, and an illogical, thing to use the singular here. Monotheism is a disease.

Judging from Mein Kampf, it seems to me that if Hitler did hold religious beliefs, they were monotheistic. Incidentally, it seems that monotheism is very much in accordance with the Führerprinzip. So, do you reject the Führerprinzip too?

Jäger
Saturday, January 16th, 2010, 11:32 AM
One could say the same about Germanic neo-paganism, as there exists a variety of contrasting and conflicting interpretations of it.
Perhaps, so what? I am certainly not advocating a mere reconstruction of ancient religions.


Are you the same Jäger who enthusiastically endorsed the principle of the "carrot and the stick" in the thread on hair-dyeing?
Yes, many of our people are slaves, that's why it will work, as it worked for christianity.


Judging from Mein Kampf, it seems to me that if Hitler did hold religious beliefs, they were monotheistic. Incidentally, it seems that monotheism is very much in accordance with the Führerprinzip. So, do you reject the Führerprinzip too?
You are wrong, there always has been a leader among the Gods, as there should be a Führer among us, our Gods are our role models.
The Führerprinzip doesn't say, that there can be only one lonely isolated Führer without peers. The Führerprinzip is about a leading elite (as in plural), with the best at the top (the Führer), very much like our ancient Gods, with their (changing!) leaders (Odin, Tiwaz).
There is no contradiction to the Führerprinzip.

The purpose of monotheism was to prevent a change of leadership, not to get rid of other simultaneously ruling Kings (as in there can be no rivals for the same job, not that there are more than one jobs available). That's why christian monarchy only knows the passing of leadership through inheritance, this is what goes against the Führerprinzip.

However, Hitler was indeed a monotheist, certainly something which added to his downfall. His catholic upbringing planted a seed in his brain, which he could not fight off with reason alone, and his baptism destroyed his spiritual sense, which could have been the means to do so. :(

solkorset
Saturday, January 16th, 2010, 12:37 PM
Hitler's table talks are most likely falsifications. Follow the link in the opening article and you can read it for yourself. If you want to discuss Hitler, stick to his published works, MK and speeches.

Quote:

The problem with these anti-Christian quotes is that the German text of the table-talk does not include them, they were made up by François Genoud, the translator of the French version, the very version that English translations rely on! (More on this below).

Even if you believed the table-talk included the anti-Christian quotes, nowhere in the talk does Hitler speak against Jesus or his own brand of Christianity. On the contrary, the table-talk has Hitler speaking admirably about Jesus. Hitler did, of course criticize organized religion in a political sense (as do many Christians today), but never in a religious sense. But the problems with using Hitler's table talk conversations as evidence for Hitler's apostasy are manyfold:

1) The reliability of the source (hearsay and editing by the anti-Catholic, Bormann)

2) The reliability of multiple translations, from German to French to English.

3) The bias of the translators (especially Genoud).

4) The table-talk reflects thoughts that do not occur in Hitler's other private or public conversations.

5) Nowhere does Hitler denounce Jesus or his own brand of Christianity.

6) The "anti-Christian" portions of Table-Talk does not concur with Hitler's actions for "positive" Christianity.

Vindefense
Saturday, January 16th, 2010, 07:08 PM
I think that's a fair assessment. As Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf:

"Roman history correctly conceived in extremely broad outlines is and remains the best mentor, not only for today, but probably for all time. The Hellenic ideal of culture should also remain preserved for us in its exemplary beauty. We must not allow the greater racial community to be torn asunder by the differences of the individual peoples. The struggle that rages today is for very great aims. A culture combining millenniums and embracing Hellenism and Germanism is fighting for its existence."

I think that Hitler is certainly right here. Greco-Roman civilization is certainly the best mentor for a people, if they need to be prodded and seduced with carrots and sticks. The real question however, do the benefits that we gain outweigh the consequence? In any action the negative effect should be equally weighed with the positive.


Here I have to respectfully disagree, as I think the question of what constitutes "Germanic values" is open for debate. My sense is that cultural values in the Germanic world began to vary as Germanics began splitting into different tribes. Indeed, we can see the results of this divergence right here on this board in the wide variety of perspectives of its members.


By Germanic values, I mean how they interacted not only with each other, but with others. It was primarily oath and Law (the foundation of trust) that held the groups together. This centered around the marriage vow, then the offspring, family, community and outward from there. Local and bonded by common blood. This is what made the Germanic groups so prosperous, coupled with the fact that all of their military was voluntary and their business with each other was executed without gold or silver coinage. Compare this to the Roman system, where there was no trust, no marriage oath, no voluntary militias, no common bond and no one would do anything without being stimulated by gold and silver.

Of course it would be ignorant to think that the degradation of Rome was not without a cause and it would be equally foolish to ignore that cause to be the 'supremacy of the State' doctrine, which is the policy Hitler was foolish to employ.



Some here would argue that true Germanic values revolve around ideals of freedom and liberty that were best realized in the form of government established by America's founding fathers. However, in my view, our founding fathers borrowed just as heavily from ancient Greece and Rome as Hitler, even if they drew from different philosophical aspects of them.

Well, you certainly will find no dis-agreement from me. When you refer to founding fathers you must mean those who established the con-stitution, which were among the wealthy aristocrats. However, their desire to legalize plunder and imitate Romes political policies will prove to be disastrous yet. Study the early history of New England and the northern colonies and you will understand that they were run almost exactly in contrast to Roman society.


I mean, it's no accident that almost all of our political terminology is rooted in Latin or Greek.

A very unfortunate truth.

Jäger
Saturday, January 16th, 2010, 07:48 PM
Of course it would be ignorant to think ...
It is also ignorant to stamp a modern view of a libertarian society on ancient Germanics, even though we hardly know anything factual about their true ways.

rainman
Saturday, January 16th, 2010, 07:57 PM
I base my own version of Asatru on "Aryo-Germanic" culture. Which I feel is firstly rooted in the prehistoric Aryans but primarily has its birth in classical Greece, then to Rome and then to modern Germanic culture. Modern Germanic culture certainly was formed under the influence of Greek and Roman ideas. You can't seperate the two unless you want to go back to some very ancient time. Even here during the time of classical Greece the Greeks and Germans had only recently split from a common Aryan ancestor therefore their culture, mythology etc. was very similar. The only difference is we have literature from classical Greece but not really from Germans at this time.

I also agree Hitler overemphasized the state which is more Roman rather than traditionally Germanic. Modern Germany is based on civil law (as is most of Europe) which is from Roman influence. English common law which is mainly in England and the United States is based on Germanic customs of trial by a jury of peers, not obeying the law to the letter, but rather making decisions based on what a "reasonable person" or a group of peers would conclude as correct and so on.

Ideologically I would be against great state control but given a situation in which most of the population are morons it is sometimes the only way to create change (guide the flock).

I have nothing against monotheism in some of its forms like pantheism. One can believe in an overal spiritual force as well as local spirits and a pantheon of gods. The seven gods of the Roman state were often equated with aspects of a single god. Monotheism dates back mainly to classical Greece and not to semetic ideology. If you read the Old Testament it acknowledges other gods but places the Jew God as the most powerful. Actually it gives many names of this Jew God- later they considered these many names to be one God. The one God idea mainly came abotu during new testament times via Greek influence.

Vindefense
Sunday, January 17th, 2010, 02:16 PM
It is also ignorant to stamp a modern view of a libertarian society on ancient Germanics, even though we hardly know anything factual about their true ways.

That history is not science is true, but if approached in a scientific manner the fragments can be put back together and the truth of history can be found in the peoples customs.

But lets entertain your accusation, If this view is so called libertarianism, as you say, explain why these customs were prevalent among all of the Northern European people, in the way that they all organized their societies. Fortunately, enough of these customs are still remembered today because they were deeply ingrained in the psyche and were part of a much older tradition.

Posted by Rainman:


You can't seperate the two unless you want to go back to some very ancient time. Even here during the time of classical Greece the Greeks and Germans had only recently split from a common Aryan ancestor therefore their culture, mythology etc. was very similar.

I agree, the Germanic and Latin culture are branches from part of a much older Aryan root. I also do not doubt that at one time Greek and Roman civilization were the zenith of high culture. But this was certainly before the advent of 'state supremacy' and 'atheism', which is a primary cause of degeneration since it is the recipe for rapid, unnatural growth.


Ideologically I would be against great state control but given a situation in which most of the population are morons it is sometimes the only way to create change (guide the flock).

It is the easiest way, and thus it yields the quickest results which are usually the least satisfying.

Jäger
Sunday, January 17th, 2010, 03:36 PM
explain why these customs were prevalent among all of the Northern European people, in the way that they all organized their societies.
My point was, that this is exactly something we do not know, or just very fragmented.
E.g. by saying that all of their military was voluntary, you simply go out on a limb.
The same with any of your assumptions, i.e. that an oath was always enough to keep social order. In how much people actually had to be physically forced to do some things is not known to us.
You just present an over-romanticized view of it, and I dare to say you do so to stimulate your need for propaganda, or wishful thinking of how your Utopian society might look like.

Vindefense
Monday, January 18th, 2010, 12:12 AM
Jager, I have not based anything on assumption, only many years of careful study and examination of the customs of the Northern Europeans. Customs which have been recorded as traditions that have been passed down through the ages and are still kept today. Regardless of history's lies and an organized attack to replace them with politikal correct policy, many are still intact. Once you know how to look, you can piece the fragments together.

Also, an oath will not hold society together, you must also have Law. Atheism is the absence of law, and such societies must be patched together with regulations and restrictions and no matter how many the State employs, they will always be without law and without freedom.

Jäger
Monday, January 18th, 2010, 12:59 AM
Customs which have been recorded as traditions that have been passed down through the ages and are still kept today.
So the heavily christian Swedish empire did not make use of conscription?

Hauke Haien
Monday, January 18th, 2010, 04:06 AM
Incidentally, it seems that monotheism is very much in accordance with the Führerprinzip.
"Führer" is a new expression for the otherwise redefined "Herzog", a Germanic title that quite literally means "army leader" and Germanic monarchy developed from this position. The observation that monotheism and monarchy can be construed to run in parallel had undoubtedly occurred to the Franks as well, but they also continued to rely on divinely inspired hæl, a concept that can be assumed to have a common source with Hellenic "Charisma" and Iranian "Chvarna", where it likewise forms the foundation of the right to lead. Since none of these terms have fully retained their meaning, I would recommend reading Vor folkeæt i oldtiden (German title: Kultur und Religion der Germanen) and particularly vol. 3 Hellighed og Helligdom by Vilhelm Grønbech, where it is explored in depth.


It should be noted that this concept did not originate in the minds of the Germanic people but in those ancient Greek and Roman philosophers who substituted the spirituality of the folk with the artificial belief in the State.

such societies must be patched together with regulations and restrictions and no matter how many the State employs, they will always be without law
You are talking about law in the sense of Recht/rätt instead of Gesetz/lag, but it is the prerogative of the nobility to recognise the former and put it into form as the latter. The English language is not truly deficient in this regard, they are indeed a coherent concept, just like folk and order are one, unless they are artificially separated in universal order systems such as Christianity.


I also have to seriously question the view that Germanic values were being restored in the Reich. Especially since locally ran communities were sacrificed for nationalization.
We had already sacrificed them in Roman times in exchange for the ability to create large tribal confederations that could challenge them and any other Whitelings. When the post-ethnic age finally ended with the rise of nationalism, it was still not possible to restore it in powerless fragmentation, because of the pressing need to destroy France. Therefore, our nationalist awakening had to take the form of a pan-German spirit and this was nourished by the Brothers Grimm and others of equally unrecognised significance. Hitler came to be our war leader at a time when Western Globalism and Soviet Communism threatened to dominate and poison us with a new dose of universalism. This process is now ongoing and likely to be lethal unless stopped or otherwise evaded.

Vindefense
Monday, January 18th, 2010, 04:48 PM
So the heavily christian Swedish empire did not make use of conscription?

Not originally. But conscription and voluntary are not really the proper terms to show the contrast between the military of the Roman empire and that of the Germanic tribes. At the highest corruption of the empire, soldiers could only be bought. The Germanic people on the other hand having structured their societies primarily around their understanding of right and duty, had militias comprising of all able bodied males. The question that begs to be asked is where did they get this understanding of right and duty, which is so important in a healthy society and when did they lose it?

Hauke Haien:

You are talking about law in the sense of Recht/rätt instead of Gesetz/lag, but it is the prerogative of the nobility to recognise the former and put it into form as the latter. The English language is not truly deficient in this regard, they are indeed a coherent concept, just like folk and order are one, unless they are artificially separated in universal order systems such as Christianity.


Recht is right, but the concept of right, based on the assumptions of the aristocrats or the nobility as you say, assumes that men can not possibly ever know what is right. And they are correct, they can not. This is exactly why Atheism has flourished. Where we once held a clear understanding of Recht as a self guiding principle, we now are subjects of Lex and Equity. Which are distortions of law into whatever the popular view is of the legislating body. Which can only ever be composed of men who have no ideal of what right is.

If you wonder why there is no justice today it is because we have abandoned the concept of Recht, which was law based on what men knew to be right according to divine providence, for the false ideal that law is whatever the State says it is, which brings to us the same conditions that sapped the strength of mighty Rome.


We had already sacrificed them in Roman times in exchange for the ability to create large tribal confederations that could challenge them and any other Whitelings.

This is true, but these large tribal confederations, as any confederation were held together by friendship but this union could not be politically binding else they would cease to be confederates. What did bind them though, was duty which was first and foremost to defend the weak, their women and children.

Within the confederations, when individuals broke this oath and neglected their duty, they could be tried before their peers, and if found guilty were cast outside the law and back into the 'natural state'. Were the only right they reserved was the right to defend themselves.


Hitler came to be our war leader at a time when Western Globalism and Soviet Communism threatened to dominate and poison us with a new dose of universalism. This process is now ongoing and likely to be lethal unless stopped or otherwise evaded

And what is it that stops you from combating this propaganda? What silences your opposition? What of the popular law of the day, your Gesetz, your leaders, your so called nobles. If you think that your situation is only the unfortunate result of these being in the hands of corrupt men, my friend you are wrong.

Hauke Haien
Monday, January 18th, 2010, 08:04 PM
This is true, but these large tribal confederations, as any confederation were held together by friendship
Leadership.


but this union could not be politically binding else they would cease to be confederates.
They did in fact cease to be confederates. which is why people even today believe that there are "Saxons", "Franks" etc. In Norway, nobody remembers anymore what the tribes called themselves before their consolidation into several petty kingdoms.


What did bind them though, was duty which was first and foremost to defend the weak, their women and children.
Their duty was to defend the strong, whose protection in turn enabled them to care for their women and children. If you do not have a farm, then you better enter into the service of someone who has. If you are unable to raise a war band, then you have to join one as a follower. Centralisation transformed this from an immediate experience to an abstract one, but it did not abolish personal autonomy, because it never existed in the first place. The peoples of the north have to maintain a society where they can rely on each other in order to survive. This means that they can never be independent from each other.


What of the popular law of the day, your Gesetz, your leaders, your so called nobles.
They are a clique of fish merchants, not nobles, and the basic Gesetz they enforce was placed into its seating arrangement by their American business partners, in order to facilitate a worldwide trade in salmon, which in their mind exhausts the purpose of all human existence.

Nobility alone is not enough in any case; hælless nobles are not leaders and those who show their ability to inspire others cannot be of low birth, even if their quality has not been recognised before.


If you think that your situation is only the unfortunate result of these being in the hands of corrupt men, my friend you are wrong.
It is also a question of proper customs, which is why we accepted an avatar of Right and swore oaths of loyalty to make his will our law.

Anlef
Monday, January 18th, 2010, 09:37 PM
"1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation." - Romans 13,1-2

I certainly do not intend to accept our current frG "high power" (and they even have the blessings of the current pope).

Thank you, but that still doesn’t explain your statement that obedience to absolute authority necessarily leads to tyranny.

I would say that obedience to the absolute authority of worldly figures can certainly lead to tyranny, since human beings are fallible.


What source are you referring to?

What source? What historical society didn’t care for its sick and poor?


If you are clinging to the phrase "the jews", then you have the general dissent of exceptions, however, it doesn't change the fact that some jews pushed christianity, it is irrelevant of christianity went against jewish ways, because it was not intended for jews anyway.

Well, it is not I who clings to “the Jews”, it is those who I disagree with. I see people on this board going on and on about how “the Jews”, how they are responsible for all our ails, and how they “pushed” Christianity onto heathens. So I’m glad that you say it was some Jews. That, and the fact that many non-Jews were at the foundation of Christanity dispells the notion that Christianity is wholly Jewish, or a Jewish scheme, or instrinically Jewish. The Jews at the foundation of Christianity became Christians and were despised by other Jews. The hate that many on this board have for Christianity is exactly the same hate that many Jews have traditionally had for Christianity.


That is word acrobatics, if going against gods words, or being just infidel, means punishment, then it is nothing else than being a slave.
This is a paramount difference to most heathen religions, where you get neither rewarded for believing, nor are you punished for disbelief.
This carrot and stick principle of christianity is exactly what makes it tailored for slaves.


God is not only a father figure, God is also a king, presiding over his kingdom. Being loyal and obedient to your king is not like being a slave. Unless your king is a tyrant, which God is certainly not.

Futhermore, heathen societies in general –including that of our ancestors– may not have directly punished people for not believing, but you can bet you life that they punished people who didn’t obey religious law.

An example from the Frisian law:


If anyone breaks into a shrine and steals sacred items from there, he shall be taken to the sea, and on the sand, which will be covered by the flood, his ears will be cleft, and he will be castrated and sacrified to the god, whose temple he dishonoured.

So one would not only be punished for theft, but also for sacrilege, for not obeying the religious rules. In fact, all law was religious. Everyone was bound by religious custom, which in practice amounted to dogma. It was priests who did the punishing; it was only the priests who had the authority to impose order during assemblies; etc. The law, *aiwō, was nothing less than (the priestly interpretation of) Divine Order. That is why a priest was called an *aiwōwardaz ‘guardian of the law’ (> Old English ǣweweard, Old High German ēwarto), or an *aiwōsagan ‘law-speaker’ (> Old Saxon ēosago, Old High German ēsago).

Disloyalty/disobedience to religious decree was thus equal to manifest disbelief. The only real possible difference, then, between Germanic religiosity and Christian religion in this aspect, was that in the latter discreet (or: ‘private’) disbelief would also have its consequences for the afterlife of the individual. Yet for all we know heathen priests likewise taught that discreet disbelief would have consequences for the afterlife. Discreet disbelief would amount to disbelief in spirit, and that means secret disloyalty to your kinsmen, which could very well mean that one would not join ones kinsmen in the afterlife. To flat out claim that was not the case is unwarranted.



I agree. However, christianity does not propagate worldly wealth paired with spirituality:
"25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." - Mark 10,25

Yes, and we can see how that passage has led to Christian Europeans relinquishing their fortunes en masse. I don’t think so. Only Marxists do this. And Marxism isn’t Christianity. Marxism is a perversion of Christianity, yes, but anti-Christian just as well. Is this a fault of Christianity? No more than it would be the fault of heathen religiosity were it to devolve into tyranny, which is most definitely possible. Besides, there is some legitimacy to the blooming of Marxism, in the sense that it was a reaction to the extreme differences in wealth that plagued societies.

From the Hávamál:


78.
Fully stocked folds I saw for Fitjungs’ sons,
now they carry beggar’s staffs;
wealth is like the twinkling of an eye,
it is the most unreliable of friends.

79.
The foolish man, if he manages to get
money or the love of a woman,
his arrogance increases, but not his common sense;
on he goes deeply sunk in delusion.

Who is foolish? Who is wise? Are you authorised to tell me? It seems that if the Hávamál contains any wisdom, then material wealth is to be distrusted. The more so since most men are fools. All Christianity did was further shape this notion.


No, Europeans have done so, of which only a few actually have read the bible. Not seldom they even resisted against "high powers". Mostly they did things they shouldn't have done. Or is god satisfied with mere lip services?

If Europe has become rich, because few people read the Bible, in the same time when Christianity was at its height, then what are you say afraid of?


christianity had its merit, it certainly was a center of spirituality, of which without any alternative we might have perished. European men have shaped christianity, and made it sometimes more and sometimes less useful for us.
However, we need something more stable. The sheer possibilities of interpretation is an immense drawback, truth can never lie in guesswork.
We need stories, stories of fate, and of symbolism.
Stories about jews, written by jews, are certainly not the way to go to find spirituality for our Volk.

Something more stable? Certainly Christianity has proved to be more stable than the ever changing and fluid system that is Germanic religiosity. How are you not laying the full blame of the world’s ails on the Jews and on Christianity? How is that not a travesty? The proposition that Germanic society would be OK as long as it would stay clear of Jews and Christianity is a fanciful legend. Sure, the Old Testament concerns the Jews, but that doesn’t mean that we can’t work on our own Germanic narrative in a Christian framework. In fact, that is exactly what I’m doing right now. It seems a hell of a lot better than simply ejecting the religion that has intimately shaped our Wyrd for the last 1500 years.

And by the way, what gives you the impression that fate is incompatible with Christianity? Anglo-Saxon and Saxon Christians always spoke of Wyrd and Wurd, next to God’s providence.


No, you mean "honest slavery", at least there was no deception about it. However, at all times, everywhere on this earth, all people are divided in the free and the slaves. There is no escaping it.
Problems came into being, when slaves had the rights of the free, christianity pushed for this, and strengthened their position, that was exactly what it was about to begin with.
Do you know which people took over the christian faith first, where it grew? Among the slaves of Rome, it was their light at the end of the tunnel of this "unfair" world. They could actually sack the rewards of christianity with very little efforts, after all, they had very little, and thus very little to abdicate, very little to seduce them.

You’re making excuses. Slavery is evil. There is no such thing as ‘honest slavery’. We shouldn’t have been practicing slavery in the first place. That our own vices blew up in our faces at the advent of Christianity is our own fault, not Christianity’s.


I think the meaning came across, there are simply situations in life, where (if you truly believed you came into heaven) you'd go for suicide rather than enduring the pain.

Yes, there are those situations. But the more the fact remains: Christianity celebrates life.


God, is god free of logic, not bound by logic laws?
Can he create a stone, which he can't lift up?

I think either God is almighty in the sense that he is mightiest of all, or that God can create a stone which he can’t lift up, and then lift it up anyway. In other words: God is not bound by Logic as we are. That doesn’t mean he is free of Logic, however.

Horagalles
Monday, January 18th, 2010, 10:12 PM
Hitler wrote Mein Kampf while he was in prison, however these speeches was given when he came in power:

Do any of you think atheism is responsible for nationalism? However I do no think Stalin nor Hitler was atheist.


Link to Hitler's table talk: http://nobeliefs.com/HitlerSources.htm (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fnobelief s.com%2FHitlerSources.htm)
I recall some quotes attributed to Hitler which were completely made up (I think that was attributed to Rauschnigg). I am not sure, if this refers to this as well. In any case, this is more or less hearsay, so I would take that with a grain of salt.
Here is some comment David Irving gave on his site:
http://www.fpp.co.uk/Hitler/Table_Talk/Picker.html

frippardthree
Tuesday, January 19th, 2010, 04:36 AM
I do believe that Hitler did in fact believe in a Supreme Deity.


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.
Adolf Hitler
Mein Kampf



Never forget that the most sacred right on this earth is man's right to have the earth to till with his own hands, the most sacred sacrifice the blood that a man sheds for this earth....
Adolf Hitler
Mein Kampf



What we have to fight for is the freedom and independence of the fatherland, so that our people may be enabled to fulfil the mission assigned to it by the creator.
Adolf Hitler
Mein Kampf


All of the Above Quotes Retrieved From:http://www.allgreatquotes.com/mein_kampf_quotes.shtml

Vindefense
Wednesday, January 20th, 2010, 04:45 AM
Leadership.

The confederations themselves were structured and held together by free enterprise, which would become known throughout Northern Europe early on as 'frith' and then later as the Gild system. And it was these craftsmen, journeymen, apprentices and farmers, which comprised the militias. The leader of these confederations were patriarchs yes, but they did not rule by mere assumption or by might alone but by their knowledge of the customs and law of their ancestral tradition. The union of these confederations was needed to achieve the common interest and provide the defense of those unable to defend themselves. But they were seldom subject to any form of tribute.



They did in fact cease to be confederates. which is why people even today believe that there are "Saxons", "Franks" etc. In Norway, nobody remembers anymore what the tribes called themselves before their consolidation into several petty kingdoms.

In these 'petty kingdoms' you have a model of the social structure of these tribes, which was sovereign, based on localized rulership and existed to promote the frith of the folk. They still live on and we call them districts, bezirks, and regions.



Their duty was to defend the strong, whose protection in turn enabled them to care for their women and children.

Which could only ever be the duty of all able bodied men. The confederations themselves held alliances with other confederations because of the Germanic concept and ideal of kinship, which is the foundation of strength among the Northern people and what the enemy fears most.



If you do not have a farm, then you better enter into the service of someone who has. If you are unable to raise a war band, then you have to join one as a follower. Centralization transformed this from an immediate experience to an abstract one, but it did not abolish personal autonomy, because it never existed in the first place. The peoples of the north have to maintain a society where they can rely on each other in order to survive. This means that they can never be independent from each other.

This is true and that type of social structure which you see as collective, imitates nature. It puts the responsibility into the hands of the individual who is bound in duty to the whole, else the individual perishes. The harsh elements of nature did not afford the pursuit of selfish interests. However, to always speak of independence as travesty seems contrary to me, for it is exactly what you want for the German Nation. If it is right for Nations to be independent then it follows that smaller districts within that nation are right to be so as well and smaller areas within that district, so on and on.

What must be understood is that centralization was a strategic political move, nothing more and nothing else. While this move for power may have had some benefits it was more detrimental because it eventually came to destroy our folk ways, erasing all but the most stubborn traditions. And it is fortunate that these few traditions survived in the Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian race, for they now are established around the world.


It is also a question of proper customs, which is why we accepted an avatar of Right and swore oaths of loyalty to make his will our law.

Such an oaths is the fealty of vassals. The only oath a man can swear and always be on the side of right is to stand in between harm and the women and children. This is true virtue. Anything construed as right over and beyond this, can only be based on assumption. You say proper customs, but it is clear that the ancestral ways of the German people were not being restored, in fact they have been steadily dismantled in favor of the economy and law of the Papal state. Hitler's rise to power was just a continuation of this after an all too brief pause, and I dare say his policy was almost a complete reversal of traditional Germanic custom in favor of a new type of atheism, where the State alone was divine.

Horagalles
Wednesday, January 20th, 2010, 02:35 PM
The confederations themselves were structured and held together by free enterprise, which would become known throughout Northern Europe early on as 'frith' and then later as the Gild system. And it was these craftsmen, journeymen, apprentices and farmers, which comprised the militias. The leader of these confederations were patriarchs yes, but they did not rule by mere assumption or by might alone but by their knowledge of the customs and law of their ancestral tradition. The union of these confederations was needed to achieve the common interest and provide the defense of those unable to defend themselves. But they were seldom subject to any form of tribute....... That on the other hand is a product of the modern era. With a more or less absolute state as an entity to claim an absolute monopoly on political leadership, power and decision making. It does by the way not matter, if that state is called a dicatorship or democracy.


Back to the subject. There is certainly some anti-clerical or neopagan element with some of the National Socialists. Just that it wasn't as anti-Religion / anti-Christian as this sometimes dished up for a presumably American bible-belt public. Nobody was persecuted in Germany just for being a confessing Christian. Those Christians locked up were so for other reasons (such as the refusal to do military service or even outright treason (like in the case of Bonhoeffer))

Ward
Monday, January 25th, 2010, 08:41 AM
Hitler's table talks are most likely falsifications. Follow the link in the opening article and you can read it for yourself. If you want to discuss Hitler, stick to his published works, MK and speeches.

After looking into this topic a little more, I came to the same conclusion. Hearsay accounts about Hitler should be taken with a huge grain of salt; many of them are almost certainly agenda-driven.


By Germanic values, I mean how they interacted not only with each other, but with others.

When you say "how they interacted not only with each other, but with others," do you mean other Germanic tribes? If that is what you mean, wouldn't all of the bloody inter-Germanic tribal warfare in pagan times contradict this assertion?


It was primarily oath and Law (the foundation of trust) that held the groups together. This centered around the marriage vow, then the offspring, family, community and outward from there. Local and bonded by common blood.

I don't know how exclusively Germanic this kind of social arrangement was. I think most small tribal societies, from all over Europe to the Americas to East Asia, were held together around some kind of similar social framework.


This is what made the Germanic groups so prosperous, coupled with the fact that all of their military was voluntary and their business with each other was executed without gold or silver coinage.

Of course conscription did not exist in the modern sense, but I can't imagine that an able-bodied male could refuse to fight without having to face serious repercussions from his kinsman.


Well, you certainly will find no dis-agreement from me. When you refer to founding fathers you must mean those who established the con-stitution, which were among the wealthy aristocrats. However, their desire to legalize plunder and imitate Romes political policies will prove to be disastrous yet. Study the early history of New England and the northern colonies and you will understand that they were run almost exactly in contrast to Roman society.

Well, the social structures that existed in the small isolated communities in colonial New England were a product of their time and circumstances.

They no longer exist is because of increased population density in the region, economic advances, and the need to cooperate with other colonies in order to liberate themselves from British rule and defend themselves from foreign powers. It became necessary for colonial American communities to band together and form their own state and forgo some of their local autonomy, much as it was for European Germanics. The state is really the only way a nation can organize itself, coordinate its activities, and represent itself to other nations.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating a command-economy or anything, but some state regulations are indispensable.



Perhaps, so what? I am certainly not advocating a mere reconstruction of ancient religions.

Leaving aside the question of the feasibility of cobbling together a new religion in our present circumstances, it's good to see that you realize a full-on resurrection of the defeated ancient religions is not practical, and that ancient lifestyles are... well, outdated.

Jäger
Monday, January 25th, 2010, 10:57 AM
A question, has anyone in this thread actualy read Mein Kampf?
A. Hitler says that confessions are the result of up-bringing alone and just feed on the inner spiritual need of the person.
In thus, it sounds as if the belief in the actual "truth" of christianity never sticked with him, and he just considered it a necessary thing to have, which, then resulted in "positive Christianity", because, he had no intention to be a preacher.
A mistake nevertheless.

Ward
Monday, January 25th, 2010, 08:58 PM
A question, has anyone in this thread actualy read Mein Kampf?
A. Hitler says that confessions are the result of up-bringing alone and just feed on the inner spiritual need of the person.

He said something to the effect that it is not the state's place to intervene in matters of faith, but the question of his personal religious beliefs is another matter.


In thus, it sounds as if the belief in the actual "truth" of christianity never sticked with him, and he just considered it a necessary thing to have, which, then resulted in "positive Christianity", because, he had no intention to be a preacher.

In all of his writings and speeches, I haven't seen any instances in which he expresses any doubts in the basic "Truths" of "positive Christianity." He may not been have like the average Christian, but he was essentially a Christian nonetheless.

Vindefense
Tuesday, January 26th, 2010, 09:04 PM
Hearsay accounts about Hitler should be taken with a huge grain of salt; many of them are almost certainly agenda-driven.


The best way to evaluate someone is to examine their actions, not their words. But he was exceptional, in the way that he wavered very little between the two, which few leaders can claim.


When you say "how they interacted not only with each other, but with others," do you mean other Germanic tribes? If that is what you mean, wouldn't all of the bloody inter-Germanic tribal warfare in pagan times contradict this assertion?

I don't think it is contradicting, during warfare these values would have held the highest significance and warfare is just as much a form of interaction.


I don't know how exclusively Germanic this kind of social arrangement was. I think most small tribal societies, from all over Europe to the Americas to East Asia, were held together around some kind of similar social framework.

I agree. Any tribal society could be said to have a similar structure, which is imitative of the natural order and fosters the greatest health among the folk. It is interesting to note that there were no godless (Atheist) tribal societies.


Of course conscription did not exist in the modern sense, but I can't imagine that an able-bodied male could refuse to fight without having to face serious repercussions from his kinsman.

Doing so would be a good way to sever your ties with the community, and the protection they offered. Outlaws could be killed without compensation on sight once judged. No doubt that this was revived for a time in frontier life during the 'wild' West.


The state is really the only way a nation can organize itself, coordinate its activities, and represent itself to other nations.

I don't doubt that you are correct. To me it is a peculiar thing, and I think the most appropriate word for it may be- perpetual. It perpetuates that which it strives to overcome. But besides that it eats and it eats. It lives solely to eat and the more it eats, the more it needs to eat. And there is only one thing it is truly capable of producing, excrement. The eaten resources get passed back to the community, where they are eventually eaten again and again until all of the worth of such a resource has been spent entirely and there is no value left.


Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating a command-economy or anything, but some state regulations are indispensable.

Indispensable today, yes. Because through the French feudal society of the Aristocratic South, the Monarch established his monopoly on the tobacco trade and brought the Negro slave trade across the Atlantic. So heavily vested were his interests that not even war could win their deportation. So they are still here with us, and there are others as well who have no regard for Anglo customs and we try to bind them with regulations and deter them with imprisonment and they laugh.


Leaving aside the question of the feasibility of cobbling together a new religion in our present circumstances, it's good to see that you realize a full-on resurrection of the defeated ancient religions is not practical, and that ancient lifestyles are... well, outdated.

I think they are out-dated in the sense that they have ceased to be the driving force behind our customs. Their overall structure and the social function of those communities however, were far healthier than what followed.

Ward
Wednesday, January 27th, 2010, 09:23 AM
I don't think it is contradicting, during warfare these values would have held the highest significance and warfare is just as much a form of interaction.

This kind of touches on the most important point I was trying to make.

From what I have gathered on your views as to what constitutes true Germanic values (which are shared by a few other Americans here), you believe that traditional Anglo-American values are closer to the "true" Germanic values than NS German values.

There are obviously some important differences between the Anglosphere and Germany vis-à-vis certain social values; the former tends toward more liberalism in its affairs while the latter tends towards more authoritarianism. I'm not going to pretend to know where these differences stem from, but who's to say that one is more Germanic than the other?

Lothringen
Monday, March 15th, 2010, 03:53 PM
Of course it is !
Hitler didn't want to go war inside the Austro-Hungarian army because it was to much "multiethnique".
He was true (at least on this point). The Habsburg Reich always claimed itself as success of HOLY ROMAN Empire. Sound like Roman Catholic sword against the Ottoman one doesn't it ? Therefore, it was first a christian lords alliance vs Islam.
Kaïser Whilhelm (I & II) German Empire was much more a national and ethnical one against other nation France, which was quite secular (and even anticlerical) and more and more identifying itself to the Gauls (Napoleon III search on Alesia).


You cannot be a Fuhrer that has nothing to justify to the Church AND a Kaïser who beg for the Pope to bless his army.

"ein Reich, ein Volk, ein Furher" is therefore not compatible with "ein Reich, ein Got, ein Kaïser".

Moreover since Pentecost, multi-langage is not any more the Babel curse among believers just as the Austro-Hungarian Empire recognize 12 Official langages ! I doubt German Empire and IIIrd Reich had so much...

For the Habsburg-Lothringen (whom Hitler was first a subject) unicity is religion, for Hitler/NSDAP, unicity is nation.

just read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radetzky_March_(novel)

One austrian officer says something like "Everything is lost, because God has left the Empire... The German Emperor doesn't need God, he will always have the german nation, while our Emperor needs God"

velvet
Monday, March 15th, 2010, 04:34 PM
There are obviously some important differences between the Anglosphere and Germany vis-à-vis certain social values; the former tends toward more liberalism in its affairs while the latter tends towards more authoritarianism. I'm not going to pretend to know where these differences stem from, but who's to say that one is more Germanic than the other?

Didnt read the entire last conversation, but want to point out that "Prussian authoritarianism" is not representing of German values, even when some Germans here promote this and claim it would be representative for all Germans. It's not. ;)

Specially the northern parts of Germany, Frisia and Saxonia (today's Lower Saxony) and their fringe areas would oppose such a claim strongly.

Lothringen
Tuesday, March 16th, 2010, 11:40 AM
Didnt read the entire last conversation, but want to point out that "Prussian authoritarianism" is not representing of German values, even when some Germans here promote this and claim it would be representative for all Germans. It's not. ;)


I think this only came part lately in German History.
I would say when the Teutonic Order Grand Master (Albert of Brandenburg) converted to Lutherianism and secularized the Order in 1525.
Then, the "german discipline" limited to the Order extended at the level of the Duchy of Prussia until it reached its paroxysm between 1740 & 1786 with Friedrich the Great, who fully used Prussia.

This Prussia that his father, the "Soldatenkönig" had just transform from "a Country with an Army" into "Army with a Country"


As a prussian king raised a Emperor, Kaïser Wilhelm I imposed this "walk or die" discipline as the German Empire standard. Hitler of course reused it.