Hitler’s Religion: Hylozoics

The Ehrentempel

[Article Updated 8/21/18]

Among Hitler’s justifications for his actions was his private philosophy of nature.
Both in public speeches and private conversation he would repeatedly refer to this philosophy, his purpose being to convince his listeners that this philosophy represented the final truth about life.
He took such principles as the struggle for existence, the survival of the fittest and strongest, for the law of nature, and considered them a “higher imperative” which should also rule in the community life of men.

— Otto Dietrich

[Assessing the reliability of Otto Wagener’s memoirs]

[Updated 8/10/18] Table of Contents:
1. Introduction
2. Monism (Ernst Haeckel)
Highlights: affinity with the Copernicans, Darwin’s merits and mistakes
Monism (Pythagoras)
Monism (Pre-Socratic)
Highlights: Giordano Bruno
3. Monism (Hanns Hörbiger)
Highlights: Kepler, Nostradamus, Atlantis
4. Hitler’s Maxims
Highlights: God helps those who help themselves
Lord of the Worlds, ★Fate
The gods love those who demand the impossible
Those whom the gods would destroy
Frederick the Great
5. Eckart & ✡Weininger
6. Justifications for Anti-Semitism
Highlights: Antiochus Epiphanes
7. Reincarnation
8. The Jew
Highlights: Protocols of Zion
9. Julian’s philosophy
Highlights: λόγος, Platon
10. ★Clarification on racial purity
Highlights: ★Racial purity in antiquity
11. Aryan Hitler
Highlights: ★Mediterranean racial nuclei
11a. Genius
Highlights: testimony from philosemites
11b. ★Special Impulse: Rienzi
Highlights: Hitler comments on ✡Einstein’s theories, Hitler’s sense of humour
11c. Rousseau
Highlights: Liberty
11d. Change
Highlights: Herakleitos, inherent German creativity, dangers of German mysticism
11e. Work (placeholder)
12. What Hitler wasn’t
12a. Not a Christian
Highlights: abortion
12b. Not a Pagan
12c. Not a Pantheist
12d.Not satanist [WIP]
13. Britain
Highlights: Hitler rejects Spengler’s predictions, Hitler on industrialization

Examining Errors
Highlights: Assessing Kant)
Unsorted (temporary)

To be added:

Karl May’s influence on Hitler

Hitler, Memoirs of a Confidant, p.g. 40:
In antiquity, the Spartan constitution was the only one that required and enforced a healthy selection.
Die spartanische Verfassung war in der Antike die einzige, die eine gesunde Auslese gefördert und erzwungen hat.

1. Introduction

I conceived this site chiefly to function as a school for future leaders, calculated to enable a rapid assimilation of fundamental yet still comprehensible facts in a short period and re-awaken the “coming man” and similar individuals for their tasks. It’s mainly a massive quotes compilation at the time of this writing. Everything on this site can be considered WIP.

Hitler is not the man most people think he was. That includes his modern admirers and devotees. His significance was that he was the first world leader and politician in recent times to come out into the open and proclaim the laws of the universe, he was the epitome of what the people could have had in a genuine, modest leader. He also possessed a vastly superior perspective than that of most people (see section What Is Genius?).

Laurency (L3e17):
All truly great guides in mankind were either members or disciples of the planetary hierarchy, and the truths they proclaimed were always obvious to those possessed of common sense.

Laurency (wm16):
5There are always representatives of the planetary hierarchy (avatars) in physical incarnation. At the present stage of mankind’s development, they must remain unknown to everybody except their disciples. Those who have appeared in public have paid dearly for such undauntedness. Besides, what would be the use of it? No one accepts their message, or it is made a new religion, a new sect that excludes everyone who does not accept the inevitable distortion.

Most people view Hitler’s worldview as a purely racial doctrine. These people are mistaken. Certainly race played a vital role in his worldview, I’m not trying to downplay it’s significance. But to stop at the racial aspect of National Socialism is to ignore what Hitler was attempting to do with the German people. He was clearly trying to wean them off of Christianity to confer onto them a new worthy faith.

Hitler frequently made recurrence to a particular ancient Greek axiom (God helps those who help themselves) in at least 13 speeches (a few were omitted from speech compilations, a few were left untranslated), mainly between 1938-1941, with the maxim later occurring in a 1942 table talk (!!!) and in a 1945 speech. As if there wasn’t already enough complementary testimony from surviving party members and Hitler’s inner circle that he was not a Christian, this axiom is undeniably un-Christian and should demonstrate that the Hitler of the Table Talks is the same Hitler. We cannot suppose Hitler to have adhered to superstitious beliefs such as transubstantiation and the sacraments, which would contradict his inclination towards modern science, as related by his intimates.

I’m convinced that this axiom is the key to deciphering Hitler’s worldview. It evidently meant a great deal to him and indeed, on several occasions he identifies it as a core tenet of his movement and worldview. As chance would have it, the axiom was also invoked by Ernst Haeckel and it is quite clearly in accord with the laws of life and with common sense. This axiom is also found in the Quran (probably a remnant of Mohammed’s actual teaching), which Hitler would have been familiar with, as seen in his apparent preference for Lord of the Worlds, an Islamic and Hindu title for god (instead of the Jewish-Christian title “Lord of heaven and earth”).

Readers will typically downplay the significance of this axiom, whether they call themselves Christian, National Socialist, pagan, agnostic, atheist, etc. I am speaking from experience here! They should take care to remember that the higher ideals are not merely a “superfluous manifestation of sentiment”. There is real power to be discovered in the proper application of these axioms. It’s just uncanny how prevalent this maxim is in his speeches.

Note to my readers

Due to my unfortunate Christian upbringing, I have had a heavy reliance on quotations. I’ve spent a whole year working on a quotes compilation, a portion of which I’m committing to this site. Naturally, I’ve memorized the basic gist of all of these ideas, through a process of selective reading. Eventually I may attempt to provide more of my own formulations.

I was also not afforded the opportunity to learn the German language so my custom translations (derived from translation software, websites, and dictionaries) aren’t very good. The English translation by Cameron and Stevens are placeholder, to be eventually replaced with translations from Werner Jochmann (and Henry Picker, when available).

Hitler’s Table Talks hasn’t been debunked, it’s only the English translation which has fallen under scrutiny lately. Mistranslations, interpolations, omitted context, mispellings, etc. abound in the aforementioned English translation, but that alone does not nullify it or the original’s value. Besides, the German translation of the Table Talk is largely intact. My article on Martin Bormann [WIP] should demonstrate his reliability and importance to Hitler quite plainly. It is out of the question to think Bormann would go out of his way to deliberately distort Hitler’s representation. Of course, I owe much to Hermann Giesler’s insight into Bormann’s loyalty and trustworthiness. Giesler also seems to have been the only one in Hitler’s inner circle who knew who Hitler had wanted as his successor: Hans-Ulrich Rudel.

What would Hitler’s enemies gain by representing him as a humanist and an enthusiast of science, possessed of common sense? Because that is exactly how the Table Talks portray him. Most notably, Hitler’s private statements can be demonstrated to be in accord with Pythagorean ideals.

It is hoped that someone who sees the bigger picture will build upon this site’s archives. Ideally a Germanic researcher (see section Eternal Change). I’m hardly qualified for this task. I am not a German and lack the organizational talent to make it further comprehensible.

Note to Christians

Hitler, by his own admission and according to his inner circle, was religious. He explicitly rejected: atheism, Christianity (privately), paganism (see section Not a Pagan for clarification; he did not necessarily despise Germany’s pagan past), mysticism, and occultism, but he wasn’t agnostic, pantheist (addressed in section Not a Pantheist), or deist (in the conventional sense). Here it’s worth pointing out that the modern interpretation of deism – a distant god made the world and left it, not being actively involved – is not the deism of the American Founding Fathers.

Hitler and his chiefs remained in the Catholic Church to avoid losing supporters, it’s the same reason why he didn’t consider impose vegetarianism on Germans or ban smoking in Germany until after the war. His associates described him as being anti-clerical, including Leon Degrelle. He was strictly a politician. In Mein Kampf, he cross-examined the Christian Socialist party along with the Pan-German party and describes how securing the support of the churches was necessary. Hence, up until the early 1930s, he represented himself as a Christian. His admiration for Christ persisted and was genuine, however.

What Hitler says in Mein Kampf is perfectly consistent with what he later says in the Table Talks:

Mein Kampf:
Undoubtedly, no small amount of blame for the present unsatisfactory religious situation must be attributed to those who have encumbered the ideal of religion with purely material accessories and have thus given rise to an utterly futile conflict between religion and science. In this conflict, victory will nearly always be on the side of science, although after a bitter struggle, while religion will suffer heavily in the eyes of those who cannot penetrate beneath mere superficial learning.

Mein Kampf (German, 1943):
Freilich haben nicht die kleinste Schuld an den nicht sehr erfreulichen religiösen Zuständen diejenigen, die die religiöse Vorstellung zu sehr mit rein irdischen Dingen belasten und so häufig in einen gänzlich unnötigen Konflikt mit der sogenannten exakten Wissenschaft bringen. Hier wird der Sieg, wenn auch nach schwerem Kampfe, der letzteren fast immer zufallen, die Religion aber in den Augen all derjenigen, die sich über ein rein äußerliches Wissen nicht zu erheben vermögen, schweren Schaden leiden.

Table Talks (Cameron & Stevens, placeholder):
Time will go by until the moment when science can answer all the questions. … The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science. Religion will have to make more and more concessions. Gradually the myths crumble.

One day finally, under the battering-ram of science, dogma will collapse.

Christianity, of course, has reached the peak of absurdity in this respect. And that’s why one day its structure will collapse. Science has already impregnated humanity. Consequently, the more Christianity clings to its dogmas, the quicker it will decline.

The man who lives in communion with nature necessarily finds himself in opposition to the Churches. And that’s why they’re heading for ruin—for science is bound to win.

[Who gave rise to this conflict between religion and science? Look no further than St. Augustine. It is ironic that St. Augustine should be represented as affirming science in mainstream echo chambers when he is merely cautioning adherents from exposing the religion and it’s authors as frauds.]

✡Count Richard N. Coudenhove Kalergi:
Almost all European ethics are rooted in Judaism. All champions of religious or irreligious Christian morality, from Augustine to Rousseau, Kant and Tolstoy, were Jews by choice [Wahljuden] in the spiritual sense; Nietzsche is the only non-Jewish, the only pagan ethicist in Europe.

[Kalergi was mistaken in his classification of Rousseau. See section Rousseau.]

Laurency (L5e7):
Augustine is to blame for the fact that religion has hitherto been hostile to philosophy and science.

[For the few Christians who bother to read this site, who would contest that I am against every aspect of Christianity, that is simply untrue. My article on Jesus attempts to closely follow the tradition laid down by the National Socialists. Unlike the typical pagan who would abandon this great personality to the Jews (the “great” men of Jews, such as Heinrich Heine, only bring down, ruin, destroy. The Jews should not have one iota of a claim to Jesus’ legacy and teaching, however falsified it has become), thereby strengthening their hold over the Christian masses and aiding Jews in perpetuating their lie that Judaism is a religion, I wish to do full justice to Jesus’ legacy and bring those who truly wish to follow him into the fold. It is only the Jewish elements of Christianity that I oppose. Muslims are also welcome to examine the worldview, which likewise follows the National Socialist tradition.

I would also add that the Christians who emphasize the dangers of the Talmud over the Old Testament are unconsciously committing a misdirect. In his speeches and writings, Hitler consistently focused on the Old Testament “prophecies”, which furnishes the Jews with their basis for the claim that they are a “chosen” people.]

Peoples desire not to perish on the battlefield just so that this rootless, internationalist race can profit financially from this war and thereby gratify its lust for vengeance derived from the Old Testament.

— Hitler, January 1, 1939 speech

2. Monism (Ernst Haeckel)

There will be a religion that will join everyone except the Jews, who will show their old stubbornness/obstinacy. In the Rhine there is a church that is built by the will of all the peoples.
From there, where the next big war will explode, it is what the people are supposed to believe. All the confessions will be compatible.

— Wessel Eilert

Otto Dietrich:
[Hitler’s] evolutionary views on natural selection and survival of the fittest coincided with the ideas of Darwin and Haeckel. Nevertheless, Hitler was no atheist.

Eric Voegelin:
Hitler and the Germans, p.g. 124
Hitler’s ideas on religion were those of a relatively primitive monism, approximately corresponding to Haeckel’s Welträtsel at the turn of the century.

[Eric Voegelin (1901-1985) was a contemporary of Hitler.]

Hitler, Table Talk, February 20-21, 1942 (Cameron & Stevens):

The observatory I’ll have built at Linz, on the Pöstlingberg, I can see it in my mind. A façade of quite classical purity. I’ll have the pagan temple razed to the ground, and the observatory will take its place. Thus, in future, thousands of excursionists will make a pilgrimage there every Sunday. They’ll thus have access to the greatness of our universe. The pediment will bear this motto: “The heavens proclaim the glory of the everlasting”. It will be our way of giving men a religious spirit, of teaching them humility—but without the priests.
The building of my observatory will cost about twelve millions. The great planetarium by itself is worth two millions. Ptolemy’s one is less expensive. For Ptolemy, the earth was the centre of the world. That changed with Copernicus. To-day we know that our solar system is merely a solar system amongst many others. What could we do better than allow the greatest possible number of people like us to become aware of these marvels?
In any case, we can be grateful to Providence, which causes us to live to-day rather than three hundred years ago. At every street-corner, in those days, there was a blazing stake. What a debt we owe to the men who had the courage—the first to do so—to rebel against lies and intolerance. The admirable thing is that amongst them were Jesuit Fathers.

To open the eyes of simple people, there’s no better method of instruction than the picture. Put a small telescope in a village, and you destroy a world of superstitions.

Eric Voegelin:
Hitler and the Germans, p.g. 125
Hitler planned a great observatory and planetarium as the center of the architectural layout in the reconstruction of Linz, which he regarded as his hometown. And he then informed us regarding this center, and how he planned it and about its meaning. So, take now, as a counterpart to these very elucidations of Hitler on the function of the planetarium as substitute for the Church, a passage from Ernst Haeckel’s Welträtsel about the monistic church and its program. Haeckel considered his monism to be a new religion—just as Comte did with his positivism—that would have to supersede Christianity.
And he said:

The religious service of the Sunday, which will continue as the ancient day of rest, of edification and relaxation that follows the six workdays of the working week, will undergo an essential improvement in the monistic church. The mystical belief in supernatural miracles will be replaced by clear knowledge of the true miracles of nature. [It seems one is listening to Hitler speaking.] The temples of God as places of devotion will not be adorned with images of saints and crucifixes, but with richly artistic representations from the inexhaustible realms of beauty of natural and human life. Between the high columns of the Gothic cathedrals [which he obviously intends to take over], which have climbing plants winding around them, slender palms and tree-ferns, graceful banana trees and bamboos, will remind us of the creative powers of the tropics. In great aquaria below the church windows, delightful jellyfish and siphonophores, brightly colored corals and starfish, will elucidate the art-forms of marine life. In place of the high altar there will be a statue of Urania, which will represent the omnipotence of the law of matter through the movements of the planets.

[Compare with the below passage from Mein Kampf. It is perfectly true when Voegelin says, “so we are in Hitler’s planetarium again, at the high altar.”]

Mein Kampf:
Man must realize that a fundamental law of necessity reigns throughout the whole realm of Nature and that his existence is subject to the law of eternal struggle and strife. He will then feel that there cannot be a separate law for mankind in a universe in which planets and suns follow their orbits, where moons and planets trace their destined paths, where the strong are always the masters of the weak and where the latter must obey or be destroyed.

[Observe how, unlike Darwin, Hitler begins from the movement of planetary bodies and how this leads into the latter notion of the strong triumphing over the weak. A loftier conception.]

Martin Bormann, June 6, 1942:
We must open the eyes of mankind to the fact that in addition to our unimportant Earth there exist countless other bodies in the universe, many of them surrounded, like the sun, by planets and these again by smaller bodies, the moons. The force which moves all these bodies in the universe, in accordance with natural law, is what we call the Almighty or God.

Timothy W. Ryback:
Hitler’s Private Library, Chapter 6
Traudl Junge, one of Hitler’s longtime secretaries, was present for many of these extended musings on man, nature, religion, and God. When I visited her in her Munich apartment in the summer of 2002, she confirmed Hitler’s preoccupation with matters of the spirit, not only in his monologues but also in his nighttime readings. Though she refused to ascribe to Hitler a particular spiritual conviction —”How can we know what another person truly believes?”—she was certain he believed in the existence of a deeper force that moved the world as evidenced in the laws of nature, of the presence of a deeper intelligence, or, as he himself said, of a “creative force” that gave shape and meaning to the world.

Hitler, Table Talk (Cameron & Stevens), October 24, 1941:
The Russians were entitled to attack their priests, but they had no right to assail the idea of a supreme force. It’s a fact that we’re feeble creatures, and that a creative force exists. To seek to deny it is folly. In that case, it’s better to believe something false than not to believe anything at all.

Laurency ():
11Just as it is better to be a skeptic than to have an erroneous conception, so it is better not to know anything than to believe in lies.

Monism as Connecting Religion and Science
Ever more clearly are we compelled by reflection to recognise that God is not to be placed over against the material world as an external being, but must be placed as a “divine power” or “moving spirit” within the cosmos itself.
Ever clearer does it become that all the wonderful phenomena of nature around us, organic as well as inorganic, are only various products of one and the same original force, various combinations of one and the same primitive matter. Ever more irresistibly is it borne in upon us that even the human soul is but an insignificant part of the all-embracing “world-soul”; just as the human body is only a small individual fraction of the great organised physical world.

It makes one sad to think that the Fuehrer is so tremendously interested in the tasks and researches of science, and yet our research men and scientists do not realize this because they don’t know it.

– Goebbels (Diaries), May 12, 1943

Hitler, Table Talk, Oct. 24, 1941 (Jochmann):
Science is just at another great stage, the question arises whether there is any substantial difference between the organic and the inorganic in nature. We have bodies in front of us, and we do not know whether we should reckon them to be organic or inorganic.

Laurency (ps2):
10In order to arrive at a correct conception of matter science must make two discoveries: that energy has a material nature; and that invisible matter, which is beyond the matter at present accessible by instruments, is matter still.

The Riddle of the Universe
The invention of photography and photometry, and especially of spectral analysis (in 1860 by Bunsen and Kirchoff), introduced physics and chemistry into astronomy and led to cosmological conclusions of the utmost importance. It was now made perfectly clear that matter is the same throughout the universe, and that its physical and chemical properties in the most distant stars do not differ from those of the earth under our feet.

Lars Adelskogh (Fke1):
5Science has begun to discover the consciousness aspect of existence, hitherto much ignored. Tompkins and Bird have given many examples of “green intelligence” in their book, The Secret Life of Plants. Dr Rupert Sheldrake has gone even farther in his book, A New Science of Life. In it, he suggests that all forms of nature, organic and inorganic (so-called lifeless), are preceded by and constructed from invisible morphogenetic fields that act intelligently and in a manner aiming at wholeness. This idea is in harmony with hylozoics.

Botanist ✡Arthur Galston and physiologist Clifford L. Slayman who investigated Backster’s claims wrote:

There is no objective scientific evidence for the existence of such complex behaviour in plants. The recent spate of popular literature on “plant consciousness” appears to have been triggered by “experiments” with a lie detector, subsequently reported and embellished in a book called The Secret Life of Plants. Unfortunately, when scientists in the discipline of plant physiology attempted to repeat the experiments, using either identical or improved equipment, the results were uniformly negative. Further investigation has shown that the original observations probably arose from defective measuring procedures.[1]

During 1987 and 1988 Sheldrake contributed several pieces to The Guardian’s “Body and Soul” column. In one of these, he wrote that the idea that “memories were stored in our brains” was “only a theory” and “despite decades of research, the phenomenon of memory remains mysterious”.[108] This provoked a response by Professor ✡Steven Rose, a neuroscientist from the Open University, who criticised Sheldrake for being “a researcher trained in another discipline” (botany) for not “respect[ing] the data collected by neuroscientists before begin[ning] to offer us alternative explanations”, and accused Sheldrake of “ignoring or denying” “massive evidence”, and arguing that “neuroscience over the past two decades has shown that memories are stored in specific changes in brain cells”.


Lars Adelskogh (Fke1):
4Bacteria are organisms. It is clear all the same that the borderline between organic and inorganic matter does not set a bound for life itself.

Hitler, Table Talk, Oct. 14, 1941 (Jochmann):

It is only necessary to prove that the inorganic and the organic in nature overflow into one another without a border! Once the knowledge of the universe spreads, when the majority of people realize that the stars are not luminaries, but worlds, perhaps inhabited worlds, like ours, then the doctrine of Christianity is convicted of absurdity.

Es braucht nur noch der Nachweis geführt zu werden, daß das Anorganische und das Organische in der Natur ohne Grenze ineinander überfließen!

Hitler, Table Talk, Oct. 24, 1941 (Jochmann):

From a material point of view, the universe consists of the same matter, whether it be the earth, the sun, or other stars. Imagining that organic life is only on one of these worlds has become impossible today!

Materiell betrachtet besteht für uns das Universum aus gleichen Stoffen, mag es sich nun um die Erde, um die Sonne oder um andere Sterne handeln. Sich einbilden, daß nur auf einer dieser Welten organisches Leben ist, ist heute unmöglich geworden!

The Riddle of the Universe
By the spectral analysis of Bunsen and Kirchhoff (1860) we have found, not only that the millions of bodies, which fill the infinity of space, are of the same material as our own sun and earth, but also that they are in various stages of evolution; we have obtained by its aid information as to the movements and distances of the stars, which the telescope would never have given us.

Hitler, September 6, 1938 speech:
Nuremberg, Culture Convention
And in this manner the cultural evolution of a Volk resembles that of the Milky Way. Amongst countless pale stars a few suns radiate. However, all suns and planets are made of the same one matter, and all of them observe the same laws. The entire cultural work of a Volk must not only be geared toward fulfillment of one mission, but this mission must also be pursued in one spirit. National Socialism is a cool and highly-reasoned approach to reality based upon the greatest of scientific knowledge and its spiritual expression.

So the cultural path of a Volk resembles the Milky Way of the skies. From myriads of vorhandenen pale bodies, shine individual bright suns. However, planets and suns consist of one matter and obey the same laws:

So gleicht der kulturelle Weg eines Volkes der Milchstraße des Firmaments. Aus Myriaden von vorhandenen blassen Körpern leuchten einzelne helle Sonnen. Allein Planeten und Sonnen bestehen aus einer Substanz und gehorchen den gleichen Gesetzen: Die gesamte kulturelle Arbeit eines Volkes hat nicht nur nach einem Auftrag zu erfolgen, sondern in einem Geist stattzufinden.

[From what I can tell, this may be the only known instance where Hitler gave indication of his monism in a public speech. The German transcript can be found here and the only audio recording I could find on the Internet matches it verbatim. It’s highly probable that Hitler did say this in a speech. The recording begins with “Wir bemühen uns daher auch nicht, dem internationalen Judentum etwa die deutsche Kunst und Kultur schmackhaft zu machen.”]

The Wonders of Life
All things in the world are in perpetual motion. The universe is a perpetuum mobile. There is no real rest anywhere; it is always only apparent or relative. Heat itself, which constantly changes, is merely motion. In the eternal play of cosmic bodies countless suns and planets rush hither and thither in infinite space.

Monism (Pythagoras)

Hitler, Table Talk, Oct. 14, 1941 (Jochmann):

It is only necessary to prove that the inorganic and the organic in nature overflow into one another without a border! Once the knowledge of the universe spreads, when the majority of people realize that the stars are not luminaries, but worlds, perhaps inhabited worlds, like ours, then the doctrine of Christianity is convicted of absurdity.

Es braucht nur noch der Nachweis geführt zu werden, daß das Anorganische und das Organische in der Natur ohne Grenze ineinander überfließen! Wenn erst einmal das Wissen um das Universum sich verbreitet, wenn der Großteil der Menschen sich klar darüber wird, daß die Sterne nicht Leuchtkörper sind, sondern Welten, vielleicht belebte Welten, wie die unsere, dann wird die Lehre des Christentums völlig ad absurdum geführt.

[People overlook the last part of this statement and it’s significance. This is not merely another scientific theory Hitler was interested in. It directly precipitates Christianity’s definitive dissolution.]
Placita Philosophorum, Chapter XIII:
Heraclides and the Pythagoreans, that every star is a world in an infinite ether, and itself encompasseth air, earth, and ether; this opinion is current among the followers of Orpheus, for they suppose that each of the stars does make a world. Epicurus condemns none of these opinions, for he embraces any thing that is possible.

Hitler, Memoirs of a Confidant, p.g. 313:
Even today, the child finds it altogether plausible that on the first day of Creation, in the darkness of the void, God’s voice resounded in thunder: ‘Let there be light!’ For time and again, if his father or the child himself turns on the light by flipping the electric switch, he thinks, ‘That’s the way God did it in the beginning.’

Mein Kampf:
The pacifist-humanitarian idea may indeed become an excellent one when the most superior type of manhood will have succeeded in subjugating the world to such an extent that this type is then sole master of the earth. This idea could have an injurious effect only in the measure in which its application became difficult and finally impossible.
So, first of all, the fight, and then pacifism. If it were otherwise, it would mean that mankind has already passed the zenith of its development, and accordingly, the end would not be the supremacy of some moral ideal, but degeneration into barbarism and consequent chaos.
People may laugh at this statement, but our planet moved through space for millions of years, uninhabited by men, and at some future date may easily begin to do so again, if men should forget that wherever they have reached a superior level of existence, it was not as a result of following the ideas of crazy visionaries but by acknowledging and rigorously observing the iron laws of Nature.

Because of their primary disposition, all humans are inclined to take the first path and simply directly for their goal. Whenever possible, we all will, on the strength of our own inertia, prefer the easy way to the difficult, the immediate to the delayed, the present to the future. If ever we cease doing so, we do it because experience has taught us this route will harm us and will not lead to the goal, but will fact take us further away from it.

Mein Kampf:
The progress of mankind may be compared to the process of ascending an infinite ladder. One does not reach the higher level without first having climbed the lower rungs. The Aryan therefore had to take that road which his sense of reality pointed out to him and not that which the modern pacifist dreams of. The path of reality is, however, difficult and hard to tread; yet it is the only one which finally leads to the goal where the others envisage mankind in their dreams. But the real truth is that those dreamers help only to lead man away from his goal rather than towards it.

Dietrich Eckart:
Something intangible in the masses has already long since, after all, disavowed the shameful belief that life exists only for fun, this genuinely Jewish desire plague; ‘heaven on earth’ no longer really draws, and were it also only because, despite all promises, it draws ever farther into the distance. The great suspicion has secretly arisen against the great lie. Countless languish, no, gnash teeth for the truth. But whoever believes there of being able to gain it without a sufficient feeling of strength and courage of affirmation, thoroughly deceives himself.

Laurency (wm10.24.1):
All members of higher kingdoms are collaborators in the processes of manifestation, and those people who want to reach higher must also try to fill a post. We reach the higher by serving the lower. We are all links in a chain from the lowest to the highest world. To know one’s post in life and to fill it is our task in life. Our qualities and abilities, our understanding of life, indicate our level. We always have use for them in some way in the relations of life where life has put us. The greatest individuals pass through life unnoticed.

If humanity’s purpose is the development of its higher powers, if human beings have to suffer through many an evil and deprivation for the purpose of achieving this end; if the greatness of our minds can only be demonstrated by our steadfast endurance of these evils, and considers them to be just so many means to this end: – then this world is not for Caesar alone. This world is for every human being, without exceptions. And plentiful material would exist for every human being’s mental development; for those who steadfastly endure trouble would be behaving more reasonably and better than the weaklings who desert their posts to avoid its effects.

Marcus Aurelius:
Because to be drawn toward what is wrong and self-indulgent, toward anger and fear and pain, is to revolt against nature. And for the mind to complain about anything that happens is to desert its post. It was created to show reverence—respect for the divine—no less than to act justly. That too is an element of coexistence and a prerequisite for justice.

Hitler, Table Talk (Jochmann), September 27-28, 1941:
At the beginning of all education must be reverence: reverence for Providence, the inscrutable, of natureor whatever you want to call itbeginning with the respect that youth has for old age/maturity.
An dem, was der Bolschewismus aus den Menschen gemacht hat, sieht man, daß doch am Anfang aller Erziehung die Ehrfurcht stehen muß: Ehrfurcht vor der Vorsehung, dem Unerforschlichen, der Natur – oder wie man es nennen will -, beginnend mit der Ehrfurcht, welche die Jugend dem Alter entgegenzubringen hat.

Quran, Surah Al-Isra 17:23-24
And your Lord has decreed that you not worship except Him, and to parents, good treatment. Whether one or both of them reach old age [while] with you, say not to them [so much as], “uff,” and do not repel them but speak to them a noble word. And lower to them the wing of humility out of mercy and say, “My Lord, have mercy upon them as they brought me up [when I was] small.”

For it was rightly said by the Pythagoreans, that man is an animal [so far as pertains to his irrational part,] naturally insolent, and various, according to impulses, desires, and the rest of the passions. He requires therefore a transcendent inspection and government of this kind, from which a certain castigation and order may be derived.
Hence they thought that every one being conscious of the variety of his nature, should never be forgetful of piety towards, and the worship of divinity; but should always place him before the eye of the mind, as inspecting and diligently observing the conduct of mankind. But after divinity and the dæmoniacal nature, they thought that every one should pay the greatest attention to his parents and the laws, and should be obedient to them, not feignedly, but faithfully.

Laurency (kl1_7):
31Modern upbringing avoids fostering reverence for our parents. But that feeling is of great value for the children. It is a noble quality, necessary to reach the stage of culture.
32Children make a great mistake if they blame their parents for physical defects they have inherited from them. Children are born into precisely such families in order to inherit such defects (according to the law of reaping).

The Golden Verses of Pythagoras:
Translated by Florence M. Firth, 1904

1. First worship the Immortal Gods, as they are established and ordained by the Law.
2. Reverence the Oath, and next the Heroes, full of goodness and light.
3. Honour likewise the Terrestrial Dæmons by rendering them the worship lawfully due to them.
4. Honour likewise thy parents, and those most nearly related to thee.

Diogenes Laertius:
Lives of Eminent Philosophers
[Solon’s] counsel to men in general is stated by Apollodorus in his work on the Philosophic Sects as follows: … Honour the gods, reverence parents.

And universally, they thought it necessary to believe, that nothing is a greater evil than anarchy; since the human race is not naturally adapted to be saved, when no one rules over it.

Hitler, Table Talk (Cameron & Stevens), July 5, 1941:
What we need is a collective view of people’s wish to live and manner of living. We must distinguish between the Fascist popular movement and the popular movement in Russia. The Fascist movement is a spontaneous return to the traditions of ancient Rome. The Russian movement has an essential tendency towards anarchy.

[Follow-up: Racial purity in antiquity]

Monism (Pre-Socratic)

Anthony M. Ludovici:
But no matter how the dispute on these points may ultimately be decided, it seems fairly obvious that there must be a strong Nietzschean influence in National Socialism, if only because of the powerful breath of pre-Socratic Hellenism which has prevailed in Germany ever since the NSDAP seized the reins of government.
For the sake of those readers who are not quite clear regarding this association of Nietzscheism with pre-Socratic values, perhaps it would be as well to point out that, according to Nietzsche, the history of mankind falls, as it were, into two halves – the period preceding Socrates, during which the public estimate of a man was always based upon his biological worth, and the period following Socrates, during which the public estimate of a man always tended to neglect or ignore his biological worth.


[I’m not posting this link as an endorsement of white nationalism, Ludovici’s essay is merely hosted on there. Ludovici was evidently familiar with Nietzsche’s life and works. He also paid a visit to Hitler’s Germany and laid down his impressions. Indeed, Nietzsche had a profound influence on Hitler, although not to the extent Hitler’s enemies typically claim.]

Hitler, Table Talk, November 20, 1941 (Jochmann):

Statements by the Führer:
1. If the Christian concept of God were correct, then the ants would have to conceive of God as an ant, “just as every animal would conceive of God, i.e. Providence, the laws of nature, in its own form.” (latter portion translated by Richard Weikart)

Wenn die christliche Gottesvorstellung richtig wäre, dann müßten sich die Ameisen Gott als Ameise vorstellen, wie überhaupt jedes Her dann Gott, das heißt die Vorsehung, das Naturgesetz, in seiner Gestalt!

Yes, and if oxen and horses or lions had hands, and could paint with their hands, and produce works of art as men do, horses would paint the forms of the gods like horses, and oxen like oxen, and make their bodies in the image of their several kinds.
Ethiopians say that their gods are flat-nosed and dark, Thracians that theirs are blue-eyes and redhaired.

Laurency (kr5):
18When Xenophanes in his symbolic language explains that the universe is god and that the deity is spherical, he gives some esoteric facts. The cosmos is a sphere, or globe, in primordial matter, which is truly unlimited space. At the same time the cosmos is the cosmic collective consciousness which is the highest deity. No wonder that he sharply criticized anthropomorphism!

Laurency (kr5):
10The pre-Sokratean philosophers were all hylozoicians. Even of their alleged wisdom nothing more is left than a few meagre utterances, and that fact alone should have enjoined caution in assessing them.
11Those wise men possessed knowledge of reality that the scientists of today still lack. It is typical of the traditional lack of judgement that they are put forward as examples of the “first attempts at thinking”. And this in spite of the allegation that the following is known about them:

12They taught that the fixed stars are suns; that the planets revolve round the sun, shine with reflected light, and have once been liquid masses that have detached themselves from the sun.

They described the periods of revolution of the sun and the moon, predicted eclipses of the sun and the moon.

They knew that the earth is round, gave the correct figures concerning its size.

They had views on the most fundamental concepts and the most difficult problems, for example, mechanical or final causes of processes in nature.

Hitler, May 26, 1944 Platterhof hotel talk:
But there was a time when men were so far developed in their ability to perceive, that when they recognised that the lights in the firmament were moving lights, they were convinced that everything stood still, the Earth (which already in the ancient age was recognised as a globe by the Greeks) stands and the moving lights meant that the Earth was the centre of the world. This Ptolomean system was a world view. It was incorrect, but it was an incredible step forward for humanity as compared to the stupid primitive manners of observation, let’s say, that of any Negro tribe living today. Then one day, over the course of centuries, a new, better science gains an insight, and this Ptolomean system of an Aristotle was overthrown by the genius of a Copernicus, wherein a new picture of the world arose.

Hitler, Table Talk, February 20-21, 1942 (Cameron & Stevens):
It was a great step forward, in the days of Ptolemy, to say that the earth was a sphere and that the stars gravitated around it. Since then there has been continual progress along the same path. Copernicus first. Copernicus, in his turn, has been largely left behind, and things will always be so. In our time, Hörbiger has made another step forward. … At present, science claims that the moon is a projection into space of a fragment of the earth, and that the earth is an emanation of the sun. The real question is whether the earth came from the sun or whether it has a tendency to approach it.

Ernst Haeckel:
The Riddle of the Universe
Sun-worship (solarium or hediotheism) seems to the modern scientist to be the best
of all forms of theism, and the one which may be most easily reconciled with modern monism. For modern Astrophysics and geogeny have taught us that the earth is a fragment detached from the sun, and that it will eventually return to the bosom of its parent.

Placita Philosophorum, Chapter XIII:
Thales believes that [the stars] are globes of earth set on fire.

[Hitler frequently praises Ptolemy and Copernicus in these conversations, despite Ptolemy’s conception being erroneous. This is reminscient of Galileo’s praise.]

SS-Hauptamt, Rassenpolitik:
The 15th and 16th centuries during the Middle Ages were a period when the Nordic spirit found characteristic expression in Copernicus’s teaching that the earth revolved around the sun. The earth, which formerly was thought to be the center of the universe, became a small planet that was just as subject to the harmony of eternal laws as the course of the stars.

Hitler, Table Talk, June 2, 1942 (Cameron & Stevens):
We all know with what immense difficulty the theory of Copernicus triumphed over that of Ptolemy, and what great effects it had on the life of the world. For with the Ptolemaic theory collapsed a world upon which the whole philosophy of the Church was founded. At the time, it required great courage to declare oneself in favour of the Copernican theory and to take the consequences, for the Church defended itself without mercy. Which is understandable, of course, for the more bigoted a man or an organisation is, the more shattering becomes the impact of the revelation of their errors and, with it, the destruction of the whole basis of their thought.


Bolshevism: From Moses to Lenin
Giordano Bruno called the Jews ‘such a pestilential, leprous, and publicly dangerous race that they deserved to be rooted out and destroyed even before their birth.’ [Spacio della Bestis Trionfante (1584)] This genial philosopher was burned at the stake. For his heresy? Opponents of the Church were swarming in Italy during his time, yet he, the most impartial of them, was seized.

In the third dialogue, where the religion of the ancient Egyptians is praised, it contrasts those cults with that of “excrements of dead and inanimate things” [21], with allusion to the cult of relics in Christianity. [39] The Jews then, are “convicts for excrement of Egypt” [21], that is carriers of a culture now corrupted.
21. Sofia: dialogue III, part II

Bruno is harsh in his criticism of the Jews, whom he calls the “excrement of Egypt.”

Laurency (L5e5):
29The power of the church rests upon the dogma of sin and forgiveness of sins. That dogma is the biggest lie of the church and makes people indifferent to their development. Since all people are thought to be irremediable and they are all guaranteed forgiveness in beforehand for all conceivable misdeeds, nobody needs to strive to improve.

Hitler, Table Talk, October 25, 1941 (Cameron & Stevens):
In Catholic regions life is more endurable, for the priest himself succumbs more easily to human weaknesses. So he permits his flock not to dramatise sin. How would the Church earn her living, if not by the sins of the faithful? She declares herself satisfied if one goes to confession. Indulgence, at a tariff, supplies the Church with her daily bread.

[In Tim O’Neill’s translation of Gaspar Schoppe’s Macchiavellizatio, Qua Unitorum Animos Dissociare Nitentibus Respondetur, one will note that “Absolutely no Lutheran or Calvinist, unless he reoffended or publicly induced to sin, was in any way judged in Rome, and by no means sentenced to death.”

[Bruno’s heresy evidently did not threaten to undermine the Church’s theological foundation, but rather threatened the Jewish political hold on the Church. It’s worth noting that O’Neill rejects the notion that Bruno was ever a scientific humanist, which is a terrible mistake.]

Laurency (kr5.16.3):
Cusanus and Bruno, Galilei and Copernicus were able to stand out as breakers of new ground because all four had gained possession of Pythagorean manuscripts dealing with astronomy, physics, and other matters. In these writings they learned about the heliocentric solar system, the cosmos as being filled with solar systems, etc.

Laurency (kr5
6What more [the Pythagoreans] taught is partly hinted at in the works of the subsequent esoteric (so-called pre-Sokratean) philosophers.
7Copernicus, Galilei, and Giordano Bruno, among others, had access to copies of these Pythagorean manuscripts.

Laurency (kl2_8):
Cusanus, Galilei, Bruno, and Copernicus had all got opportunities to read Pythagorean manuscripts.

K. H. (attributed), The Mahatma Letters to A. P. Sinnett, Letter No. 1:
William Gilbert of Colchester — Queen Elisabeth’s physician — died poisoned, only because — this real founder of Experimental Science in England — has had the audacity of anticipating Galileo; of pointing out Copernican’s fallacy as to the “third movement,” which was gravely alleged to account for the parallelism of the Earth’s axis of rotation!

He is remembered today largely for his book De Magnete (1600), and is credited as one of the originators of the term “electricity”. He is regarded by some as the father of electrical engineering or electricity and magnetism.

William Gilbert:
Thales, as Aristotle writes, De Anima, Bk. I., deemed the loadstone to be endowed with a soul of some sort, because it had the power of moving and drawing iron towards it. Anaxagoras also held the same view.


Hitler, Table Talk, February 20-21, 1942 (Cameron & Stevens):
In their fight against the Church, the Russians are purely negative. We, on the other hand, should practise the cult of the heroes who enabled humanity to pull itself out of the rut of error. Kepler lived at Linz, and that’s why I chose Linz as the place for our observatory. His mother was accused of witchcraft and was tortured several times by the Inquisition.

[It’s now undeniable that Hitler was going to build a planetarium in Linz. It’s interesting to read why he decided to construct it there. The incident involving Kepler’s mother is a good example of the frightening literalism of that period.]

Hermann Giesler, Ein Anderer Hitler:
[translated by me]

In der Hofmitte des rechten Institutes sehen Sie den Zentralraum mit der Kuppel des Planetariums vor. Die Kirche selbst steht frei, ihr Rang bleibt durch die räumliche Anordnung gewahrt. In den Giebel-Architrav zwischen den Türmen soll eingemeißelt werden: ,Die Himmel rühmen des Ewigen Ehre‘.

Hitler, Table Talk, December 28-29, 1941 (Jochmann):

Wenn ich in Linz eine Sternwarte baue, dann setze ich das Wort hinauf: Die Himmel rühmen des Ewigen Ehre!

Hitler, Table Talk, February 20-21, 1942 (Jochmann):

Als Überschrift kann ich mir nur das denken: Die Himmel rühmen des Ewigen Ehre! Wir erziehen die Menschen damit allerdings zu einer Religiosität, aber zu einer pfaffenfeindlichen, wir erziehen sie zur Demut.

Quran, Surah Al-Isra 17:44
The seven heavens and the earth, and all beings therein, declare his glory: there is not a thing but celebrates his praise; And yet ye understand not how they declare his glory!

[Mohammed evidently attempted to give a rational content to Jewish-Christian passages, such as the above.]

Hitler, Table Talk, December 28-29, 1941 (Cameron & Stevens):
The great tragedy for man is that he understands the mechanism of things, but the things themselves remain an enigma to him. We are capable of distinguishing the component parts of a molecule. But when it’s a question of explaining the why of a thing, words fail us. And that’s what leads men to conceive of the existence of a superior power.

Laurency (ps1.35):
21Science, however, cannot answer the questions of What? and Why?, only that of How?. Natural science is a generalization of experience. Subsequent investigation is always necessary. The purpose of science is, starting from the empirically given reality, to discover and formulate those exact laws which make prediction possible.

Hitler, Table Talk, July 11-12, 1941 (Cameron & Stevens):
But a simple storm is enough—and everything collapses like a pack of cards! In any case, we shall learn to become familiar with the laws by which life is governed, and acquaintance with the laws of nature will guide us on the path of progress. As for the why of these laws, we shall never know anything about it. A thing is so, and our understanding cannot conceive of other schemes. Man has discovered in nature the wonderful notion of that all-mighty being whose law he worships. Fundamentally in everyone there is the feeling for this all-mighty, which we call God [Martin Bormann’s addition: that is to say, the dominion of natural laws throughout the whole universe].

[See section Reincarnation for a follow-up to this]

The Riddle of the Universe
For man is not distinguished from [the animals] by a special kind of soul, or by any peculiar and exclusive psychic function, but only by a higher degree of psychic activity, a superior stage of development. In particular, consciousness—the function of the association of ideas, thought, and reason—has reached a higher level in many men (by no means in all) than in most of the animals. Yet this difference is far from being so great as is popularly supposed; and it is much slighter in every respect than the corresponding difference between the higher and the lower animal souls, or even the difference between the highest and the lowest stages of the human soul itself.

Hitler, November 22, 1937 speech:
At the bottom of our hearts, we National Socialists are religious. For the space of many millenniums, a uniform concept of God did not exist. Yet it is the most brilliant and most sublime notion of mankind, that which distinguishes him most from animals, that he not only views a phenomenon from without, but always poses the question of why and how. This entire world, a world so clear-cut in its external manifestation, is just as unclear to us in its purpose. And here mankind has bowed down in humility before the conviction that it is confronted by an incredible power, an Omnipotence, which is so incredible and so deep that we men are unable to fathom it. That is a good thing! For it can serve to comfort people in bad times; it avoids that superficiality and sense of superiority that misleads man to believe that he-but a tiny bacillus on this earth, in this universe-rules the world, and that he lays down the laws of Nature which he can at best but study. It is, therefore, our desire that our Volk remains humble and truly believes in a God.

Hitler, May 26, 1944 Platterhof hotel talk:
There is no tolerance in nature. Nature, if I take tolerance as a human concept, is the most intolerant thing that exists. It destroys everything that is unfit for life. Whatever is not willing to defend itself, or unable to do so, is destroyed, and we are only a speck of dust in this nature. Man is nothing more than a small bacteria or little bacillus on such a planet. When a creature attempts to escape these laws, it doesn’t change the laws, rather, it ends its existence.

Laurency (ps2):
2Esoterics agrees with biological science in asserting that species are changeable, that new species arise from older ones through transformation, that all forms of life have an inner continuity and a common, natural origin, in the last resort through spontaneous generation (generatio spontanea, or aequivoca), the natural transition from the mineral kingdom to the vegetable kingdom. “Acquired qualities” are inherited through the predispositions that made their acquisition possible. In contrast to Darwin, esoterics maintains that biological “struggle for existence” is certainly not a necessary factor of evolution, but what is unfit for life is rejected in accordance with nature’s order.

Hitler, Memoirs of a Confidant, p.g. 40:
What seems to me incontestable first of all, is the fact that collectivist solutions cannot lead us to our goal. Everywhere in life only a process of selection can prevail. Among the animals, among plants, wherever observations have been made, basically the stronger, the better survives. The simpler life forms have no written constitution. Selection therefore runs a natural course. As Darwin correctly proved: the choice is not made by some agency–nature chooses. That is election. But the animals and other forms of life have a further process of self-selection. Weaklings, runts, sick individuals are cast out of their communities by the healthy ones; some of them are even killed, disposed of. That is the will of nature. What is healthy abhors that which is sick, the productive abhors the life of the drone, purposeful striving abhors indifferent depravity.

Follow-up from https://hitlerianhylozoics.wordpress.com#change

[But it’s also important to take Herakleitos’ various maxims into consideration and not only one of them. The one who said a man cannot step into the same river twice also said that war is the father of all things. Constant change is esoteric and “struggle for existence” can be an allusion to that.]

Robert Ley:
Pesthauch der Welt, 1944
All natural life is eternal battle, and battle is the father of all things. Battle, however, is possible only between two opposing poles and powers. Mankind has named these battling worlds “good” and “evil,” “God” and “Satan,” “noble” and “crude,” “construction and destruction,” “life” or “death.” These are all ways of saying that nature is a constant process of coming and going, a constant transformation of forces and materials. Science has a chemical and physical law that says: Nothing perishes; everything is constantly changing. Whatever we call it, whether we use the words of science or say it in a more primitive way, the eternal, inescapable law is that life means battle, that battle comes from competing energies, and that something new comes from their meeting.

Laurency (ps2):
2In contrast to Darwin, esoterics maintains that biological “struggle for existence” is certainly not a necessary factor of evolution, but what is unfit for life is rejected in accordance with nature’s order.

[Otto Wagener also understood this concept, although he also portrays Hitler as having taken the social question into consideration. It becomes increasingly apparent that Wagener did not put his own words and beliefs into Hitler’s mouth. He points out on numerous occassions where he differs in opinion. As such, Wagener’s testimony is just as reliable as Giesler’s.]

Otto Wagener, Memoirs of a Confidant, p.g. 114:
It is generally believed that competitors must be totally hostile to each other and constantly at each other’s throats. I hold the reverse to be true. We are accustomed to believe that struggle is necessary for that which is healthier and stronger–in this case, better–to prevail. That is said to be the case in the animal kingdom and the vegetable kingdom. And it cannot be otherwise, the belief holds, among men and in men’s work.
I often talked with Hitler about this question. He was radically committed to that view. Even applied to economics, he saw in the struggle for assertion of self and for preeminence the surest guarantee for progress and the general weal.
Clearly he had conflicting feelings. He was a socialist and determined to remain one. But his inner attachment to nature led him time and again to observe and acknowledge as a law of nature the struggle for existence, the struggle to defeat the other.

William Dodd:
In the Garden of Beasts
[Hitler] has definitely said on a number of occasions that a people survives by fighting and dies as a consequence of peaceful policies.

[The Bavarian Illuminati furnishes us with the best example of a near-successful attempt to imperceptibly change the ruling powers from within.]

To this end, I wanted to influence entire generations, and wanted the transition for all classes and people to a more reasonable general conviction, absolutely inexorable due to the course of nature and our destiny, to be quietly prepared, step-by-step, and to take place without any violent upheavals.

Lars Adelskogh (Fke12):
8Hylozoics teaches, in sharp contrast to Darwin’s theory of evolution, that man existed before the mammals and therefore cannot have ascended from them. From what has been said above it should be evident that physical man is an evolutionary line of its own, clearly separated from the rest of organic life.

Hitler, Table Talk (Cameron & Stevens), January 25-26, 1942:
Where do we acquire the right to believe that man has not always been what he is now? The study of nature teaches us that, in the animal kingdom just as much as in the vegetable kingdom, variations have occurred. They’ve occurred within the species, but none of these variations has an importance comparable with that which separates man from the monkey—assuming that this transformation really took place.

Hitler, Table Talk (Jochmann), January 25-26, 1942:
[WIP translation] From where do we take the right to believe that man has not always been what he is today? The glimpse into nature teaches us that variations and further development occur in the kingdoms of plants and animals, but nowhere a development of the length of the leap, appears within a species that the human being would have to have done, he was supposed to have trained from a monkey-like condition to that, what is he!
Woher nehmen wir das Recht, zu glauben, der Mensch sei nicht von Uranfängen das gewesen, was er heut’ ist? Der Blick in die Natur lehrt uns, daß im Bereich der Pflanzen und Tiere Veränderungen und Weiterbildungen Vorkommen, aber nirgends zeigt sich innerhalb einer Gattung eine Entwicklung von der Weite des Sprunges, den der Mensch gemacht haben müßte, sollte er sich aus einem affenartigen Zustand zu dem, was er ist, fortgebildet haben!

The Secret Doctrine
Moreover, a German scientific work is mentioned in a footnote on the same page. It says that a Hanoverian scientist had recently published a Book entitled “Ueber die Auflosung der Arten durch Naturliche Zucht-wahl,” in which he shows, with great ingenuity, that Darwin was wholly mistaken in tracing man back to the ape. On the contrary, he maintains that it is the ape which is evolved from man.
He shows that, in the beginning, mankind were morally and physically the types and prototypes of our present Race, and of our human dignity, by their beauty of form, regularity of feature, cranial development, nobility of sentiments, heroic impulses, and grandeur of ideal conception…
The Book is copiously illustrated with diagrams, tables, etc. It asserts that the gradual debasement and degradation of man, morally and physically, can be readily traced throughout the ethnological transformation down to our time.
And, as one portion has already degenerated into apes, so the civilized man of the present day will at last, under the action of the inevitable law of necessity, be also succeeded by like descendants….
But though the apes descend from man, it is certainly not the fact that the human Monad, which has once reached the level of humanity, ever incarnates again in the form of an animal.

✡Benjamin Disraeli:
What would be the consequence on the great Anglo-Saxon republic, for example, were its citizens to secede from their sound principle of reserve, and mingle with their negro and coloured populations? In the course of time they would become so deteriorated that their states would probably be reconquered and regained by the aborigines whom they have expelled and who would then be their superiors.

The Riddle of the Universe
Consequently, the so-called “history of the world”—that is, the brief period of a few thousand years which measures the duration of civilization—is an evanescently short episode in the long course of organic evolution, just as this, in turn, is merely a small portion of the history of our planetary system; and as our mother-earth is a mere speck in the sunbeam in the illimitable universe, so man himself is but a tiny grain of protoplasm in the perishable framework of organic nature.
Nothing seems to me better adapted than this magnificent cosmological perspective to give us the proper standard and the broad outlook which we need in the solution of the vast enigmas that surround us. It not only clearly indicates the true place of man in nature, but it dissipates the prevalent illusion of man’s supreme importance, and the arrogance with which he sets himself apart from the illimitable universe, and exalts himself to the position of its most valuable element. This boundless presumption of conceited man has misled him into making himself “the image of God,” claiming an “eternal life” for his ephemeral personality, and imagining that he possesses unlimited “freedom of will.”

Otto Dietrich (Memoirs):
[Hitler] spoke of human beings as “planetary bacilli” and was a passionate adherent of Hörbiger’s Universal Ice Theory.

3. Monism (Hanns Hörbiger)

The Fuehrer showed that he had read about and studied all these problems. There is hardly a fact, hardly a theory, hardly a date, that he doesn’t know and that he isn’t able to cite from memory.

– Goebbels (Diaries), May 12, 1943

Peter Padfield:
Heinrich Himmler, July 23, 1938, To SS-Oberführer Dr. Otto Wacker
One strong criticism labelling the doctrine regrettable for Germany’s scientific prestige was sent to Himmler from the German Ministry of Education and Science. He reacted angrily, demanding that the Ministry reject ‘this priggish line of high-school professors’. He himself stood for free research in every form, ‘therefore also for free research into the Welteislehre’. He intended to support this free research warmly: ‘and find myself here in the best company, since the Führer and Chancellor of the German Reich, Adolf Hitler, has also been a convinced adherent for a long time of this despised doctrine ….’

Hitler, Table Talk, February 20-21, 1942 (Cameron & Stevens):
In our time, Hörbiger has made another step forward. …
For me there is no doubt that the satellite planets are attracted by the planets, just as the latter are themselves attracted by a fixed point, the sun. Since there is no such thing as a vacuum, it is possible that the planets’ speed of rotation and movement may grow slower. Thus it is not impossible, for example, that Mars may one day be a satellite of the Earth.
Hörbiger considers a point of detail in all this. He declares that the element which we call water is in reality merely melted ice (instead of ice’s being frozen water): what is found in the universe is ice, and not water. This theory amounted to a revolution, and everybody rebelled against Hörbiger.

Brigette Hamann:
Hitler’s Vienna (Brigette Nagel, Die Welteislehre)
Hermann Giesler, the architect working on the Linz project, remembered Hitler’s words: Think of the immediate past, when a quarter of a million people froze – perhaps I’m biased – we’ll see. But the sentence alone, ‘Ice is not frozen water, water is melted ice,’ deserves at least to be considered.
“Und denken Sie an die jüngste Vergangenheit, die eine Viermillionen-Front im Frost erstarren ließ – vielleicht bin ich zu befangen – wir werdent schen. Allein der Satz: ‘Eis ist nicht gefrorenes Wasser, sondern Wasser ist geschmolzenes Eis’ verdient zumindest eine Darstellung.”

[Hanns Hörbiger was no “occultist”.]

It’s interesting to read how Hörbiger conceived his theory:

By his own account, Hörbiger was observing the Moon when he was struck by the notion that the brightness and roughness of its surface was due to ice. Shortly after, he experienced a dream in which he was floating in space watching the swinging of a pendulum which grew longer and longer until it broke. “I knew that Newton had been wrong and that the sun’s gravitational pull ceases to exist at three times the distance of Neptune,” he concluded.

In the Phaedon, for example, Platon relates that Sokrates had admitted that he possessed no aptitude for investigation of organic events. The true nature of things for Sokrates therefore consisted ultimately not in their investigation by observation, but in our thinking about them. One should not ruin one’s eyes by viewing things to excess. If man wishes to discover whether the earth is flat or round then it does not suit him to carry on research. Rather, he should ask: What does reason say of this? Is it rational to conceive the earth as the centre of the universe?

[How is that any different from Tesla or Kepler or even ✡Einstein?]

The Serbian inventor and electrical engineer Nikola Tesla was heavily influenced by Goethe’s Faust, his favorite poem, and had actually memorized the entire text. It was while reciting a certain verse that he was struck with the epiphany that would lead to the idea of the rotating magnetic field and ultimately, alternating current.

“I believe that it was by divine ordinance that I obtained by chance that which previously I could not reach by any pains; I believe that so much the more readily because I had always prayed to God to let my plan succeed, if Copernicus had told the truth.”
On July 19, 1595–he preserved his great day forever by recording the date–the thought came to him: “If, for the sizes and the relations of the six heavenly paths assumed by Copernicus, five figures possessing certain distinguishing characteristics could be discovered among the remaining infinitely many, then everything would go as desired.”


[What was Hörbiger’s idea but a recurrence to the first principle of the pre-Socratic philosophers? Wiki: “According to his ideas, ice was the basic substance of all cosmic processes, and ice moons, ice planets, and the ‘global ether’ (also made of ice) had determined the entire development of the universe.”]



Quatrain XXXV
From the very depths of the West of Europe,
A young child will be born of poor people,
He who by his tongue will seduce a great troop:
His fame will increase towards the realm of the East.

[From a superficial glance, the above quatrain seems to be referencing Hitler. But the subsequent quatrain would suggest otherwise (unless that one is referring to a different person). In which case, the above quatrain probably signals his future successor, someone born in Western Europe, who will fully emulate him.

The Jews seem to take great care in putting Nostradamus on the pedestal, but always insinuating it in a misleading context, such as representing the prophecies as if they have already occurred (as seen here) or they’ll make loose connections between similar sounding words. It just amounts to guesswork.
Much has been made of the word Hister, which only signifies the Danube.

It is often claimed that Nostradamus was Jewish yet this could be an instance of cultural appropriation, the Jews have tried the same thing with Goethe. Nonetheless, there are lesser known passages which are remarkably uncanny.]

Quatrain LVIII
Near the Rhine from the Noric mountains [Austria]
Will be born a great one of people come too late,
One who will defend Sarmatia and the Pannonians,
One will not know what will have become of him.

Carl Jung:
[The Germans] came up out of the Danube valley too late, and founded the beginnings of their nation long after the French and the English were well on their way to nationhood. They got too late to the scramble [for colonies] and for the foundation of empire. Then, when they did get together and made a united nation, they looked around them and saw the British, the French, and others with rich colonies and all the equipment of grown-up nations, and they became jealous, resentful, like a younger brother whose older brothers have taken the lion’s share of the inheritance.

Hitler, Table Talk (Cameron & Stevens), October 26-27, 1941:
If the British Empire collapsed to-day, it would be thanks to our arms, but we’d get no benefit, for we wouldn’t be the heirs. Russia would take India, Japan would take Eastern Asia, the United States would take Canada. I couldn’t even prevent the Americans from gaining a firm hold in Africa.

[Were the Germans jealous or were the French and English unwilling to give them a place in the political sphere? In Hitler’s Private Library, Timothy W. Ryback testifies to discovering “a monograph on the prophecies of Nostradamus” and “an interpretation of the prophecies of Nostradamus.” He points out how a book titled The Prophecies of Nostradamus by a Carl Loog was found in Hitler’s bunker, and he provides a detailed description of Loog’s interpretation of the following quatrain. Ryback makes it clear that it’s uncertain if Hitler had read this particular quatrain or Loog’s interpretation of it.]

Quatrain LVII
Seven times will you see the British nation change,
Steeped in blood in 290 years:
Free not at all its support Germanic.
Aries doubt his “Bastarnian” pole.

[In L3e17, Laurency provides a formulation on astrology in which he distinguishes between different kinds of astrology, the esoteric astrology remaining largely unknown and the exoteric ones being distorted or incomplete. There he singles out Nostradamus as an exception to the charlatans. Indeed, Catholic “prophecies” mentioning a Hitler often turn out to be modern interpolations, such as the ones attributed to St. Odile, Mitar Tarabich, and “Seeress of Prague”. Much like how the ambiguous occurences of “the East” later became associated with Russia. Nostradamus’ apparent foresight is certainly no merit of the Church.]

Laurency (L3e17):
4No wonder modern astrologers reject it all as superstition of the grossest kind. And the general public – that forum of “common sense” – cannot too eagerly ridicule something it believes it has seen through, cannot too much wonder at such injudiciousness.
5We have not been informed whether the astrologers who lived in the Greco-Roman antiquity or in medieval times were reincarnated astrologers of Chaldea. If they were, however, it is certain that they did not have opportunities of remembering anew the learning they once possessed, because (except for Nostradamus) they displayed no knowledge of esoteric astrology.
At any event, being a reincarnation of a medieval astrologer is no guarantee of understanding true astrology. Rather, we have reason to presume that such ones again fall prey to the degenerate astrology they learnt in the middle ages.
True, what you have once learnt remains in your subconscious and expresses itself as instinct and interest. But until you have picked up again the old facts you learnt, you do not know those facts. You cannot draw them forth from your subconscious, even though psycho-analysts believe something of the sort. They are brought to life only through a renewed contact with the same facts.

But after being surprised sometimes by day while in a trance, and having long fallen into the habit of agreeable nocturnal studies, I have composed books of prophecies, each containing one hundred astronomical quatrains, which I want to condense somewhat obscurely. The work comprises prophecies from today to the year 3797.

[Bear in mind that Nostradamus was still under Catholicism’s sway. So his expectation of a great monarch, as well as “the world’s end” (apparently by 1999, which is a number which regularly occurs in Catholic “prophecy”) follows Catholic “prophetic” tradition. His astronomical calculations should be divorced from all this fatalistic rubbish.]

Heinrich Hoffman:
Once – after Hitler had come to power – someone in our intimate circle started to talk about the centuries, the prophecies of the famous astrologer, Nostradamus. Hitler was very interested, and told one of his officials to get the books for him from the State Library, but on no account to say for whom he was getting them. As it was, a deposit of three thousand marks had to be put down before the Library would give him the books.
In the prophecies mention is made of a mighty mountain, over which a great eagle is sweeping, and Hitler compared the mountain to Germany and the eagle to himself. He went through the prophecies sentence by sentence, and said that although he could not claim that they all had direct bearing on himself, he did feel that they constituted an inexplicable phenomenon; and in this connection, he quoted Hamlet: ‘There are more things in Heaven and earth …’

Quatrain ?

Hitler, February 24, 1940 speech:
I have often told you: I am nothing other than a magnet which, in constantly passing over the German nation, extracts the steel from within this nation.

Hitler, Table Talk (Jochmann), February 4, 1942:
During the struggle for power, I’ve always said I’m making the party so hard that it becomes a magnet that takes away all the iron when you drag it over the land. In a few years we would have everything that is man in us, whereby the number does not matter at all.
Während des Kampfes um die Macht habe ich mir immer gesagt, ich mache die Partei so hart, daß sie ein Magnet wird, der alles Eisen an sich reißt, wenn man ihn über das Land zieht. In wenigen Jahren würden wir alles, was Mann ist, in uns haben, wobei es auf die Zahl gar nicht ankommt.

Hermann Giesler, The Artist Within the Warlord, p.g. 108:
Translated by Wilhelm Kriessmann, Ph.D and Carolyn Yeager
“Let me say it a little differently: the swastika flag flies right now as our national symbol. It will one day be a Germanic symbol and Germany the magnetic power field. That power field will draw in and win over all those who sense the aura of the time.”

Laurency (L3e17):
6The allegation that it is possible by astrology to predict the destinies of people or future events on the basis of the “positions and movements of the stars” demonstrates a complete ignorance of what astrology is. By dint of constant repetition, however, such talk has penetrated the thinking of the public that it is hardly worthwhile informing it about the true state of affairs.

Goebbels (Diaries), May 19, 1942:
Bemdt handed in a plan for occultist propaganda to be carried on by us. We are really getting somewhere. The Americans and English fall easily for that type of propaganda. We are therefore pressing into our service all star witnesses for occult prophecy. Nostradamus must once again submit to being quoted.

Hitler, Table Talk (Cameron & Stevens), July 19, 1942:
The horoscope, in which the Anglo-Saxons in particular have great faith, is another swindle whose significance must not beunder-estimated. Just think of the trouble given to the British General Staff by the publication by a well-known astrologer of a horoscope foretelling final victory in this war for Germany! All the newspapers in Britain had to dig out all the false prophecies previously published by this eminent quack and reprint them, before public anxiety could be pacified!

Heinrich Hoffman:
In principle, Hitler rejected astrology. He admitted that the juxtaposition of the stars might well have some influence on the fate of mankind, but he felt that the interpretation of the cause and effect had not been scientifically mastered; he appeared to be an exponent of the exact sciences, but this did not prevent him from being, in many respects, a superstitious man.
Often, when he was hesitant over some decision, he would take a coin and toss for it; and though he would laugh at his own stupidity in appealing thus to Fate, he was always obviously delighted when the toss fell the way he hoped it would.

[Hoffman is mistaken in his rather persistent attempts to represent Hitler as superstitious. There’s nothing peculiar about making some decisions from a coin toss result.]


Hitler, Table Talk, October 21-22, 1941 (Cameron & Stevens):
The ornamental theme which we call Germano-Nordic is found all over the earth’s surface, both in South America and in the Northern countries. According to a Greek legend, there is a civilisation known as “pre-lunar”, and we can see in the legend an allusion to the empire of the lands of Atlantis that sank into the ocean.

Das, was man bei uns die germanisch-nordischen Urformen nennt, das Schling-Ornament in seinen verschiedenen Ausgestaltungen, findet sich über den ganzen Erdkreis verbreitet, in Südamerika wie im Norden. In einer griechischen Quelle ist von Vor-Mond-Menschen die Rede, worin wir eine Anspielung auf das Weltreich der Atlantis zu sehen haben, das der Mondkatastrophe zum Opfer gefallen ist.

✡Manly P. Hall:
From a careful consideration of Plato’s description of Atlantis it is evident that the story should not be regarded as wholly historical but rather as both allegorical and historical. Origen, Porphyry, Proclus, Iamblichus, and Syrianus realized that the story concealed a profound philosophical mystery, but they disagreed as to the actual interpretation.

Hitler, Table Talk (Cameron & Stevens), January 25-26, 1942:
Legend cannot be extracted from the void, it couldn’t be a purely gratuitous figment. Nothing prevents us from supposing—and I believe, even, that it would be to our interest to do so—that mythology is a reflection of things that have existed and of which humanity has retained a vague memory. In all the human traditions, whether oral or written, one finds mention of a huge cosmic disaster. What the Bible tells on the subject is not peculiar to the Jews, but was certainly borrowed by them from the Babylonians and Assyrians. In the Nordic legend we read of a struggle between giants and gods.

Laurency (ps3.20):
8By means of historical facts acquired and, partly, their own oral traditions, they constructed a history of the Jews. The writings of their prophets were their own adaptations of what they had picked up from various sources during their captivity. A by no means insignificant portion of it was of remarkable antiquity, excerpts from Atlantean records.

Ignatius Donnelly:
The history of Atlantis is the key of the Greek mythology. There can be no question that these gods of Greece were human beings. The tendency to attach divine attributes to great earthly rulers is one deeply implanted inhuman nature. The savages who killed Captain Cook firmly believed that he was immortal, that he was yet alive, and would return to punish them. The highly civilized Romans made gods out of their dead emperors. Dr.Livingstone mentions that on one occasion, after talking to a Bushman for some time about the Deity, he found that the savage thought he was speaking of Sekomi, the principal chief of the district.

Hitler, Table Talk, January 25-26, 1942 (Cameron & Stevens):
In my view, the thing is explicable only by the hypothesis of a disaster that completely destroyed a humanity which already possessed a high degree of civilisation. The fragments of our prehistory are perhaps merely reproductions of objects belonging to a more distant past, and it’s by means of these, doubtless, that the road to civilisation was discovered anew.

The fact is, that wherever the extremity of winter frost or of summer sun does not prevent, mankind exist, sometimes in greater, sometimes in lesser numbers. And whatever happened either in your country or in ours, or in any other region of which we are informed — if there were any actions noble or great or in any other way remarkable, they have all been written down by us of old, and are preserved in our temples. Whereas just when you and other nations are beginning to be provided with letters and the other requisites of civilized life, after the usual interval, the stream from heaven, like a pestilence, comes pouring down, and leaves only those of you who are destitute of letters and education; and so you have to begin all over again like children, and know nothing of what happened in ancient times, either among us or among yourselves.

✡Manly P. Hall:
Either the initiated Plato used the Atlantis allegory to achieve two widely different ends or else the accounts preserved by the Egyptian priests were tampered with to perpetuate the secret doctrine. This does not mean to imply that Atlantis is purely mythological, but it overcomes the most serious obstacle to acceptance of the Atlantis theory, namely, the fantastic accounts of its origin, size, appearance, and date of destruction–9600 B.C.

Laurency ():
We must be content if the lists of kings and notices of battles and conclusions of peace handed down from ancient times give exact dates. Much more exactitude than that is not to be had.

Laurency ():
7The tidal wave that at the destruction of Atlantis finally swept over the remaining continents was distorted in Jewish writings into the so-called flood.

Laurency ():
1The facts to be found in the canonical scriptures of the Jews, the Old Testament of the Christians, derive their origin from Jewish young men who were educated in Mesopotamian temples and had access to the pertaining archives. The copies that those Jews brought with them when the people were allowed to return to Palestine were duly revised, using the potential of perception existing, and the result is regarded as the holy words of Jahweh. Their story of the Flood is told there. This was the tidal wave that swept the then existing continents, as the last remnant of Atlantis sank into the sea in the year 9564 before the current era. Not much remained after that terrible devastation of the cultures flourishing at the time. What archaeologists excavate are the products of recent times.

Hitler was fond of ideas with cosmic sweep.

– Otto Dietrich

Hitler, Table Talk, January 25-26, 1942 (Cameron & Stevens):
What is there to prove to us that the stone axe we re-discover in our parts was really an invention of those who used it? It seems to me more likely that this object is a reproduction in stone of an axe that previously existed in some other material. What proof have we, by the way, that beside objects made of stone there were not similar objects made of metal? The life of bronze is limited, and that would explain that in certain earthy deposits one finds only objects made of stone.

Moreover, there’s no proof that the civilisation that existed before the disaster flourished precisely in our regions. Three-quarters of the earth are covered by water, and only an eighth of the earth’s surface is in practice accessible. Who knows what discoveries would be made if we could explore the ground that is at present covered by the waters?

I’m quite well inclined to accept the cosmic theories of Hörbiger. It’s not impossible, in fact, that ten thousand years before our era there was a clash between the earth and the moon that gave the moon its present orbit. It’s likewise possible that the earth attracted to it the atmosphere which was that of the moon, and that this radically transformed the conditions of life on our planet.
One can imagine that, before this accident, man could live at any altitude—for the simple reason that he was not subject to the constraint of atmospheric pressure.

One may also imagine that, the earth having opened, water rushed into the breach thus formed, and explosions followed, and then diluvian torrents of rain—from which human couples could escape only by taking refuge in very high regions.

It seems to me that these questions will be capable of solution on the day when a man will intuitively establish the connection between these facts, thus teaching exact science the path to follow. Otherwise we shall never raise the veil between our present world and that which preceded us.

For consideration:


What do you think of ancient traditions about deluges and destructions of mankind, and the preservation of a remnant? ’Every one believes in them.’ Then let us suppose the world to have been destroyed by a deluge.


Goebbels (Diaries), February 27, 1945:
[Hitler] says to me, for instance, that it is essential to work for one’s people but that there is a limit to what men can do. Who knows when the moon may not crash into the earth and this whole planet go up in flame and ashes. Nevertheless, he says, it must be our mission to do our duty to the last.

Celsus, however, says that it is only “the course of mortal things which, according to the appointed cycles, must always be the same in the past, present, and future;” whereas the majority of the Stoics maintain that this is the case not only with the course of mortal, but also with that of immortal things, and of those whom they regard as gods. For after the conflagration of the world, which has taken place countless times in the past, and will happen countless times in the future, there has been, and will be, the same arrangement of all things from the beginning to the end.

There have been, and will be again, many destructions of mankind arising out of many causes; the greatest have been brought about by the agencies of fire and water, and other lesser ones by innumerable other causes.
There is a story, which even you have preserved, that once upon a time Paethon, the son of Helios, having yoked the steeds in his father’s chariot, because he was not able to drive them in the path of his father, burnt up all that was upon the earth, and was himself destroyed by a thunderbolt.
Now this has the form of a myth, but really signifies a declination of the bodies moving in the heavens around the earth, and a great conflagration of things upon the earth, which recurs after long intervals; at such times those who live upon the mountains and in dry and lofty places are more liable to destruction than those who dwell by rivers or on the seashore. And from this calamity the Nile, who is our never-failing saviour, delivers and preserves us.
When, on the other hand, the gods purge the earth with a deluge of water, the survivors in your country are herdsmen and shepherds who dwell on the mountains, but those who, like you, live in cities are carried by the rivers into the sea. Whereas in this land, neither then nor at any other time, does the water come down from above on the fields, having always a tendency to come up from below; for which reason the traditions preserved here are the most ancient.

Ovid, Metamorphoses:
When the horses feel the reins lying across their backs, after he has thrown them down, they veer off course and run unchecked through unknown regions of the air. Wherever their momentum takes them there they run, lawlessly, striking against the fixed stars in deep space and hurrying the chariot along remote tracks. Now they climb to the heights of heaven, now rush headlong down its precipitous slope, sweeping a course nearer to the earth.
The Moon, amazed, sees her brother’s horses running below her own, and the boiling clouds smoke. The earth bursts into flame, in the highest regions first, opens in deep fissures and all its moisture dries up. The meadows turn white, the trees are consumed with all their leaves, and the scorched corn makes its own destruction. But I am bemoaning the lesser things. Great cities are destroyed with all their walls, and the flames reduce whole nations with all their peoples to ashes. The woodlands burn, with the hills.
Mount Athos is on fire, Cilician Taurus, Tmolous, Oete and Ida, dry now once covered with fountains, and Helicon home of the Muses, and Haemus not yet linked with King Oeagrius’s name. Etna blazes with immense redoubled flames, the twin peaks of Parnassus, Eryx, Cynthus, Othrys, Rhodope fated at last to lose its snow, Mimas and Dindyma, Mycale and Cithaeron, ancient in rites. Its chilly climate cannot save Scythia. The Caucasus burn, and Ossa along with Pindus, and Olympos greater than either, and the lofty Alps and cloud-capped Apennines.
Then, truly, Phaethon sees the whole earth on fire. He cannot bear the violent heat, and he breathes the air as if from a deep furnace. He feels his chariot glowing white. He can no longer stand the ash and sparks flung out, and is enveloped in dense, hot smoke. He does not know where he is, or where he is going, swept along by the will of the winged horses.

The fable respecting Phaeton, however, requires a manifold discussion. For in the first place, it is necessary to consider it historically; in the second place, physically; and in the third place, philosophically.
History therefore says, that Phaeton was the offspring of the Sun, and of Clymene the daughter of Ocean, and that driving the chariot of his father, he deviated from the proper track. That Jupiter also fearing for the safety of the universe, destroyed him by thunder; but he being blasted by thunder, fell about Eridanus. The fire likewise proceeding from him burnt every thing that was nourished by the earth: and his sisters, the Heliades, lamented his fall. And such is the historical account of the fable.
It is, however, necessary to admit that a conflagration took place; for the whole narration is introduced for the sake of this; and, also, that the cause of it is neither an impossibility, nor a certain thing which may easily happen.
But it will be impossible if some one fancies that the Sun at one time drives his own chariot, and at another time being changed ceases to drive it, and commits his proper employment to another.
And it will be among the number of things which may be easily accomplished, if it is supposed that this Phaeton was a comet, which being dissolved produced an intolerable dryness from vehement heat. For this supposition is generally adopted. Porphyry therefore says, that certain signs may be assumed from the motion of comets. For when this motion is towards the southern parts, it is indicative of tempests, towards the north, of dryness from excessive heat, towards the east, of pestilence, and towards the west, of fertility. The disappearance likewise of the comet, is said to be the destruction by thunder.

Carl Sagan:
Of all the materials imagined to fall from comets, the most enduring-both in folklore and in science-have been, oddly, germs, the causative agents of disease. The worldwide association of comets with pestilence is striking, transcending cultural differences, and it is tempting to consider whether comets might in fact and not just in fancy be the carriers of epidemics.

Thus far I have spoken on the authority of the Egyptians and their priests. They declare that from their first king to this last-mentioned monarch, the priest of Vulcan, was a period of three hundred and forty-one generations; such, at least, they say, was the number both of their kings, and of their high-priests, during this interval. Now three hundred generations of men make ten thousand years, three generations filling up the century; and the remaining forty-one generations make thirteen hundred and forty years. Thus the whole number of years is eleven thousand, three hundred and forty; in which entire space, they said, no god had ever appeared in a human form; nothing of this kind had happened either under the former or under the later Egyptian kings. The sun, however, had within this period of time, on four several occasions, moved from his wonted course, twice rising where he now sets, and twice setting where he now rises. Egypt was in no degree affected by these changes; the productions of the land, and of the river, remained the same; nor was there anything unusual either in the diseases or the deaths.

Of the portents recorded in ancient tales many did happen and will happen again. Such an one is the portent connected with the tale of the quarrel between Atreus and Thyestes. You have doubtless heard of it and remember what is said to have taken place. I mean the change in the rising and setting of the sun and the other heavenly bodies, how in those times they used to set in the quarter where they now rise, and used to rise where they now set, but the god at the time of the quarrel, you recall, changed all that to the present system as a testimony in favor of Atreus.

✡Joshua 10:13 LXX
And the sun and the moon stood still; and the sun stood still in the midst of heaven; it did not proceed to set till the end of one day. And there was not such a day either before or after, so that God should hearken to a man, because the Lord fought on the side of Israel.

But my son, lest I venture too far for your future perception, be aware that men of letters shall make grand and usually boastful claims about the way I interpreted the world, before the worldwide conflagration which is to bring so many catastrophes and such revolutions that scarcely any lands will not be covered by water, and this will last until all has perished save history and geography themselves.

In the fullness of time, when the change was to take place, and the earth-born race had all perished, and every soul had completed its proper cycle of births and been sown in the earth her appointed number of times, the pilot of the universe let the helm go, and retired to his place of view; and then Fate and innate desire reversed the motion of the world. Then also all the inferior deities who share the rule of the supreme power, being informed of what was happening, let go the parts of the world which were under their control.

Ragnarök (Nordic myth):
At last the time draws near when the existing universe must perish and the gods must succumb before higher powers. This period is called in the ancient myths the Dissolution or Destin? (rok) of the gods or rulers (ragna, genitive plural of regin); a later form is ragnarøkkr, the Darkness of the Gods. The gods themselves have foreknowledge of its coming, which is foreshadowed by many signs.

Laurency (L3e18):
7Life forms are necessary to consciousness development. However, as soon as the self has learnt what it can learn in that form, the time has come to dissolve it, since otherwise it would become a hindrance to further development.
8As seen from the matter aspect, development is transformation: the replacement of old forms for new ones, which are more expedient in enabling consciousness development. Sentimental ignorance has always regarded this destructive side of existence as demoniacal. It is, however, charitable, a necessary condition of a richer life.
The corresponding is true of thought-forms, cultural forms, etc. When they have taught mankind what they have to offer, they must be annihilated. When this happens, however, mankind goes out of its senses, screaming that the end of the world is near.

✡Manly P. Hall:
The same author [Ignatius Donnelly] sustains his views by noting that the deities of the Greek pantheon were nor looked upon as creators of the universe but rather as regents set over it by its more ancient original fabricators. The Garden of Eden from which humanity was driven by a flaming sword is perhaps an allusion to the earthly paradise supposedly located west of the Pillars of Hercules and destroyed by volcanic cataclysms. The Deluge legend may be traced also to the Atlantean inundation, during which a “world” was destroyed by water.

Zeus, the god of gods, who rules according to law, and is able to see into such things, perceiving that an honourable race was in a woeful plight, and wanting to inflict punishment on them, that they might be chastened and improve, collected all the gods into their most holy habitation, which, being placed in the centre of the world, beholds all created things. And when he had called them together, he spake as follows-

Ragnarök (Nordic myth):
Then come three other years, like one long winter; everywhere the snow drifts into heaps, the sun yields no warmth, and biting winds blow from all quarters. That winter is known as Fimbul Winter (the Great Winter).

✝The Sibylline Oracles:
And then in his anger the immortal God who dwells on high shall hurl from the sky a fiery bolt on the head of the unholy: and summer shall change to winter in that day.


The belief has spread among [the Christians], from a misunderstanding of the accounts of these occurrences, that after lengthened cycles of time, and the returns and conjunctions of planets, conflagrations and floods are wont to happen, and because after the last flood, which took place in the time of Deucalion, the lapse of time, agreeably to the vicissitude of all things, requires a conflagration and this made them give utterance to the erroneous opinion that God will descend, bringing fire like a torturer.


✡Zechariah 14:6-7 LXX
And it shall come to pass in that day that there shall be no light, and there shall be for one day cold and frost, and that day shall be known to the Lord, and it shall not be day nor night: but towards evening it shall be light.

✡2 Esdras 5:4
The sun will suddenly start shining by night and the moon by day.

In the next place it must be shown why the greatest of destructions are through the predominance of fire and water, and not through that of the other elements. Fire, therefore, has an efficacious and productive order in the elements, is sufficiently able to proceed through all other things, and is naturally adapted to divide them. But water, is indeed moved with greater facility than earth, yet is more difficultly passive than air. And by its facility of motion, indeed, it is able to operate; but through being passive with difficulty, it is not affected by violence, nor becomes imbecile when dissipated, like air; so that it reasonably follows, that violent, and the greatest destructions are effected by deluges and conflagrations.
You may also say, that the remaining two elements are more adapted to us. For we are pedestrious, and allied to earth; and as we are on all sides comprehended by air, in which we live, and which we respire, it is evident that our bodies are of a kindred nature with it. Hence these elements, as being more allied to, are less destructive of us; but the others, which are contrary to these, bring with them more violent destructions.

The fact is, that wherever the extremity of winter frost or of summer sun does not prevent, mankind exist, sometimes in greater, sometimes in lesser numbers. And whatever happened either in your country or in ours, or in any other region of which we are informed — if there were any actions noble or great or in any other way remarkable, they have all been written down by us of old, and are preserved in our temples. Whereas just when you and other nations are beginning to be provided with letters and the other requisites of civilized life, after the usual interval, the stream from heaven, like a pestilence, comes pouring down, and leaves only those of you who are destitute of letters and education; and so you have to begin all over again like children, and know nothing of what happened in ancient times, either among us or among yourselves.

✝The Sibylline Oracles:
For a dark mist shall hide the boundless world,
East, west, and south, and north. And then shall flow
A mighty stream of burning fire from heaven
And every place consume, earth, ocean vast,
And gleaming sea, and lakes and rivers, springs,
And cruel Hades and the heavenly sky.

4. Hitler’s Maxims

God helps those who help themselves

The Wonders of Life
It was not until the second half of the nineteenth century that a sound knowledge of the physiological functions and environment of the organism induced people once more to have a concern for bodily culture. All that modern hygiene now does for the public health, especially the improvement of the dwellings and food of the poorer classes, the prevention of disease by healthier habits, baths, athletics, etc., can be traced to the monistic teaching or reason, and is altogether opposed to the Christian belief in Providence and the dualism connected therewith.

The maxim of modern hygiene is: God helps those who help themselves.

Hitler, to Bertrand de Jouvenel, February 1936:
People have said that I owe my success to the fact that I have created a mystique… or more simply that I have been lucky. Well, I will tell you what has carried me to where I am. Our political problems appeared complicated. The German people did not comprehend them. In these conditions they preferred to leave it to the professional politicians to get them out of this confused mess. I, on the other hand, simplified the problems. I reduced them to the simplest terms. The masses realized this and they have followed me. Thus the class struggle, this famous class struggle! It is an absurdity, the class struggle, and I denounced the absurdity, and the people understood me! I made an appeal to reason. It was heard by the German people!

G. Ward Price:
[Hitler’s] temperament is too individualistic to spare those who work under him. “He does not believe in helping people out of difficulties,” said a close collaborator. “It is only when one of his subordinates is on the point of being overwhelmed by his work or responsibilities that he will come to his aid. Even then he does no more than lift the man’s chin above the surface so that he can struggle for himself.”

Hitler, November 6, 1938 speech:
If today at times in foreign countries Parliamentarians or politicians venture to maintain that Germany has not kept her treaties, then we can give as our answer to these men: the greatest breach of a treaty that ever was practiced on the German people. Every promise which had been made to Germany in the Fourteen Points – those promises on the faith of which Germany had laid down her arms – was afterwards broken. In 1932 Germany was faced with final collapse. The German Reich and people both seemed lost. And then came the German resurrection.

It began with a change of faith. While all the German parties before us believed in forces and ideals which lay outside of the German Reich and outside of our people, we National Socialists have resolutely championed belief in our own people, starting from that watchword of eternal validity: God helps only those who are prepared and determined to help themselves.

In the place of all those international factors – Democracy, the Conscience of Peoples, the Conscience of the World, the League of Nations, and the like – we have set a single factor – our own people.

Sie begann mit einer Umwandlung des Glaubens. Während alle deutschen Parteien vor uns an Kräfte und Ideale glaubten, die außerhalb des Reiches und unseres Volkes lagen, haben wir Nationalsozialisten unentwegt den Glauben an unser eigenes Volk gefördert, ausgehend von der ewig gültigen Parole, daß Gott nur denen hilft, die bereit und entschlossen sind, sich selbst zu helfen. Wir haben an die Stelle all jener internationalen Faktoren – Demokratie, Völkergewissen, Weltgewissen, Völkerbund usw. – einen einzigen Faktor gestellt: unser eigenes Volk!

Hitler, February 24, 1941 speech:
And when a Frenchman said that the aim was really to annihilate 20 million Germans, that was by no means mere imagination. It was entirely possible to calculate the time when the German nation would actually number 20 or 30 million less. This enslavement-disastrous even from the purely economic point of view-was now opposed by the Germans, divided into two great camps. Their points of view were completely different; but both placed their hopes in international ideals. The more intellectually inclined camp said: “We believe in a world-conscience, in world justice. We believe in the League of Nations at Geneva.” The others were more proletarian and said: “We believe in international solidarity,” and things of that sort. But they all believed in something outside their own people-were ever ready to take refuge in the hope that others would come and help them.

The conception of the new Movement, whose fundamentals can be expressed in a single sentence: “The Lord helps those who help themselves,” opposed this. That is not only a very pious phrase, but a very just one.

For one cannot assume that God exists to help people who are too cowardly and too lazy to help themselves and think that God exists only to make up for the weakness of mankind. He does not exist for that purpose. He has always, at all times, blessed only those who were prepared to fight their own battles.

Demgegenüber vertrat die neue Bewegung eine Erkenntnis, die im Grunde genommen in einem einzigen Sat zusammenzufassen ist. “Hilf dir selbst, dann hilft dir Gott.” Das ist nicht nur ein sehr frommer, sondern auch sehr gerechter Satz, weil man ja gar nicht annehmen kann, daß der liebe Gott dazu da sei, Menschen zu helfen, die zu feige oder zu faul sind, sich selbst zu helfen, daß also der liebe Gott eine Art Schwächeersag für die Menschheit sei. Dazu ist er nicht da. Er hat zu allen Zeiten nur den gesegnet, der bereit war, sich selber zu wehren.

Hitler, April 1, 1939 speech:
Now we have found a new economic system, a system which is this: Capital is the power of labor and the coverage of money lies in our production. We have founded a system based on the most sincere foundation there is, namely: Form your life yourself! Work for your existence! Help yourself and God will help you! Within a few years we have wrenched Germany from despair. But the world did not help us.

Hitler, October 3, 1941 speech:
If you are walking down the street and have any doubts whether you should give something again, then turn your gaze sideways. Perhaps you will see somebody who has sacrificed far more for Germany than you have. Only if the German Volk forms a community of sacrifice can we hope and expect that Providence will stand by us in the future, too.
The Lord God has never helped the lazy person. Nor does He help the coward. He will never help him who is not ready to help himself. Here the principle applies: Volk, help yourself, then the Lord God will not refuse you His assistance either.

Der Herrgott hat noch niemals einem Faulen geholfen, er hilft auch keinem Feigen, er hilft auf keinem Fall dem, der sich nicht selber helfen will. Hier gilt der Grundsatz, Volk hilf dir selbst, dann wird der Herrgott dir seine Hilfe nicht verweigern.

Hitler, September 6, 1938 speech:
We are proud of you! All of Germany loves you! For you are not merely bearers of the spade, but rather you have become bearers of the shield for our Reich and Volk! You represent the most noble of slogans known to us: “God helps those who help themselves!”

In euch repräsentiert sich uns das erhabenste Motto, das wir kennen: ,Mensch, hilf dir selbst, dann hilft dir auch Gott!

Hitler, March 20, 1936 speech:
Hence today, my German Volk, I call upon you: stand behind me with your faith! Be the source of my power and my faith. Do not forget: he who does not abandon his principles in this world will not be abandoned by the Almighty either! The Almighty will always help those who help themselves; He will always show them the way to their rights, their freedom and thus to their future.

Heute nun, mein deutsches Volk, rufe ich dich auf, tritt du jetzt mit deinem Glauben hinter mich! Sei du jetzt die Quelle meiner Kraft und meines Glaubens. Vergiß nicht, wer sich selbst auf dieser Welt nicht preisgibt, den wird auch der Allmächtige nicht verlassen! Wer sich selbst hilft, den wird auch der Allmächtige immer helfen, dem wird er den Weg weisen zu seinem Recht, zu seiner Freiheit und damit zu seiner Zukunft.

Hitler, January 1, 1941 speech:
I know every single one of you will do his duty. The Lord God will not abandon those who, with a valiant heart, are determined to help themselves in view of the threats of the whole world.

Hitler, September 3, 1939 speech:
Beyond this, we all know: as long as the German Volk has stood united in its history, it has never yet been vanquished! Only the dissent of the year 1918 led to collapse. Thus, whoever now believes he can sin against this unity cannot expect anything other than his destruction as an enemy of the nation. If our Volk fulfills its highest duty in this respect, then the Lord Almighty will stand by. He has always bestowed His blessings on him who was determined to help himself! The laws necessary for the defense and security of the Reich are being decreed, the men responsible for their implementation and compliance with them are being appointed. I myself go to the front on this day.

Hitler, November 14, 1940 speech:

And in these long years I have made the relentless decision to carry out these dreams from my people, and instead, to introduce the icy reason, namely the realization that the dear God helps him who helps himself, and also, that one has nothing to await from the other world, besides, one helps himself.

Und ich habe in diesen langen Jahren den unerbittlichen Entschluß gefaßt, diese Träume aus meinem Volk hinauszubringen und an Stelle dessen die eiskalte Vernunft einzuführen, nämlich die Erkenntnis, daß der liebe Gott demjenigen hilft, der sich selber hilft, und daß man von der anderen Welt auch nichts zu erwarten hat, außerdem man hilft sich selbst. Ich bin auch bereit, alles zu tun, was man tun kann.

[In a January 30, 1940 speech, Hitler says something very similar to the above speech, except he does not mention god. “We have put a different type of hope in the place of that previous hope: the hope of the only help that exists in this world, help through one’s own power.” He says that in the place of the democratic hopes came “the faith in our German people, in the mobilization of its eternal inner values”.]

Hitler, October 15, 1940 speech:

In addition to this comes my deep inner devoutness, which tells me that the Lord God always helps him who helps himself, that He is always on the side of the person who is active, who is diligent and who is brave, who takes up the battle with Destiny herself. He also gets the blessing of Providence.

The Lord God never lets him fall, who also does not fall himself. Only if one believes that he can abandon himself to Providence, that he can laze around, then he brings it to nothing; or if he believes that he can rely on Providence and may be a coward himself, then no one shall save him again. That is my conviction.

Es kommt noch dazu meine tiefinnere Gläubigkeit, die mir sagt, daß der Herrgott immer dem hilft, der sieh selber hilft, daß er immer auf der Seite desjenigen steht, der tätig ist, der fleißig ist und der tapfer ist, der den Kampf mit dem Schicksal selber aufnimmt. Der bekommt auch dann den Segen der Vorsehung. Der Herrgott läßt den nie fallen, der auch sich selber nicht fallen läßt. Nur wenn einer glaubt, daß er sich auf die Vorsehung verlassen kann, selber faulenzen kann, dann bringt er es zu nichts, oder wenn er glaubt, daß er sich auf die Vorsehung verlassen kann und selber feig sein darf, dann wird ihn auch niemand mehr erretten. Das ist meine Überzeugung.

[I believe this was the first time Hitler explicitly linked up the axiom with his religion. Observe how he indicates similarly in his later speeches. We can see how consistently he adhered to these views in his private conversations.]

Hitler, July 5, 1944 speech:
Perhaps I am not what they call a sanctimonious hypocrite or pious. I am not that. But deep in my heart, I am a religious man; that is, I believe that the man who, in accordance with the natural laws created by God, bravely fights and never capitulates in this world-that this man will not be abandoned by the Lawgiver. Instead, he will in the end receive the blessings of Providence.

Hitler, November 8, 1943 speech:
Finally, I would like to say something to those people who keep talking to me about religion: I am also religious, profoundly religious on the inside, and I believe that Providence weighs human beings. Those who do not pass the trials imposed by Providence, who are broken by them, are not destined by Providence for greater things. It is a natural necessity that only the strong remain after this selection.

Lord of the Worlds

Hitler, March 11, 1945 speech:
If a great nation like the German one, with a history of nearly two thousand years, never allows the belief in success to be taken from it, but instead fanatically does its duty, no matter whether the times ahead are good or bad, then the Lord Almighty will in the end not deny it His blessings.
In history, that alone falls which is judged to be too light. The God of the worlds will help only him who is determined to help himself.

Es fällt in der Geschichte nur, was als zu leicht befunden wird, und der Gott der Welten hilft nur dem, der sich selbst zu helfen entschlossen ist!

Hitler, December 11, 1941 speech:
Our enemies should not deceive themselves. In the two thousand years of the history known to us, our German Volk has never been more unified and united than it is today.
The Lord of the worlds has done so many great things for us in the last years that we bow in gratitude before Providence, which has permitted us to be members of such a great Volk.

Der Herr der Welten hat so Großes in den letzten Jahren an uns getan, daß wir in Dankbarkeit uns vor einer Vorsehung verneigen, die uns gestattet hat, Angehörige eines so großen Volkes sein zu dürfen.

Quran, Surah Al-Fatihah 1:2
[All] praise is [due] to Allah, Lord of the worlds

Bhagavad Gita 10:2-3
Translated by Sri Swami Sivananda
Neither the hosts of the gods nor the great sages know My origin; for, in every way I am the source of all the gods and the great sages. He who knows Me as unborn and beginningless, as the great Lord of the worlds, he, among mortals, is undeluded; he is liberated from all sins.

Quran, Surah Ar-Ra’d 13:11
Indeed, Allah will not change the condition of a people until they change what is in themselves.

Laurency (L3e2.24):

Help yourself, and god will help you is an ancient esoteric symbol, which says that in so far as the individual strives for development, in so far can he receive the material energies that facilitate his efforts. Because such is the Law: “Be done to you as you want.” In so far as our striving harmonizes with the laws of life they effect development.

Hitler, October 5, 1938 speech:
A commandment reigns above all of us: no one in this world will help us, if we do not help ourselves. This program of self-help is both a proud one and a manly one. It is quite different from those of my predecessors who ran around all over the place, one minute begging at the gates of Versailles, then in Geneva, Lausanne, or at some other conferences. It is with greater pride that we Germans solve our own problems and help ourselves today!

„Über uns allen aber steht das Gebot: Niemand in der Welt wird uns helfen. außer wir helfen uns selbst! Dieses Programm der Selbsthilfe ist ein ebenso stolzes wie männliches Programm. Es ist ein anderes als das meiner Vorgänger, die fortgesetzt in der Welt herumliefen, herumbettelnd bald in Versailles und dann in Genf und dann in Lausanne oder sonstwo bei irgendwelchen Konferenzen [!]. Es ist schon stolzer, daß wir Deutsche heute entschlossen unsere Probleme selbst lösen und uns auch selbst helfen!

Hitler, Table Talk, February 27, 1942 (Jochmann):
Many times, even in the past, a realization already dawns on the higher laws of the world: Help yourself, then God will help you! This is the idea that man is the smith of his happiness or his misfortune.

Manches Mal dämmert auch in der Vergangenheit schon eine Erkenntnis durch von der höheren Gesetzmäßigkeit der Welt: Hilf dir selbst, dann hilft dir Gott! Das ist die Ahnung, daß der Mensch der Schmied seines Glücks oder seines Unglücks ist.

When German folkish lore pronounces that each man is the smith of his luck, when Goethe speaks of the creative strength of a genius, and when Eckehart demands that each must become one with himself, these ideas are all fundamentally the same. It is the peculiar Germanic adjustment to the age old problem of man.

Laurency (L5e6.10):
11Everybody is the architect of his own fortune or misfortune. We have made ourselves what we are. We shall be what we make ourselves. Everything that happens to us is our own doing. Nothing can befall us which we have not deserved. We attract powers, influences, people according to the thoughts and desires we cherish. We transform ourselves into likeness to the thoughts we think.

[Also see L3e17.4.2]

The Golden Verses of Pythagoras:
Translated by Florence M. Firth, 1904
Thou wilt likewise know, that men draw upon themselves their own misfortunes voluntarily, and of their own free choice. Unhappy that they are! They neither see nor understand that their good is near them. Few know how to deliver themselves out of their misfortunes.

[It should be noted that innumerable Christian websites identify this ancient Greek axiom as being antithetical to Christianity. None of the arguments presented for it as a Christian teaching on the wiki are valid; five verses are from the Old Testament (spurious Jewish “wisdom”), two verses come from Paul (who was hardly qualified to formulate on Jesus’ teachings and it’s possible that his writings were tampered with, as Marcion suspected), and the rendering given for Matthew 5:3-4 is obviously distorted.]


“God helps those who help themselves” is an ancient proverb that shows up in the literature of many cultures, including a 1736 edition of Benjamin Franklin’s “Poor Richard’s Almanac.” But it does not appear in the Bible and suggests a spiritual self-reliance inconsistent with Christianity, said David Kinnaman, vice president of the Barna Research Group.

Yet when asked to comment on the statement “The Bible teaches that God helps those who help themselves,” 75% of the 1,002 survey respondents agreed.

Kinnaman estimated that more than 30 faiths were represented in the random telephone sampling of U.S. adults, including Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Baha’is and Muslims. Atheists also were represented.

Hitler, Table Talk, November 5, 1941 (Jochmann):
The theory of life means: to do something for you to have something, and: to value only what helps to live. Die Theorie des Lebens heißt: Schaffe dir etwas, damit du etwas hast, und: Wert hat nur das, was zum Leben hilft.
[Cameron & Stevens: It’s so simple that everybody is convinced of it, and nobody would pay to learn it. But the Jew succeeds in getting himself rewarded for his meaningless glibness. Stop following what he says, for a moment, and at once the whole scaffolding collapses.]

How much better it is to pursue the right path and to bring yourself to the point where only what is honourable is satisfying to you.

Hitler, May 26, 1944 Platterhof hotel talk:
I have recognised that one must also anchor this principle in the reconstruction of a strong German State; good and correct knowledge is not enough as the basis of the new education, but also the willingness to intolerantly destroy those who resist or will not accept it.

Laurency (L4e3.12):
1One of these was Muhammad, who took on himself the task of trying to set mankind free from the monstrous Satanism of “sin as a crime against an infinite being” and the totally distorted idea of the trinity of life. This was successful, but instead Muhammad’s doctrine of the deity as inconceivable to human reason was distorted into fatalism.

[It follows that intolerance, fanaticism, and ruthlessness aren’t strictly satanic when employed for a good purpose, in warfare (see Moltke), or in self-defense. Nature knows nothing of humanitarian notions. She allows unscrupulous Jews and half-castes to wreak havoc upon the world, with the laws of life eventually intervening when we falter. By then, the damage inflicted upon the planet will have been catastrophic and mankind will have yet again degenerated in form. It’d appear that only the dissolution of the physical form would decisively put an end to this kind of evil, but that development can only be attained through endurance and heroic idealism, not through quasi-gnostic nihilism.]

Hitler, Table Talk, April 1942 (Cameron & Stevens):
The idea of human solidarity was imposed on men by force, and can be maintained only by the same means.

Laurency ():
2[The churches] allege that recently also Buddhists have become militant. If so, it is not surprising. Against religions as aggressive as all forms of monotheism (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam), which preach the “only truth” and force their views on others as soon as they get into power, they have no other choice but self-defence.

[What was the principal basis of knowledge in National Socialism?]

Hitler, Table Talk, February 17, 1942 (Jochmann):

A dwarf with nothing but knowledge fears the power. Instead of saying that the basis of knowledge must be a healthy body, he rejects the power. Nature adapts to the habits of life, and if the world were to be passed on to the German professor for a few centuries, then after a million years loud cretins would walk around us: giant heads on an inadequate body!

Ein Zwerg mit nichts als Wissen fürchtet die Kraft. Statt sich zu sagen, die Basis des Wissens muß ein gesunder Körper sein, lehnt er die Kraft ab. Die Natur paßt sich den Lebensgepflogenheiten an, und würde die Welt auf einige Jahrhunderte dem deutschen Professor überantwortet, so würden nach einer Million Jahren lauter Kretins bei uns herum wandeln: Riesenköpfe auf einem Nichts von Körper!

Hitler, September 11, 1937 speech:
In place of a youth that was formerly raised on pleasure, today a youth is growing up who will be raised on forbearance and sacrifice, and above all raised to breed a healthy, robust body, for as you know, we believe that without such a body, even a healthy spirit cannot rule the nation for any length of time.

Mein Kampf:
What is known as the Gymnasium to-day is a positive insult to the Greek institution. Our system of education entirely loses sight of the fact that, in the long run, a healthy mind can exist only in a healthy body. This statement applies with few exceptions, particularly to the broad masses of the nation.

Hitler, Memoirs of a Confidant, p.g. 279:
The mission of the Hitler Youth is neither religious nor racial, nor is it philosophical, political, or economic. It is entirely natural: the young people should be led back to nature, they should recognize nature as the giver of life and energy. And they should strengthen and develop their bodies outdoors, making themselves well and keeping themselves well. For a healthy mind can develop only in a healthy body, and it is only in the freedom of nature that a human being can also open himself to a higher morality and a higher ethic. The consciousness of the growing young man and young woman absorbs those ethical bases that distinguish them from animals and that mark the individual and, over time, the entire Volk with its racial characteristics.

Rudolf Hess:
The loneliest man in the world by Eugene K. Bird
I have been reading about the problems of youth. You know, with all the criticism that was levelled at von Schirach and his Hitler Jugend, it is forgotten that he did a fantastic thing with Germany’s young. He kept them busy, he kept them out of trouble. In those years we did not have to concern ourselves with the worry of youths taking drugs, getting involved in crime, and sexual permissiveness. We did not have burning of national flags and draft cards. We had a healthy youth with healthy minds, all pulling together under one flag to build a nation. That is what we need today, we need to get them back on the right track.

Reinhold Hanisch:
He was a particular admirer of the structure of the Greek state, where scholars and philosophers exerted a strong influence, a thing we should have emulated. That had been the epoch of philosophy, but in our technical age philosophy was badly neglected. He asserted that it would be easier to combat misery if there were more philosophy.

Mein Kampf:
What has made the Greek ideal of beauty immortal is the wonderful union of a splendid physical beauty with nobility of mind and spirit. Moltke’s saying, that, in the long run, fortune favours only the efficient, certainly holds good for the relationship between body and spirit. A mind which is sound generally dwells in a body that is sound.

[What man is happy?]

Thales of Miletus:
He who has a healthy body, a resourceful mind and a docile nature.

[Thales tells us to remember friends, whether present or absent; not to pride ourselves upon outward appearance, but to study to be beautiful in character.]

Satire X

Then you might pray for a sound mind in a healthy body.
Ask for a heart filled with courage, without fear of death,
That regards long life as among the least of nature’s gifts,
That can endure any hardship, to which anger is unknown,
That desires nothing,

[What was the essential teaching underlying National Socialist philosophy?]

Laurency (ps3):
11The laws of life are of course contained in the “creed of an esoteric religion.

Laurency (ps2):
18It is true that esoterics becomes exoteric in being published, but it still deserves its name. One reason is that from the historical point of view it has long been esoteric. A second reason is that essential parts of it still remain esoteric, since people are far from ripe for the knowledge that confers real power. A third reason is that even in its published state it stands a good chance of remaining unknown to all but the independent, to all those who always resort to authorities, who reject everything they do not already know or have not been taught to comprehend.


Hitler, Sportpalast February 10, 1933 speech:
We can summarize our fifth item in a single realization: The fundamentals of our life are founded on values which no one can take away from us except we ourselves; they are founded on our own flesh and blood and willpower and in our soil. Volk und Erde – those are the two roots from which we will draw our strength and upon which we propose to base our resolves.
Hitler, February 24, 1941 speech:
The conception of the new Movement, whose fundamentals can be expressed in a single sentence: “The Lord helps those who help themselves,” opposed this.

Goebbels, October 16, 1928:
What does Christianity mean today? National Socialism is a religion. All we lack is a religious genius capable of uprooting outmoded religious practices and putting new ones in their place. We lack traditions and ritual. One day soon National Socialism will be the religion of all Germans.
Hitler, March 25, 1938 speech:
The National Socialist idea extends far beyond the borders of a small Germany. We certainly have no desire for proselytes in foreign peoples. But no one can prevent the National Socialist doctrine from becoming the creed of all Germans!

Hitler, March 25, 1938 speech:
And then one day there came the hour when one had to make the decision before one’s own conscience, before one’s own Volk, and before an eternal God who created the peoples. And I made this decision two weeks ago, and it could not have been any different! For when people become deaf to every precept of justice, the individual must take the law into his own hands! For then he must recall that ancient creed: “God helps him who helps himself!” And God has helped us!

Und da kommt dann eines Tages die Stunde, in der man sich entscheiden muß vor seinem Gewissen, vor seinem eigenen Volk und vor einem ewigen Gott, der die Völker geschaffen hat. Und ich habe diese Entscheidung vor vierzehn Tagen nun getroffen, und sie konnte nicht anders lauten! Denn wenn die Menschen taub sind gegen jedes Gebot der Gerechtigkeit, dann muß der einzelne sich das Recht selber nehmen! Dann muß er zum alten Glaubenssatz zurückkehren: Hilf dir selbst, dann hilft dir Gott! Und Gott hat uns geholfen!

Hitler, September 1, 1939 speech:
This struggle was governed by only one creed: faith in this Volk! There is one word which I have never known and this word is: capitulation! If some now believe that we are facing hard times, then I would like to ask them to bear in mind that once a Prussian king with a ludicrously small state faced off a far more powerful coalition. And three battles later he stood victorious in the end, for he possessed that strong, believing heart, the kind which we need in these times as well. I would like to assure the world around us of one thing: there shall never ever be another November 1918 in German history! Since I myself stand ever ready to lay down my life for my Volk and Germany, I demand the same of everyone else! Whoever believes he can oppose this national commandment shall fall! We will have nothing to do with traitors! And all of us pledge ourselves to the one ancient principle: it is of no importance if we ourselves live-as long as our Volk lives, as long as Germany lives! This is essential.
Hitler, April 27, 1923 speech:
A people which is not prepared to protect itself is a people without character. We must recover for our people as one of its most elementary principles the recognition of the fact that a man is truly man only if he defends and protects himself, that a people deserves that name only if in case of necessity it is prepared as a people to enter the lists. That is not militarism, that is self-preservation.
Hitler, October 3, 1941 speech:
Here the principle applies: Volk, help yourself, then the Lord God will not refuse you His assistance either.

Mein Kampf:
For me, and for all genuine National Socialists, there is only one slogan: People and Fatherland.
Hitler, September 6, 1938 speech:
You represent the most noble of slogans known to us: “God helps those who help themselves!”

Laurency (kl2_8):
12Of course, the humanist, as well as those at lower stages, is ignorant of the meaning and goal of existence. If his creed is accepted as authoritative knowledge, the consequence generally is just a new kind of idiology of illusions and fictions. The conclusion he must reach is the Sokratean one, that he knows nothing worth knowing, or that life remains an unsolved riddle, or, as Buddha said, that human reason cannot solve that problem.

Laurency (L3e1.12):
13The religious schools overemphasize the ‘help from above’; the others, the individual’s own self-realization… However, as long as there is still a lingering tendency to ask God to do all that you have to do, a tendency to trust something else than your own divine self and the law of life, your own striving after realization, so long will the most destructive tendency be strengthened, passed on through countless incarnations, that is: the tendency to dependence on another power. As long as the Christian religion is mainly a perverse sentimentality falsifying life, so long religious teachings of all kinds will have a strange power to vitalize the subconscious false tendencies.

Quran, Surah Al-‘Ankabut 29:69
And those who strive for Us – We will surely guide them to Our ways. And indeed, Allah is with the doers of good.


Laurency (L4e4.37):
6By their talk about “god’s guidance in man’s life”, about “submission to the will of god” and many similar expressions the quietists have led people seriously astray. They have sought a comfortable way out of the difficulties of life. But the law of life is called self-realization. “God” does not guide men. He has other things to do. Man has to solve by himself the problems that life poses to him. … Certainly there is something that could be said to have a certain similarity to “god’s guidance”. But that power manifests itself in circumstances turning out in such a way that man can see what course he should take. To become dependent on the “voice” makes him passive and so unfit for life.

Lars Adelskogh (Fke12):
The Explanation
9The guidance given by the angel is always subtle, imperceptible. Man is not to feel guided, let alone watched. He must not degenerate into listening to inner voices, obeying inner guides. Such voices are never the angel’s voice but come from the deceived deceivers of the emotional world. The same can be said of all the all too ready guides in the “other world”. Do not follow them! They all lead astray.

Hitler, Memoirs of a Confidant, p.g. 61:
Fate works its own way with us. We are only its tools. Granted, not from lack of will power. There is that kind, also. But we are not among them. It is precisely with our will that we are the tools of fate. But when we do want something that may not suit fate–or, to put it more precisely, Providence–we run into resistance and do not attain our goal. It is a great talent to recognize such resistance and come to the proper decision: either to overcome it by attack or to obey fate’s sign and step aside in order to search for another path.

Rosenberg (Memoirs):
In his speeches Hitler frequently referred to Providence and the Almighty. I am certain that he was inwardly convinced of a fate predestined in its general outlines, but preferred not to formulate what parts compulsion and free will played.

[It’d seem Wagener was a deep intimate, for Hitler does not even formulate on fate in his table talks as far as I can tell.]

Hans Frank (Memoirs):

Speaking of the Almighty in beautiful words, he raised himself inwardly to his own creation. He paid homage, for example, to the ancient Greek idea of a fate intrinsically superior even to the divine beings.

Indem er vom Allmächtigen zwar in schönen Worten redete, erhob er sich selbst innerlich zu einem eigenen Schöpfungsrang. Er huldigte in etwa der antikgriechischen Vorstellung, wonach das Schicksal an sich eine dem göttlichen Wesen gegen-über selbst entscheidende höherrangige Position einnehme.

[The sensationalist and absurd claim that Hitler was Jewish doesn’t undermine Hans Frank’s testimony on Hitler’s beliefs. As Giesler reveals, it was a popular thing to invent preposterous stories about Hitler at that time. Even the reputable surgeon Sauerbruch seems to have jumped the bandwagon.]

Hitler, Memoirs of a Confidant, p.g. 111:
Remember Faust! A Faustian will, a Faustian grasp of nature and its powers, the possibilities of technology and the German genius-these must be the authentic signs of a resurging new epoch.

Friedrich Christian, Prince of Schaumburg-Lippe:
Once, when a conversation between him and Dr. Goebbels happened to end up in a dispute about the “Faustian” quality in the German as a type, Hitler grew very solemn and almost melancholy, as I had never seen him before. A statement of Dr. Goebbels’ came to mind:

“Sometimes he’s uncanny – as if he weren’t of this world – and strangely enough, that’s when he is the most fascinating. I’ll never completely understand him – he is more than just a person. There is nobody who has studied him like I have. But who takes the time to really get to know this man – who? Who knows anything of his outstanding qualities, of his modesty towards fate – who even suspects any of it? No-one! If they realized that he does not wish to become their idol, not even their god, but that he lives solely for his mission that is not entirely ‘of this world’ – then they would fear him, because they do not understand the reality.”

I have done my utmost to repeat Goebbels’ words as accurately as possible from memory, and did not write them down until they were as vivid to me again as though I had heard him speak them then and there. Of course, the fact that in those days this topic interested me like no other, helped considerably.

There was always a certain element in his personality into which he would allow nobody to penetrate. He had his inscrutable secrets, and in many respects always remained a riddle to me. But there was one key that opened the door to much that would have remained hidden: his enthusiasm for beauty.

Hitler, Table Talk (Cameron & Stevens), September 25-26, 1941:
I suppose that some people are clutching their heads with both hands to find an answer to this question: “How can the Fuehrer destroy a city like St. Petersburg?” Plainly I belong by nature to quite another species. I would prefer not to see anyone suffer, not to do harm to anyone. But when I realise that the species is in danger, then in my case sentiment gives way to the coldest reason. I become uniquely aware of the sacrifices that the future will demand, to make up for the sacrifices that one hesitates to allow to-day.

At home, Adolf started on a lecture on his newly acquired impressions, with a cold objectivity as though it were a question of his attitude towards the fight against tuberculosis, or towards cremation. I was amazed that he could speak about it without any inner emotion.

Laurency (L4e4.37):
6Man has to develop his consciousness, and he does so by being active, not by being passive. The English proverb, “where there’s a will, there’s a way”, is in full agreement with the law of life. No helpless beings will enter the “kingdom of heaven” (the fifth natural kingdom), only heroes, winners, and conquerors. Man has eventually won an ever freer will: a heritage that carries obligations and should be taken care of.

Hitler, September 14, 1936 speech:
Every fault can be overcome, and its manifestations are easier to eliminate than pessimism and its consequences. Let him beware who has no faith. He is committing a sin against the meaning of life as a whole. He is of no use for anything, and his existence will be nothing but a burden to his Volk.

Quran 5:5
And whoever denies the faith – his work has become worthless, and he, in the Hereafter, will be among the losers.

Laurency (kl1_9. 38):
22During his education, the true seeker assimilates the collected experience of mankind such as it finds expression in the best oriented intellectual leaders of his times. He does not stop there, however. He realizes that nobody has reached the limit of the possible exploration of reality. He tries all paths and finally finds his own. Pursuing this path he acquires self-reliance and self-determination, the courage to stand alone, the courage to say and do what needs to be said and done. It is a razor-edged path. Many people have missed it by leaving a word unsaid, an action undone, by trying to escape from difficulties or disharmonious circumstances, by leaving such problems unsolved as must be solved.
23“In order to understand much you must have strayed deep into the thorns… The warning examples do not help you; you must nearly become such an example yourself before you see it clearly.” This expresses the essential difference between theory and practice in matters of life. Anyone who does not know things from his own experience has not much use of the mere theory on how to manage problems of life. That understanding is part of the basic view underlying self-realization.
24The risk of such statements is that the life-ignorant may misunderstand them as recommending them to experiment recklessly with their own and other people’s lives in order to have the necessary experiences of life. Generally, everything esoteric is misunderstood by the immature. Esoterics is not intended for others than those at the cultural and humanist stages, rare and exceptional people in our times.

The gods love those who demand the impossible

G. Ward Price:
As further evidence that it was not diplomatic bluff which inspired Herr Hitler’s proposals of disarmament and twenty-five years’ peace with every nation ‘whose frontiers marched with those of Germany, I may quote parts of a letter which he addressed to Viscount Rothermere on May 3, 1935, expressing his views on war as an instrument of national policy. They are as follows:

We have in German a fine proverb: ‘The gods love and bless those who seem to strive for the impossible.’ That is a divinity in which I believe.

Mein Kampf:
While the ability of the politician consists in mastering the art of the possible, the founder of a political system belongs to those who are said to please the gods only because they wish for and demand the impossible. They will always have to renounce contemporary fame, but if their ideas be immortal, posterity will acclaim them.

Hitler, April 26, 1942 speech:
If I speak to you today in the name of this true youth of Europe and therefore of a younger world, then I do this with the sentiment of a man who, for a sacred mission, has left behind him the most difficult struggle of his life. Further, I speak to you as the commander of armies. They are mastering a fate that is the most difficult trial, the kind which Providence only imposes on those who are destined for the greatest things. If the gods love only those who demand the impossible of them, then the Lord will correspondingly give His blessing only to him who remains steadfast in face of the impossible.

Hitler, July 5, 1944 speech:
The tasks which I set are tremendous. But always think of the old saying: the gods love him who demands the impossible of them. If we accomplish the impossible, then we will surely receive the approval of Providence.

Ernst Hanfstaengl:
Back in 1923, when I probably stood at my nearest to Hitler, he once outlined the appeal he was trying to make, the appeal which brought him to power, only for the ideals to be corrupted by the power which destroyed him:
“… It was Count Moltke who said that one must demand the impossible in order to achieve the possible. Any ideal must appear to a certain extent unrealizable, if it is not to be profaned by the trivia of reality.”

Those whom the gods would destroy

Mein Kampf:
The execution of history’s decree was carried out in thousands of ways. The fact that great numbers of people went about blindfolded amid the manifest signs of dissolution only proved that the gods had decreed the destruction of Austria.

Hitler, April 26, 1942 speech:
No matter with what great hypocritical friendship its archcapitalists welcome the Bolshevik statesmen, no matter how tenderly its archbishops embrace the bloody beasts of Bolshevik atheism, the more they resort to lies, hypocrisy, and fraud in order to cover morally for the unnatural coalition with this empire before their own people and the rest of mankind, the less they will be in a position actually to deceive the perceptive people, in order to prevent the natural evolution of an inevitable historical development. There is a wise saying dating from antiquity, namely that the gods first blind those whom they have destined to damnation.

Hitler, July 28, 1922 speech:
He [the Jew] knows the old parties. They are easily satisfied. Only endow them with a few seats as ministers or with similar posts and they are ready to go along with you. And in especial he knows one thing: they are so innocently stupid. In their case the truth of the old saying is proved afresh every day: ‘Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first strike with blindness.’ They have been struck with blindness: therefore it follows that the gods wish to destroy them. Only look at these parties and their leaders, Stresemann and the rest of them. They are indeed not dangerous. They never go to the roots of the evil: they all still think that with forbearance, with humanity, with accommodation they can fight a battle which has not its equal in this world. Through gentleness they think that they must demonstrate to the enemy of the Left that they are ready for appeasement so as to stay the deadly cancerous ulcer through a policy of moderation. No! A thousand times No! Here there are only two possibilities: either victory or defeat!

Hitler, January 30, 1940 speech:
Further I read that I have succumbed to deep despair and sadness as I had expected us to build two U-boats every day, while we were turning out only two every week. To this I can only say: it is not good to have one’s war reports and especially one’s radio broadcasts authored by members of a people which has not fought for several thousands of years. For after all, the last documented battle involving the Maccabees is slowly losing its instructive value for military history.
When I turn to look at this foreign propaganda, my belief in our victory grows to the immeasurable! For this propaganda I experienced once before. For nearly fifteen years, this propaganda was directed against us. My Old Party Comrades, you remember this propaganda! There are the same words, the same phrases-yes-when we look more closely we see the same heads speaking the same dialects.
I finished off these people as a lonely, unknown man who gathered but a handful of people about him. Throughout fifteen years I finished off these people. And today Germany is the greatest world power. It is not as though age as such results in wisdom. No more are the blind restored to sight by old age. Whoever was afflicted with blindness before remains so today. Whoever is afflicted with blindness will be cursed by the gods.

Hitler, May 4, 1941 speech:
It is the training of our corps of leaders, which is beyond comparison, the great expertise of our soldiers, the superiority of our equipment, the quality of our ammunition, as well as the ice-cold valor of the individual man which allowed us to secure this historic and truly decisive success with so little sacrifice, and this at the same time as the two allied Axis powers were also able to destroy the so-called success of the British forces in just a few weeks. For we cannot separate the activities of the German Africa Corps, connected with the name of General Rommel, and of the Italian forces in the struggle for Cyrenaica, from the operations on the Balkans. One of the most amateurish (stumperhaft) of strategists has lost two theaters of war in one blow. That this man, whom any other people would have court-martialed, arouses new admiration as prime minister in his country is not a sign of that greatness demonstrated by Roman senators in antiquity toward their defeated military commanders, but instead it is evidence of the eternal blindness with which the gods strike those whom they wish to destroy.

Hitler, January 1, 1941 speech:
We who live the history of this time cannot but help feel that the workings of Providence are stronger than the intentions and the will of individuals. The gods not only strike him with blindness whom they wish to destroy, but they also help him whom Providence calls upon to strive for goals far from his original desire.

Hitler, Memoirs of a Confidant, p.g. 152-153:
Charles V’s intentions also differed from what actually happened, or Luther’s, or even Robespierre, or Napoleon. If these men had not followed their intuitions, the events that would have taken place might have been much more catastrophic for mankind. But that is the sphere of Providence, the sight of which is refused us.

Hitler, September 13, 1937 speech:
How often we dwell on the question of what would have happened to Germany if Fate had granted us a swift and easy victory in 1914. What we were all striving for at that time with hearts aglow would presumably–seen from a higher vantage point–have been but a misfortune for our Volk. That victory would probably have had extremely grievous consequences. For in the inner sphere, it in particular would have prevented us from gaining the knowledge that today allows us to look back in horror at the path on which that Germany of the past was already making its way. The perceptive few who were preaching caution had lapsed into ridiculousness.
The State, grounded only in the external military means of power which bore it up, would sooner or later have become the annihilator of its own existence and its own means of existence, wholly ignorant of the meaning of the blood-related sources of the Volkskraft! Phenomena such as we have had an opportunity to observe in many other countries after their supposed victory would have descended upon us. Instead of being jerked back from the brink of destruction by a disruption of a catastrophic nature, we would all the more surely have gradually succumbed to the insidious poisons of inner decay of the Volk! In our case, the accuracy of a wise saying can be said to have been proven true: there are times when Providence demonstrates the deepest love it has for its creatures in an act of punishment!




Hitler, January 30, 1942 speech:
Providence gives the final and the supreme reward only to those who can handle blows of fortune. At the time, I suffered the first severe blow on a larger scale in the movement. It was overcome a few years later. The men who were close to me at the time know how much work and strength of nerve this cost us. But I have also preserved this boundless faith, in my person as well, that nothing, no matter what, would ever be able to throw me out of the saddle, would shake me up anymore. Whoever thinks he can frighten me somehow or surprise me is wrong. I have always taken to heart the words of a great German philosopher: “A blow that does not knock a strong man over, only makes him stronger!

Hitler, November 8, 1942 speech:
I said once before that a great philosopher once said that a man who is not knocked down by a blow is made stronger by the blow. The storm, which failed to knock us down last winter, has only made us stronger.

Hitler, April 26, 1942 speech:
I also know another commandment. It says that man must give an added push to what the gods have destined to fall. So now what has to happen will happen. When understanding and reason have apparently been silenced in international life, then this does not necessarily mean that there is not a rational will somewhere, even if from the outside only stupidity and stubbornness can be discerned as causes.

Goebbels (Diaries), p.g. 97 (re-check year):
A united protestant church is not at all in our interest. Kerrl is taking completely the wrong tack there. Now he intends to establish a religious Arndt-League in Wittenberg. When something is falling, one should give it a push, Herr Kerrl! The Führer is very sceptical about the possibility of finding a substitute for the churches, and rightly so. That will be the task of some future reformer, which the Führer in no way feels himself to be. The problems he wants to solve are purely political. The battle with the churches is unavoidable, but it will certainly last a long time.

O my brothers, am I then cruel? But I say: What falls, that shall one also push! Everything of today – it falls, it decays; who would preserve it! But I – I wish also to push it!

Hitler, The Artist Within the Warlord, p.g. 180:
Translated by Wilhelm Kriessmann, Ph.D and Carolyn Yeager
“We have to create a new aristocracy, a value and rank order based on character, courage and steadiness. One sentence of Nietzsche’s I identify with: What today can prove if one be of value or not?–that he is steadfast.”

Frederick the Great


Hitler, Table Talk, August 20, 1942 (Cameron & Stevens):
The saying that God favours the big battalions is not without significance. Without the requisite force, nothing can be accomplished. To think otherwise is to try to make a virtue out of necessity; if this were not so, the smaller peoples of the world would not have been the victims of oppression throughout history. It was only because they anticipated war in the West, which would give them the chance swiftly to seize the Baltic States, that the Russians stopped the war with Finland. The history of war can furnish not one single instance in which victory has gone to the markedly weaker of the combatants. The nearest approach to it is the case of Frederick the Great, who had luck in defeating, by superior skill, adversaries who were numerically slightly superior.

Hitler, Table Talk, August 26, 1942 (Cameron & Stevens):
The greatest victories in the history of the world have always been the result of a mighty effort. Life consists of the overcoming of a series of crises, which one man survives and the other does not. In 1918 victory was as nearly in our grasp as it was in that of our adversaries. It was a battle of nerves. No one has a monopoly of success. Frederick the Great is the nearest thing to an exception. To what should one ascribe his success—foolhardiness or what? Frankly, I do not know. The cards were stacked against him, and Prussia was a miserably poor little State. Nevertheless he ventured forth with incredible temerity; on what, I wonder, did he base his faith in victory?


Goebbels (Diaries), February 27, 1945:
We must be as Frederick the Great was and act as he did. The Führer agrees with me entirely when I say to him that it should be our ambition to ensure that, should a similar great crisis arise in Germany, say in 150 years’ time, our grandchildren may look back on us as a heroic example of steadfastness.
The stoic philosophical attitude to people and events adopted by the Führer today is very reminiscent of Frederick the Great. He says to me, for instance, that it is essential to work for one’s people but that there is a limit to what men can do. Who knows when the moon may not crash into the earth and this whole planet go up in flame and ashes. Nevertheless, he says, it must be our mission to do our duty to the last.
In these matters the Führer too is a stoic and a complete disciple of Frederick the Great whom, consciously and unconsciously, he emulates. That must be a model and an example to us all. How gladly would we wholeheartedly copy this model and example.
If only Goring was not so completely out of line. He is no National-Socialist but a sybarite and certainly no disciple of Frederick the Great. In contrast what a fine imposing impression is made by Dönitz. As the Führer told me he is the best man in his whole arm of the service. Look at the invariably gratifying results he has achieved with the Navy.

Nicolaus von Below:
[Hitler] reminded them of how Frederick the Great, in the darkest hours of his war, had stood alone and triumphed: then, as now, the enemy alliance would founder as a result of this imminent offensive.

Heinz Linge:
I noticed that Hitler no longer spoke of victory, and if nobody else was about he would talk of us ‘having to keep this struggle going to the death’. Looking at the portrait of Frederick the Great, Hitler said one night: ‘In the winter of 1762 he was ready to give up and take poison if he did not succeed in changing his fortunes in war. The unexpected death of the Russian tsarina, Elizabeth, put a stop to his thoughts of suicide.’ There never was any such thing as a totally hopeless situation in history, and we could claim it as a victory if we succeeded ‘in simply surviving’ with an independent existence. I never repeated anywhere what I heard issue from Hitler’s lips in the first weeks and months of 1945. Hitler knew this, and in the nighttime hours gave me a vision of a past, present and future which I, rooted in realities of a quite different structure, misunderstood in astonishment.

Goebbels (Diaries), February 27, 1945:
I told him that I had recently been reading Carlyle’s book on Frederick the Great. The Führer knows the book very well himself. I repeated certain passages from the book to him and they affected him very deeply. That is how we must be and that is how we will be. If someone like Goring dances totally out of line, then he must be called to order. Bemedalled idiots and vain perfumed coxcombs have no place in our war leadership. Either they must mend their ways or be eliminated.

Hitler’s War, A Test of Endurance
In Stalin, Hitler unquestionably now knew, he had met his match. As the Soviet Union’s resistance hardened, despite every fresh catastrophe inflicted on its armies, Hitler’s admiration for his Bolshevik adversary grew. ‘This Stalin is obviously also a great man,’ he told his baffled generals. ‘To claim anything else would not make sense. Historians of the future will have to set out from the fact that today’s events are governed by the collision or collusion of great, towering personalities whose paths cross like this only once in many centuries.’

Hitler and his Generals: Military Conferences 1942-1945, p.g. 533

The Führer’s Speech to Division Commanders, December 12, 1944, at Adlerhorst

It is very clear, gentlemen, that such a conflict is now progressing like a grand historical struggle, with its ups and downs. Anyone who believes that the great epochs of world history are nothing but a series of successes has never understood history, or has perhaps not even read it properly; it is very clear that success and failure come and go. In the end, the one who gains the laurels of victory is not just the more capable one, but, most importantly–and I want to emphasize this–(the boldest). The building of states–no matter whether it is the Roman Empire, the British Empire or Prussia – has always been achieved by toughness, stubbornness and durability. Not so much by a single blaze of genius or a burst of energy that flares up once and then vanishes, but much more by stubborn tenacity, which is the greatest help in overcoming all crises. Rome couldn’t have been imagined without the Second Punic War. England would not be imaginable if crises hadn’t been overcome within England itself. Prussia would be unimaginable without the Seven Years’ War. And the greatness of the leading personalities, as well as of the people themselves, wasn’t born in times of fortune but is always confirmed in times of ill fortune. People who can endure good luck are quite common. People who don’t become weak when faced with bad luck are rare. (There are) few people (of this kind). History has always awarded success to these few.

David Irving:
Hitler’s War
Now that he was in power, the whole problem left Hitler no peace. Christa Schroeder wrote in a private letter on April 21, 1939:

One evening recently the Boss was very interesting on the Church problem. . . . Christianity is founded on knowledge two thousand years old – knowledge blurred and confused by mysticism and the occult (like the Bible parables). The question is, why can’t Christian ideas be updated using the knowledge of the present day? Luther strove for a Reformation but this has been misunderstood, because reformation is not a once-only affair but a process of constant renovation – not just marking time but keeping up with the developments of the age. The Boss knows full well that the Church problem is very tricky and if war breaks out it could well rebound on him domestically. My own feeling is he’d be happy if some decent way of solving it could be found.

Hitler, The Artist Within the Warlord, p.g. 93-94:
Translated by Wilhelm Kriessmann, Ph.D and Carolyn Yeager
“‘We generals can judge the military situation much better.’ That’s how they were stubbornly thinking. Way back, a military personality once gave me the advice that, from an army general upwards, obedience decreases, and any order is subject to a personal critique. I often had the same experience.”

Memoirs of a Confidant, p.g. 126:
Once, when I told him that we should try to attract the best minds, the great personalities, in order to have their assistance in the awesome task whose fulfillment Providence might demand of us, he replied, “Too many cooks spoil the broth. These best minds, these great personalities, all have their own individual attitudes, their own will and their own aims. In this I side with Ptolemy–I think it was the First or the Second–who was once asked how he managed to prevail and deal with all the opponents with whom he had to reckon. At the time he was out walking and passed a poppy field. He took his whip or his riding crop and slashed off the heads of the poppies that rose above the otherwise very evenly grown field. ‘That,’ he said to his questioner, ‘is how I do it.’ By the way, I once found the same anecdote told somewhere about the Eastern Roman Emperor Septimius Severus.”

Hitler, November 12, 1944 speech:
Nations and, above all, their statesmen, generals, and soldiers always find it easy to tolerate days of happiness and visible successes. What is remarkable about the great men of world history, as well as nations destined for great things, is their steadfastness in days of trouble, their confidence at times when their situation appears hopeless, their defiance and courage when they suffer setbacks.

Hitler, November 8, 1943 speech:
The greatest heroes in world history have always had to remain steadfast even under the greatest strains. Anybody can bear sunshine. But when the weather is bad and a storm is raging, then it will show who is a strong character and who is a weakling. When things get difficult, then you can tell who is truly a man, who does not lose his nerve in such hours, but instead remains determined and steadfast, and never thinks of capitulation.

Goebbels (Diaries), May 9, 1943:
This talk made us realize anew how extremely rare are men of real caliber. If you have to fill two posts of decisive importance in public life you can search with a lantern and won’t find anybody.

Heinz Linge:
The Elser case was something special for him without a doubt. Since the Nuremberg trials we have come to understand how the lives of people in Hitler’s Germany counted for very little. This can be confirmed by reading the death sentences from that time. Thus we have a mystery how Elser, whom Hitler ought to have wanted dead, stayed alive almost to the end when the men and women around Graf von Stauffenberg in 1944 were hanged like cattle. Workers who went through thick and thin to ‘follow the mismanaged nobility’ were also lost to Hitler in principle, while Thälmann the German communist leader and Elser were for him ‘men of character’ in whom he saw much to be admired. It seems to me that this aspect of his personality lacks research.


Henry Crabb Robinson/:
Among [Weishaupt’s] sayings, one was delivered with peculiar emphasis: “One of my tests of character is what a man says about principle. A weak man is always talking of acting on principle. An able man does always the right thing at the right moment, and therein he shows himself to be able.”

[Mainstream accounts attribute Elser’s death to an alleged order from Hitler, based on a letter attributed to Gestapo chief Heinrich Müller. There’s undoubtedly something more to Elser’s death than we’re being told. They pin the blame on the Germans, as usual, while the actual culprit – perhaps allied bombing raids – get off scot-free.]

Nicolaus von Below:
German troops were retreating on all fronts. Confidence in victory had evaporated: only the belief that Hitler would find the way out remained unbroken. This certainty increased his concept of mission. He could not believe that all the efforts, the enormous causalities in the air raids and the sacrifices at the front were in vain. In the autumn of 1943 I observed how Hitler was filled with a profound sense of mission, and even seemed to expect a miracle.

Hermann Giesler, The Artist Within the Warlord, p.g. 221:
Translated by Wilhelm Kriessmann, Ph.D and Carolyn Yeager
When he said we will win the war regardless of all the problems, he was very much convinced of it–even though he fully recognized the reality contradicted it. And that conviction had its roots in his unshakable belief in his mission.

Rosenberg (Memoirs):
He became more and more convinced that Providence had entrusted him with a mission. This became noticeable upon his return from his incarceration in the Landsberg, and grew ever more evident after the Machtübernahme, until, toward the end of the war, it assumed positively painful proportions.

Heinz Linge:
I am convinced, however, that when he emphasised repeatedly for propaganda purposes that he had been ‘selected by Providence’ for a great, unique, historical mission, he did actually believe it. Rudolf Hess once told me that just before the seizure of power, Hitler, Hess, Heinrich Hoffmann and Julius Schaub were all nearly killed in Hitler’s Mercedes due to an error by a lorry driver. Hitler was injured in the face and shoulder but with great composure calmed his co-passengers, still paralysed with shock, with the observation that Providence would not allow him to be killed since he still had a great mission to fulfil.

Otto Dietrich:
He claimed to have a sixth sense for the highest good of his people and an inner receiving apparatus which kept abreast of the highest racial ideals.

Nicolaus von Below:
He spoke a great deal about his ideal of the European State in which it would be his objective to fight Jews and Communists and to destroy their influence in the world in every respect. He believed firmly that Providence had given him this task. He had an astonishing ‘sixth sense’ for events, and it was disturbing now to observe how his contact with reality was tending to slip away.

Heinrich Hoffman:
Hitler firmly believed that he had been chosen by Fate to lead the German people to hitherto undreamed of heights; and his rise to power, the great success he achieved immediately after his assumption of power, only strengthened this belief, not only in Hitler himself, but also in his adherents.
When in his speeches he referred to Providence, he did not do so simply to achieve rhetorical effect; he really believed what he said, and this conviction could not but be strengthened by the truly miraculous manner in which he was again and again preserved.

Rosenberg (Memoirs):
This conviction that, as Bismarck had once been chosen to unite the northern Germans in one Reich, so he was chosen to bring the southern Germans (Austrians) into this Reich, was certainly deep-rooted in him. As for the Christian concept of God, Hitler definitely rejected it in private conversations.

5. Dietrich Eckart & ✡Otto Weininger

Hundreds of thousands of people know this name, but nothing more about it than it was somehow involved with the Movement. And yet Dietrich Eckart was the first who, after the Novemeber 9, 1918 collapse, courageously faced the ‘November criminals’ and their gang. Out of a German poet sprang a folkish pioneer and forerunner of National Socialism.
– Albert Reich

✡Otto Weininger:
Jews, then, do not live as free, self-governing individuals, choosing between virtue and vice in the Aryan fashion. They are a mere collection of similar individuals each cast in the same mould, the whole forming as it were a continuous plasmodium. The Antisemite has often thought of this as a defensive and aggressive union, and has formulated the conception of a Jewish “solidarity.” There is deep confusion here.
When some accusation is made against some unknown member of the Jewish race, all Jews secretly take the part of the accused, and wish, hope for, and seek to establish his innocence. But it must not be thought that they are interesting themselves more in the fate of the individual Jew than they would do in the case of an individual Christian. It is the menace to Judaism in general, the fear that the shameful shadow may do harm to Judaism as a whole, which is the origin of the apparent feeling of sympathy.

Dietrich Eckart:
The Earth-Centered Jew Lacks a Soul
To the Jew Weininger his own nation is like an invisible cohesive web of slime fungus (plasmodium), existing since time immemorial and spread over the entire earth; and this expansionism, as he correctly observes (without, of course, proving it), is an essential component of the idea, of the nature of Judaism. This immediately becomes clear if we again regard the Jewish people as the embodiment of world-affirmation. Without it, nothing of a terrestrial character, and thus no nation, is conceivable. Hence, the Jew, the only consistent and consequently the only viable yea-sayer to the world, must be found wherever other men bear in themselves—if only in the tiniest degree—a compulsion to overcome the world. The Jew represents the still necessary counterweight to them; otherwise that urgent craving would be fulfilled immediately and thereby would not usher in the salvation of the world (since the Jewish people would still remain in existence), but would destroy it in a different way through the elimination of the spiritual power without which it cannot exist either. I will discuss this idea more fully later on; here I wish merely to demonstrate that the world could not exist if the Jews were living by themselves. This is why an old prophecy proclaims that the end of the world will arrive on the day when the Jews will have established the state of Palestine . . .

It is — or was, for a very long time — a wide-spread belief among Christians that, when the Jews become once more the masters of Palestine, their “promised Land,” the “end of the world” — i.e., the end of the present Time-cycle, — will not be far away. The Mohammedans behold, they too, in that same event, one of the tokens announcing the advent of the long-awaited “Mahdi.” Thanks to England’s steadily pro-Jewish policy, the Jews have, in Palestine, since 1938, a State of their own. If the collective belief of many generations of men, both in the West and in the Near East, corresponds to any reality (and collective beliefs of that nature generally do, to some extent), then the great end must be drawing night.

✝La Civiltà Cattolica, Series XIV, Vol. VII, Fascicule 961, 23 October 1890:
Suetonius handed down its memory in his Lives of the 12 Caesars: Percrebuerat Oriente toto vetus et constans opinio, esse in fatis, ut eo tempore Judei profecti rerum potirentur. [In the entire East had spread the old and consistent opinion that it had been prophesied that at that time the Jews would come forth and would possess the power.]
And, in his historiography, Tacitus corroborated this: Pluribus persuasio inerat, antiquis sacerdotum literis contineri eo ipso tempore fore ut valesceret Oriens, profectique Judei rerum potirentur. [Many held the opinion that it was contained in the ancient writings of the priests that this was the time when the East would become strong and the Jews would come forth and possess the power.]

✡Otto Weininger:
I must, however, make clear what I mean by Judaism; I mean neither a race nor a people nor a recognised creed. I think of it as a tendency of the mind, as a psychological constitution which is a possibility for all mankind, but which has become actual in the most conspicuous fashion only amongst the Jews. Antisemitism itself will confirm my point of view.

NSDAP Programme:
24. We demand freedom for all religious denominations in the State, provided they do not threaten its existence not offend the moral feelings of the German race.
The Party, as such, stands for positive Christianity, but does not commit itself to any particular denomination. It combats the Jewish-materialistic spirit within and without us, and is convinced that our nation can achieve permanent health only from within on the basis of the principle: The common interest before self-interest.

Robert Ley:
Have we really done all we can to drive the Jew and his world, his spirit and his deviltry, from our midst? Many people think that it is enough to physically remove the Jew, and that if we do not see him any longer, and if we see the yellow star less often, the Jewish problem in Germany will be solved. What more could be done about the Jews? To do more would be to take the Jew too seriously, to fight against windmills. Our hatred of the Jews would make us ridiculous Don Quixotes. Enough is enough. These Germans are mistaken, for their opinion only proves that they understand the Jewish problem either superficially, or not at all. Is it enough to destroy the louse, but leave brood alive? Is it enough to free ourselves of the pest, yet deal with others who are still infested with the pest? The brood that we leave alive is the Jewish world, the Jewish mentality, the Jewish spirit, that still surrounds us, that follows us everywhere. And we still find infested neighbors in Europe, above all among our enemies, and in particular with Bolshevism.

Hitler, Table Talk, December 1, 1941 (Cameron & Stevens):
Probably many Jews are not aware of the destructive power they represent. Now, he who destroys life is himself risking death. That’s the secret of what is happening to the Jews. Whose fault is it when a cat devours a mouse? The fault of the mouse, who has never done any harm to a cat? This destructive rôle of the Jew has in a way a providential explanation. If nature wanted the Jew to be the ferment that causes peoples to decay, thus providing these peoples with an opportunity for a healthy reaction, in that case people like St. Paul and Trotsky are, from our point of view, the most valuable. By the fact of their presence, they provoke the defensive reaction of the attacked organism. Dietrich Eckart once told me that in all his life he had known just one decent Jew: Otto Weininger, who killed himself on the day when he realised that the Jew lives upon the decay of peoples.
It is remarkable that the half-caste Jew, to the second or third generation, has a tendency to start flirting again with pure Jews. But from the seventh generation onwards, it seems the purity of the Aryan blood is restored. In the long run nature eliminates the noxious elements.

Hitler, Table Talk, December 1, 1941 (Jochmann):
Dietrich Eckart once told me he had known only one decent Jew Otto Weininger, who had taken his life when he realized that the Jew lives from the disintegration of other nationalities.
Dietrich Eckart hat mir einmal gesagt, er habe nur einen anständigen Juden
kennengelernt, den Otto Weininger, der sich das Leben genommen hat, als er erkannte, daß der Jude von der Zersetzung anderen Volkstums lebt.

Michael H. Kater:
The Twisted Muse: Musicians and Their Music in the Third Reich, p.g. 218
None other than Paul Cossmann arranged a personal meeting between the Fuhrer of the National Socialist Party and [suspected Jew] Pfitzner, who was in a Munich hospital in February 1923, for that hypernationalistic publicist wanted the conservative composer and the reactionary revolutionary to become acquainted. The two men–with Hitler in his shabby trenchcoat at the foot of the bed–conversed about “the future of Germany” and World War I, for which “the Jews alone were responsible.” Otto Weininger was mentioned, whom, according to Pfitzner’s memory, Hitler wished to acknowledge because as a Jew he had, through suicide, “removed himself from this world.”

Dietrich Eckart:
The Earth-Centered Jew Lacks a Soul
From all this it follows that Judaism is part of the organism of mankind just as, let us say, certain bacteria are part of man’s body, and indeed the Jews are as necessary as bacteria. The body contains, as we know, a host of tiny organisms without which it would perish, even though they feed on it. Similarly, mankind needs the Jewish strain in order to preserve its vitality until its earthly mission is fulfilled. In other words, the world-affirmation exemplified by Judaism in its purest form, though disastrous in itself, is a condition of man’s earthly being—as long as men exist—and we cannot even imagine its nonexistence. It will collapse only when all mankind is redeemed.

Hitler, Memoirs of a Confidant, p.g. 185-186:
The financial power of Jewry can be broken only by the creation of a large Jewish state to which all the Jews are deported. But since such a project cannot be undertaken unless the people of the world, without exception, form into a solid, closed union, there is no need to hurry.

[Hitler was not a Zionist.]

Mein Kampf:

It is an essential aspect of human evolution that the individual should be imbued with the spirit of sacrifice in favour of the common weal that he: should not be influenced by the morbid notions of those who pretend to know better than Nature and who have the impudence to criticise her decrees. It is just at those junctures when the idealistic attitude threatens to disappear that we notice a weakening of this force which is a necessary constituent in the founding and maintenance of the community and is therefore a necessary condition of civilisation.

It is of the utmost importance to insist again and again that idealism is not merely a superfluous manifestation of sentiment but rather something which has been, is and always will be, a necessary precondition of human civilization; it is even out of this that the very idea of the word ‘Human’ arises.

We may safely say that man does not live merely to serve higher ideals, but that these ideals, in their turn, furnish the necessary conditions of his existence as a human being. And thus the circle is closed.

The völkisch belief holds that humanity must have its ideals, because ideals are a necessary condition of human existence itself.

Laurency (L5e4.10):
[Before a more detailed examination of Krishnamurti’s teaching is made, an analysis of certain basic principles and factors that are particularly relevant to his attitude is probably necessary. This analysis will clarify: the inevitability of authority, the purpose and importance of society, the necessity of ideals, the meaning of liberation, the validity of the laws of development and self-realization. – L5e4.3.1]
7Krishnamurti wants to do away with ideals. Thus he says that “ideals are nothing but escape from reality” and that “ideals of brotherhood have demonstrated their impotence, since there are hatred and wars”.
8Both statements, typical of the stage of the mystic, are, as being isolated and thus not put into their right contexts, positively erroneous and misleading.
9Simply because ideals are preached injudiciously, because different ideals belong to different stages of development, because ideals pursued at the stage of culture are inconceivable at the stage of barbarism and seem removed from reality at the stage of civilization, all ideals must be rejected. Our unresponsiveness to ideals that are above our ability to understand and to realize does not in any way demonstrate the impotence of ideals in a general sense.

Dietrich Eckart:
Both directions of the will are important to the maintenance of life… constant world-denial would, so it would seem, redeem the world, but in fact would destroy it as would absolute world-affirmation… it would deprive the world of the mental-spiritual strength without which it could not exist.

Laurency (kr7):
17Consciousness cannot exist without a material basis. The importance of the consciousness aspect increases in each higher material world and the importance of the matter aspect decreases. But it is a mistake to deny the absolute existence of the matter aspect and an even greater one to disregard its significance in the worlds of man. The illusionist philosophy of Shankara is a mental fiction in the world of emotional illusions.

The Riddle of the Universe

I. The supreme mistake of Christian ethics, and one which runs directly counter to the Golden Rule, is its exaggeration of love of one’s neighbor at the expense of self-love. Christianity attacks and despises egoism on principle. Yet that natural impulse is absolutely indispensable in view of self-preservation; indeed, one may say that even altruism, its apparent opposite, is only an enlightened egoism. Nothing great or elevated has ever taken place without egoism, and without the passion that urges us to great sacrifices. It is only the excesses of the impulse that are injurious.

In this struggle, we must fight on the side of Ahura Mazda (just as the Einheriar in Valhalla would fight for Odin against the Fenris Wolf and the Midgard Serpent). Man must not, therefore, withdraw into world renouncing contemplation and asceticism. He must see himself as the struggling bearer of a world preserving idea; he must arouse and arm all the creative powers of the uman soul. Whether as a thinker or an active creator, man must always serve what is highest. Wherever he goes, he serves the creative principle—when he sows and reaps; when he is true to himself; when he considers a handshake as an inviolable oath. The Vendidat epitomises all this in the sublime words: Whoever sows grain, sows saintliness.

The Wonders of Life
The precepts of Christian charity which the gospels rightly place in the very foreground of morality, were not first discovered by Christ, but they were successfully urged by him and his followers at a time when refined selfishness threatened the Roman civilization with decay. These natural principles of sympathy and altruism had arisen thousands of years before in human society, and are even found among all the higher animals that live a social life. They have their first roots in the sexual reproduction of the lower animals, the sexual love and the care of the young on which the maintenance of the species depends. Hence the modern prophets of pure egoism, Friedrich Nietzsche, Max Stirner, etc., commit a biological error when they would substitute their morality of the strong for universal charity, and when they ridicule sympathy as a weakness of character or an ethical blunder of Christianity.

6. Justifications for Anti-Semitism

Laurency (wm1.69):
4Jewish history has demonstrated more clearly than any other history that the world’s history is the world’s tribunal.The history of the Jews is the story of repeatedly frustrated hopes because of their defiance of the laws of life, the law of unity in particular.

Mein Kampf:
Nature, the eternal, takes merciless vengeance on those who defy her laws. Therefore, I believe to-day that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator. In resisting the Jew I am defending the handiwork of the Lord.

Laurency (L5e5):
28“The sin against the holy spirit” meant idiotization of common sense through acceptance of absurdities, contempt of the good, true, and beautiful, as well as conscious opposition to evolution.

Mein Kampf:
Culturally the Jew’s activity consists in poisoning art, literature and the theatre, holding the expressions of national sentiment up to scorn, overturning all concepts of the sublime and beautiful, the worthy and the good, finally dragging the people down to the level of his own low mentality.

Laurency (L4e4):
9Christos never uttered the words in the Gospels about the “sin against the holy spirit”. He wanted to set mankind free from the very concept of sin, the invention of the satanists. There is no other “sin” than mistakes as to laws of nature and laws of life, and those mistakes fall under the law of cause and effect, the law of sowing and reaping.

Laurency (ps3):
6There are laws in everything: laws of nature or laws of matter in the matter aspect of existence; laws of life, or laws of consciousness, in the consciousness aspect.

Laurency (kl1_3):
8“Sin against the holy ghost” is the refusal to recognize the unity of life and the definitive refusal to enter into unity. It implies the individual’s conscious, deliberate resolution, systematically carried out, “to disclaim his humanity”, his share in unity…

Bolshevism: From Moses to Lenin
Were [the Jew] really interested in comradeship, he has had the longest and most abundant opportunity for it. Jehovah’s command to him to make no alliances with foreign peoples, but, on the contrary, to devour one after the other, went straight to his heart (Exodus 34:12; Deuteronomy 7:16).

Diodorus Siculus:
Historical Library
Those too that were thus expelled seated themselves about Jerusalem, and being afterwards embodied into one nation, called the nation of the Jews, their hatred of all other men descended with their blood to posterity. Hence they made strange laws, entirely different from those of other nations. In consequence of this, they will neither eat nor drink with any one of a different nation, nor wish him any prosperity.

Hitler, Table Talk (Cameron & Stevens), December 28-29, 1941:
The human being does not develop solely through the obligations life imposes on him, but also through the habits that make up the climate of his period.

Talmud, Sanhedrin 39a
The Gemara relates: The emperor said to Rabbi Tanḥum: Come, let us all be one people. Rabbi Tanḥum said: Very well. But we, who are circumcised, cannot become uncircumcised as you are; you all circumcise yourselves and become like us.

1 Maccabees 1:41 LXX
Moreover king Antiochus wrote to his whole kingdom, that all should be one people, And every one should leave his laws: so all the heathen agreed according to the commandment of the king.

Epistle to Yemen
Ever since the time of revelation, every despot or slave that has attained to power, be he violent or ignoble, has made it his first aim and his final purpose to destroy our law, and to vitiate our religion, by means of the sword, by violence, or by brute force, such as Amalek, Sisera, Sennacherib, Nebuchadnezzar, Titus, Hadrian, may their bones be ground to dust, and others like them. This is one of the two classes which attempt to foil the Divine
[Jewish] will. The second class consists of the most intelligent and educated among the nations, such as the Syrians, Persians, and Greeks. These also endeavor to demolish our law and to vitiate it by means of arguments which they invent, and by means of controversies which they institute. They seek to render the [Jewish] Law ineffectual and to wipe out every trace thereof by means of their polemical writings, just as the despots plan to do it with the sword.

Hitler, July 28, 1922 speech:
The backbone of its independence, its own economic life, is to be destroyed, that it may the more surely relapse into the golden fetters of the perpetual interest-slavery of the Jewish race. And this process will end when suddenly out of the masses someone arises who seizes the leadership, finds other comrades and fans into flame the passions which have been held in check and looses them against the deceivers. That is the lurking danger, and the Jew can meet it in one way only – by destroying the hostile national intelligentsia. That is the inevitable ultimate goal of the Jew in his revolution. And this aim he must pursue; he knows well enough his economics brings no blessing: his is no master people: he is an exploiter: the Jews are a people of robbers. He has never founded any civilization, though he has destroyed civilizations by the hundred. He possesses nothing of his own creation to which he can point.

Hitler, Memoirs of a Confidant, p.g. 64:
Nothing upsets Jewry more than a gardener who is intent on keeping his garden neat and healthy. Nothing is more inimical to Jewry than order! It needs the smell of decay, the stench of cadavers, weakness, lack of resistance, submission of the personal self, illness, degeneracy! And wherever it takes root, it continues the process of decomposition! It must! For only under those conditions can it lead it’s parasitic existence. It is not for nothing that time and again the Jews have been driven out of countries where they settled–from Babylonia, from Egypt, from Rome, from England, from the Rhineland, and elsewhere. In each of these a gardener was at work who was incorruptible and loved his people.

Diodorus Siculus:
Historical Library
Antiochus, therefore, abhorring this their contrariety to all other nations, used his utmost endeavour to abrogate their laws. In order to effect this, he sacrificed a large hog at the image of Moses and at the altar of God that stood in the outward court, and sprinkled them with the blood of the sacrifice. He commanded likewise that the sacred books, whereby they were taught to hate all other nations, should be sprinkled with the broth made of the hog’s flesh.

But Caligula, since he hated all mankind, and especially the Jews, ignored Philo’s embassy and commanded that all the Jews’ holy places and, above all, the famous sanctuary at Jerusalem be profaned by the gentiles’ sacrifices, be filled with statues and idols, and that he himself be worshipped as a god there.

Diodorus Siculus:
Historical Library
And he extinguished the lamp called by them immortal, which was continually burning in the temple.

let us forbid the lighting of fires on the Sabbath because the temples of the Gods have been burnt down by the jews and non-jews do not take pleasure in their ashes.

Laurency (L3e3):
5There is individual karma, family, group, class, national, and racial karma. We are responsible for everything we have benefited from and especially from unjust conditions.
6An example of karma: The Jewish racial instinct is in direct opposition to the Law. The Jews have chosen to collect all the gold of the earth. They succeed in this. And every time it will be taken from them until they have learnt their lesson. Those who have derived advantages from that race, those who have persecuted them, must incarnate among them.

Senator Thomas J. Dodd:
Sepember. 25, 1945 letter
You know how I have despised anti-Semitism. You know how strongly I feel toward those who preach intolerance of any kind… Sometimes it seems that the Jews will never learn about these things. They seem intent on bringing new difficulties down on their own heads. I do not like to write about this matter —it is distasteful to me — but I am disturbed about it. (Published JTA 9, October 2007.)

Martin Luther:
They have failed to learn any lesson from the terrible distress that has been theirs for over fourteen hundred years in exile. Nor can they obtain any end or definite terminus of this, as they suppose, by means of the vehement cries and laments to God. If these blows do not help, it is reasonable to assume that our talking and explaining will help even less. Therefore a Christian should be content and not argue with the Jews. But if you have to or want to talk with them, do not say any more than this: “Listen, Jew, are you aware that Jerusalem and your sovereignty, together with your temple and priesthood, have been destroyed for over 1,460 years?” For this year, which we Christians write as the year 1542 since the birth of Christ, is exactly 1,468 years, going on fifteen hundred years, since Vespasian and Titus destroyed Jerusalem and expelled the Jews from the city. Let the Jews bite on this nut and dispute this question as long as they wish. For such ruthless wrath of God is sufficient evidence that they assuredly have erred and gone astray. Even a child can comprehend this. For one dare not regard God as so cruel that he would punish his own people so long, so terribly, so unmercifully, and in addition keep silent, comforting them neither with words nor with deeds, and fixing no time limit and no end to it. Who would have faith, hope, or love toward such a God?

1 Maccabees 1:20-28 LXX
And after that Antiochus had smitten Egypt, he returned again in the hundred forty and third year, and went up against Israel and Jerusalem with a great multitude, And entered proudly into the sanctuary, and took away the golden altar, and the candlestick of light, and all the vessels thereof, And the table of the shewbread, and the pouring vessels, and the vials. And the censers of gold, and the veil, and the crown, and the golden ornaments that were before the temple, all which he pulled off. He took also the silver and the gold, and the precious vessels: also he took the hidden treasures which he found.
And when he had taken all away, he went into his own land, having made a great massacre, and spoken very proudly. Therefore there was a great mourning in Israel, in every place where they were; So that the princes and elders mourned, the virgins and young men were made feeble, and the beauty of women was changed. Every bridegroom took up lamentation, and she that sat in the marriage chamber was in heaviness, The land also was moved for the inhabitants thereof, and all the house of Jacob was covered with confusion.

Cassius Dio:
The entrance to the temple was now laid open to the Romans. The soldiers on account of their superstition would not immediately rush in, but at last, as Titus forced them, they made their way inside. Then the Jews carried on a defence much more vigorous than before, as if they had discovered a rare and unexpected privilege in falling near the temple, while fighting to save it. The populace was stationed in the outer court, the senators on the steps, and the priests in the hall of worship itself. And though they were but a handful fighting against a far superior force they were not subdued until a section of the temple was fired. Then they went to meet death willingly, some letting themselves be pierced by the swords of the Romans, some slaughtering one another, others committing suicide, and others leaping into the blaze. It looked to everybody, and most of all to them, apparently, that so far from being ruin, it was victory and salvation and happiness to perish along with the temple.
Even under these conditions many captives were taken, among them Bargiora, the commander of the enemy: he was the only one punished in the course of the triumphal celebration

Diodorus Siculus:
Historical Library
But the king being generous and of a mild disposition, received hostages and pardoned the Jews. He demolished, however, the walls of Jerusalem, and took the tribute that was due.

King Antiochus was a man of ability in the field and daring in design, and showed himself worthy of the royal name, except in regard to his manœuvres at Pelusium.

After Titus had taken Jerusalem, and when the country all round was filled with corpses, the neighboring races offered him a crown; but he disclaimed any such honor to himself, saying that it was not himself that had accomplished this exploit, but that he had merely lent his arms to God, who had so manifested his wrath; and Apollonius praised his action, for therein he displayed a great deal of judgment and understanding of things human and divine, and it showed great moderation on his part that he refused to be crowned because he had shed blood.

Hitler, August 15, 1920 speech:

First we must examine the Jew’s attitude to work, find out how he perceives the principle of work, and excuse me if I now take a book called The Bible. I am not claiming that all its contents are necessarily true, as we know that Jewry was very liberal in writing it. One thing, however, is certain: it has not been written by an antisemite. It is very important because no antisemite would have been able to write a more terrible indictment against the Jewish race than the Bible, the Old Testament. Let us take a look at a sentence: “By the sweat of thy brow shalt thou eat bread.” [Genesis 3:19] And it says that it was to be a punishment for the Fall of Man.

Because a Jew has written this, true or not is unimportant because it still reflects the opinion which Jewry has about work. For them work is not an obvious ethical duty but at most a means to sustenance. In our eyes, this is not work because in this case any activity serving self-preservation, without regard to fellow men, might be called work. And we know that this work, in the past, consisted of plundering of caravans, and today in planned plundering of indebted farmers, industrialists and workers. The form has changed but the principle is the same. We do not call it work, but robbery.

Mein Kampf:
A State which is territorially delimited cannot be established or maintained unless the general attitude towards work be a positive one. If this attitude be lacking, then the necessary basis of a civilization is also lacking. That is why the Jewish people, despite the intellectual powers with which they are apparently endowed, have not a culture – certainly not a culture of their own. The culture which the Jew enjoys to-day is the product of the work of others and this product is debased in the hands of the Jew.

Laurency (ps3):
2Physical life dominates the barbaric individual. Any kind of work, any unnecessary exertion, disgusts him and is considered foolish by him. Only urgent physical needs or excited affects cause him to abandon that indolence which to him is happiness and the meaning of life. Typical is his inability to learn from anything but physical experiences. Everything remains to be learnt. The personality is exclusively a product of reaping, since there is no need for particular consideration of consciousness development.

Now man can be opposed to himself in a twofold manner: either as a savage, when his feelings rule over his principles; or as a barbarian, when his principles destroy his feelings. The savage despises art, and acknowledges nature as his despotic ruler; the barbarian laughs at nature, and dishonours it, but he often proceeds in a more contemptible way than the savage, to be the slave of his senses. The cultivated man makes of nature his friend, and honours its friendship, while only bridling its caprice.

Mein Kampf:
Jews act in concord only when a common danger threatens them or a common prey attracts them. Where these two motives no longer exist, then the most brutal egotism appears and these people, who had previously lived together in unity, will turn into a swarm of rats that fight bitterly against each other.
If the Jews were the only people in the world, they would be wallowing in filth and mire and would exploit one another and try to exterminate one another in a bitter struggle, except in so far as their utter lack of the ideal of sacrifice, which shows itself in their cowardly spirit, would prevent this struggle from developing.

Laurency (ps3):
3For individuals with a repulsive basic tendency of their individual characters it is necessary to have egoistic interests to neutralize their instinctively inflammable hatred, and to have stronger motives the stronger this tendency is.

Mein Kampf:
The intellectual faculties of the Jew have been trained through thousands of years. Today the Jew is looked upon as specially “cunning”; and in a certain sense he has been so throughout the ages. His intellectual powers, however, are not the result of an inner evolution but rather have been shaped by the object lessons which the Jew has received from others.

Hitler, April 12, 1922 speech:
He works unproductively using and enjoying other people’s work. And thus we understand the iron sentence which Mommsen once uttered: ‘The Jew is the ferment of decomposition in peoples,’ that means that the Jew destroys and must destroy because he completely lacks the conception of an activity which builds up the life of the community. And therefore it is beside the point whether the individual Jew is ‘decent’ or not. In himself he carries those characteristics which Nature has given him, and he cannot ever rid himself of those characteristics. And to us he is harmful. Whether he harms us consciously or unconsciously, that is not our affair. We have consciously to concern ourselves for the welfare of our own people.

Hitler, August 15, 1920 speech:
“He lives as a race amongst other races, in a state within others states. And we can see very precisely that when a race does not possess certain traits which must be hereditary, it not only cannot create a state but must act as a destroyer, no matter if a given individual is good or evil.”
“One can almost say that the Jew cannot help it because everything stems from his race. He cannot do anything about it and, besides, it doesn’t matter whether he is good or bad for he must act according to the laws of his race, just as do members of our people. A Jew is everywhere a Jew; consciously or unconsciously, he resolutely represents the interests of his race.”
And in all these things we must understand that there are no good or evil Jews. Here everyone works exactly according to the instincts of his race, because the race, or should we say, the nation and its character, as the Jew himself explains, lies in blood, and this blood is forcing everyone to act according to these principles, whether he is the leading mind in a party that calls itself democratic, or calls itself socialist, or a man of science, literature, or just an ordinary exploiter. He is a Jew; he works aglow with one thought: How do I get my people to become the Master Race.”

Mein Kampf:
With the Jewish people the spirit of self-sacrifice does not extend beyond the simple instinct of individual preservation. In their case, the feeling of racial solidarity which they apparently manifest, is nothing but a very primitive gregarious instinct, similar to that which may be found among other organisms in this world. It is a remarkable fact that this herd instinct brings individuals together for mutual protection, only as long as there is a common danger which makes mutual assistance expedient or inevitable.
The same pack of wolves which, a moment ago, joined together in a common attack on their victim will dissolve into individual wolves as soon as their hunger has been satisfied.
This is also true of horses, which unite to defend themselves against any aggressor, but separate the moment the danger is over.
It is much the same with the Jew.

Otto Weininger:
The Jew is not really anti-moral. But, none the less, he does not represent the highest ethical type. He is rather non-moral, neither very good nor very bad, with nothing in him of either the angel or the devil.
Notwithstanding the Book of Job and the story of Eden, it is plain that the conceptions of a Supreme Good and a Supreme Evil are not truly Jewish; I have no wish to enter upon the lengthy and controversial topics of Biblical criticism, but at the least I shall be on sure ground when I say that these conceptions play the least significant part in modern Jewish life. Orthodox or unorthodox, the modern Jew does not concern himself with God and the Devil, with Heaven and Hell.

The Jews adopted Ahriman as Satan, and evolved their own entirely unnatural system of racial admixture out of a Persian system devised to preserve racial purity. This was combined with an obligation ridden religious law which was, of course, wholly Jewish.

The doctrine of original sin would have been incomprehensible to a people whose racial identity was unadulterated. In such a people there dwells a secure confidence in itself and in its will, which it regards as Destiny. The concept of sin was as alien to the heroes of Homer as it was to the ancient Indians, the Germans of Tacitus, or the epics and sagas of Dietrich von Bern.

Laurency (wm1.71):
7To “god” there is no good or evil creature, just individuals on various levels of development. The saying in the Gospel novel attributed to Christos, “none is good save one, that is, god”, was a gnostic saying. Christos would never have expressed himself thus. Goodness is unity.

nor does [Celsus] see how great is the injury done to religion from accepting the statement that before God there is no difference between a man and an ant or a bee, but proceeds to add, that “if men appear to be superior to irrational animals on this account, that they have built cities, and make use of a political constitution, and forms of government, and sovereignties, this is to say nothing to the purpose, for ants and bees do the same. Bees, indeed, have a sovereign, who has followers and attendants; and there occur among them wars and victories, and slaughterings of the vanquished, and cities and suburbs, and a succession of labours, and judgments passed upon the idle and the wicked; for the drones are driven away and punished.

Hitler, Memoirs of a Confidant, p.g. 145:
Of course it is not appropriate for humankind to act like animals. We cannot simply eliminate what is sick and weak, abandoning it as wild animals do, killing it as the bees do with their drones. Whatever has entered human society must somehow be placed in the service of this society and cared for. But Providence has allowed us to find the means to prevent–or at least to limit–the sickly and the weak from entering human society in the first place.

Even in irrational beings we see swarms and herds, and nesting, and love not unlike ours. Because they do have souls, and the bonding instinct is found in a developed form—not something we see in plants, or stones, or trees.


God/Consciousness sleeps in the rock, dreams in the plant, stirs in the animal, and awakens in the man.
– Ibn ‘Arabi, Sufi mystic

Goebbels (Diaries), December 29, 1939:
[Hitler] has little regard for homo sapiens. 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.

Laurency (kl2_3):
9Good and evil are social concepts.

For that the power to distinguish between good and less good is the property of wisdom is evident surely even to the witless; so that the serpent was a benefactor rather than a destroyer of the human race.

Laurency (kr5):
Destiny, which is the will of the deity, leads everything to the deity. Those who do not strive towards the deity of their own accord are sooner or later compelled to do so by the force of circumstances. The evil in existence is a lesser good, necessary to the continuance of the whole, and impels the individual towards the deity.

Laurency (kr5):
To Plotinos the whole of existence was divine, even the physical part of it as perfect as it could be. What we consider to be imperfect is merely a lower stage. Evil is a lesser good. Good becomes evil if it prevents man from acquiring something still higher good. All this is esoterics.

No: Evil is not in any and every lack; it is in absolute lack. What falls in some degree short of the Good is not Evil; considered in its own kind it might even be perfect, but where there is utter dearth, there we have Essential Evil, void of all share in Good…

Mein Kampf:
Therefore, the Jewish intellect will never be constructive, but always destructive. At best, it may serve as a stimulus in rare cases, but only in the limited meaning of the poet’s [Goethe’s] lines, “The Power which always wills the bad, and always works the good” (Die stets Böse will und stets das Gute schafft.).

Laurency (L5e23):
The black lodge knows that its power will end when mankind has realized that the meaning of life is consciousness development. Therefore it tries to direct the attention of mankind to physical interests only, the physical world, material comfort, material possessions, and material undertakings. It is the physical material values that separate humans beings. When the black ones lose their power, the fight for goods and money will end.

Bolshevism: From Moses to Lenin
“‘And I will set the Egyptians against the Egyptians: and they shall fight every one against his brother and every one against his neighbor,'” he ground out. “What hatred, what demonic hatred! That’s not human; what is it?”

Isaiah 19:2 LXX
And the Egyptians shall be stirred up against the Egyptians: and a man shall fight against his brother, and a man against his neighbor, city against city, and law against law.

Protocols of Zion:
For a time perhaps we might be successfully dealt with by a coalition of the “goyim” of all the world: but from this danger we are secured by the discord existing among them whose roots are so deeply seated that they can never now be plucked up. We have set one against another the personal and national reckonings of the GOYIM, religious and race hatreds, which we have fostered into a huge growth in the course of the past twenty centuries. This is the reason why there is not one State which would anywhere receive support if it were to raise its arm, for every one of them must bear in mind that any agreement against us would be unprofitable to itself. We are too strong – there is no evading our power. The nations cannot come to even an inconsiderable private agreement without our secretly having a hand in it.

Laurency (L4e4):
Only through humanism could the free-thinker, by fighting, secure his right to witness to the truth: “Certainly there are cosmic beings. But no one that has even one trait in common with such a loathsome monster as Yahweh.”

Hitler’s Letters and Notes, p.g 240-241:

The Jew as ‘world factor’ = & = Power
Jahwe’s prophecy is only an
expression of this clear objective

✡Samuel Roth:
And yet, except to be used by one class of people as a symbol by which to dominate another, of what use to mankind is this fictitious centralized deity?

Laurency (L4e3):
1Monotheism is a legacy of Judaism with its Yahweh, or Jehovah. The Jews had to have one single god to be sure of the divine promise of their being the peculiar people of god.

✡Samuel Roth:
But chiefly because the Jews themselves, Torah in hand, and the cry Hear Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One on their lips, insinuated Monotheism into every nook and cranny of the earth. True or not, the belief that monotheism sprang forth from the racial genius of the Jews has become so common that even the official enemies of the Jews—and some of them, such as G. K. Chesterton and Hillaire Belloc, should know better,—do not trouble to deny it. Their attitude seems to be that it would be much simpler to deny altogether the value of monotheism and create a better repute for the virtues of paganism, than to try to wrest this brass laurel from the crown of Israel.
Of the Jews themselves, however, the attitude of Rabbi David Phillipson is typically cocksure:
“The Hebrews alone of all Semitic peoples reached the stage of pure monotheism through the teachings of their prophets; however, it required centuries of development before every trace of idolatry disappeared even from among them, and before they stood forth as ‘a unique people on earth,’ worshippers of the God, and Him alone.”

Laurency (L4e3):
2Yahweh, or Jehovah, is Bacchus who carried many names: El Sabaoth, El Shaddai, Dionysus (Zeus of Nisa; Nisa was the Egyptian name of Sinai).

However, the fact that their priests intoned to the flute and cymbals and wore wreaths of ivy, and that a golden vine was found in their temple has led some people to think that they worship Bacchus, who has so enthralled the East. But their cult would be most inappropriate. Bacchus instituted gay and cheerful rites, but the Jewish ritual is preposterous and morbid.

The Track of the Jew
Another name for Jesus appears from time to time: Ben Pandera, literally “son of the panther”. This designation is explained in the following manner: in their contact with Greek life the Jew (see, among others, Paul) among the later Greeks was struck by their lasciviousness and nothing repelled him more than the orgies of the Dionysiac sect of the declining ancient world. Now, to Bacchus the panther was an especially sacred animal; the Bacchus worshippers slept on panther skins, the panther was portrayed on Greek coins, etc. So this animal was to the Jew the “obscene” animal, the symbol of lasciviousness in general.

[It follows that there is no actual Jahwe in existence, that he remains a mere conception. The Jews never once conceived of a god, everything is borrowed.

The “black lodge”, “black ones”, etc., as Laurency put it, could just as easily be substituted with “Jewish instinct” or “the Jews”. Granted, it’s possible that there is some cosmic force using Jews to carry out their work, but it would be nothing short of mockery to refer to these forces as gods.

And it’s quite clear that the Jahwe conception is merely an expression of Jewish aims. The Jewish goal, beyond world domination, is to fill this world with spiritual and physical Jewish types, which ushers in an annihilation of the world.

Every time they have been extended an invitation to join the human community, the Jews refuse to assimilate and instead demand that the rest of humanity become like them.

Every time the Jews secure for themselves a place in a non-Jewish cause, it has always resulted in it being turned into a Jewish element.

Every time a gardener appears and tries to emancipate proselytes to Judaism by adapting his message for his hearers, his work is destroyed and subverted for Jewish use. Hence, Christianity and Islam being turned into Jewish sects.

And that is why the Jews must be contained.]

Bolshevism: From Moses to Lenin
“But some time after this glorious Egyptian citizen of the Jewish faith, one hundred and ten years old, had died, the old Pharaoh also passed away and was succeeded by another Pharaoh, who ‘knew not Joseph,’ and, seeing the multitude of Jews, who meanwhile had grown very powerful, he became quite frightened. He feared lest: ‘when there falleth out any war, they join also unto our enemies’ (Exodus 1:6-10); thus he was smarter than Wilhelm II, who hoped for their support. The Jews must work, he decided. In all seriousness, work.

Talmud, Eruvin 53a:8-10
The Gemara explains: What is the meaning of the phrase: “Who knew not Joseph”? It means that he conducted himself like one who did not know Joseph at all.

Robert Ley:
The Jewish grain speculator Joseph reduced the Egyptian people to starvation and misery through his speculation. When they realized that, they saw the Jewish depravity and freed themselves from Jewish rule by putting the Jews in concentration camps and forcing them to work. The Jew swore revenge, incited the lowest elements, and according to the Old Testament killed thousands and thousands of Egyptian children in one night by killing the “first born.”

Laurency (L5e23):
The white lodge tries to direct mankind’s interest to consciousness (“spirituality”) to the acquisition of consciousness in the causal envelope, to the attainment of the stage of ideality.

Adam Weishaupt:
Pythagoras oder Betrachtungen über die geheime Welt und RegierungsKunst, p.g. 187-189
I shall at present prove that all the faults which still persist, the falsity which lies in our virtues, is the result of ignorance and inertia; That all modern men, even the most enlightened and active of all modern men, are still ignorant and sluggish; That all the situations and incidents of the world are designed to reduce this ignorance and inertia; That this is the thread upon which a pragmatic world and human history must be followed; That this is the point of view from which all the world events are arranged, which gives the most comforting conviction of the great truth; That the spirits are the ultimate end of creation; That the whole material Nature is subordinate to it, and is governed by these laws; That the plan of creation, so far as we can discover it, is no other than the highest development and formation of the spiritual forces; That this plan would only have begun without completing any one, if our mind were not of such a nature that its duration extends over the duration of this life.
In order to prove all this, I proceed from a fact which the most explicit doubter can not deny. – Who is weaker or more ignorant than a newborn child? This is the beginning of our enlightenment and strength. All men, who are still, who are yet to be, begin from this goal. Even Caesar and Frederick the Great, Pythagoras and Socrates, Leibniz and Newton, were not stronger and more enlightened at the time of their first appearance than the child which is born of this moment.

Laurency (kr1):

1An eminent modern scientist answered the question whether mankind has as yet succeeded in exploring one per cent of reality: “No, not even one ten thousandth of one per cent”.
2That is, not even one millionth! One certainly has respect for such a scientist. Nobody makes a greater impression than he who realizes man’s immense ignorance about life. For it is obvious to anyone who has assimilated what theology, philosophy, and science tell us about reality that the conclusions they can draw are mere hypotheses (a euphemism for guesswork and supposition!)


Laurency (L5e23):
Therefore, human beings are the pawns in the game between the white and the black ones. The struggle is intensive and so far it is still uncertain how mankind will choose. The black ones hold many trumps, especially the common misunderstanding that physical life is the only life there is and that “death” is the end of everything. Those who have an antimetaphysical attitude play unknowingly into the hands of the black ones.

Mein Kampf:
Here also everything is copied, or rather stolen, for the Jew could not possess any religious institution which had developed out of his own consciousness, seeing that he lacks every kind of idealism, which means that belief in a life beyond this terrestrial existence is foreign to him. In the Aryan mind no religion can ever be imagined unless it embodies the conviction that life in some form of other will continue after death.

Hitler, Table Talk, November 5, 1941 (Cameron & Stevens):
With the Aryan, the belief in the Beyond often takes a quite childish form; but this belief does represent an effort towards a deepening of things. The man who doesn’t believe in the Beyond has no understanding of religion. The great trick of Jewry was to insinuate itself fraudulently amongst the religions with a religion like Judaism, which in reality is not a religion. Simply, the Jew has put a religious camouflage over his racial doctrine. Everything he undertakes is built on this lie.

The dogma of personal immortality owes its great popularity and its high importance to its intimate connection with the teaching of Christianity. This circumstance gave rise to the erroneous and still prevalent belief that the myth is a fundamental element of all the higher religions. That is by no means the case. The higher oriental religions include no belief whatever in the immortality of the soul; it is not found in Buddhism, the religion that dominates thirty per cent, of the entire human race; it is not found in the ancient popular religion of the Chinese, nor in the reformed religion of Confucius which succeeded it; and, what is still more significant, it is not found in the earlier and purer religion of the Jews. Neither in the ” five Mosaic books,*’ nor in any of the writings of the Old Testament which were written before the Babylonian Exile, is there any trace of the notion of individual persistence after death.

[Interestingly enough, Ernst Haeckel argues against afterlife being fundamental to religion. Yet he overlooks the falsified state of all Oriental religions and made the tremendous error of classifying Judaism as a religion. Schopenhauer thoroughly refuted the notion of Buddhism being monotheistic/atheistic in On the Will in Nature. Needless to say, he also exposed Judaism as the only monotheistic worldview. Nietzsche likewise refutes the notion in The Antichrist.]

These three religions are neither monotheistic nor polytheistic, nor are they even pantheistic, Buddhism, at any rate, is not; since Buddha did not look upon a world sunk in sin and suffering, whose tenants, all subject to death, only subsist for a short time by devouring each other, as a manifestation of God.

In my condemnation of Christianity I surely hope I do no injustice to a related religion with an even larger number of believers: I allude to Buddhism. Both are to be reckoned among the nihilistic religions—they are both decadence religions—but they are separated from each other in a very remarkable way. For the fact that he is able to compare them at all the critic of Christianity is indebted to the scholars of India.
Buddhism is a hundred times as realistic as Christianity
—it is part of its living heritage that it is able to face problems objectively and coolly; it is the product of long centuries of philosophical speculation. The concept, “god”, was already disposed of before it appeared.
Buddhism is the only genuinely positive religion to be encountered in history, and this applies even to its epistemology (which is a strict phenomenalism)—It does not speak of a “struggle with sin”, but, yielding to reality, of the “struggle with suffering”. Sharply differentiating itself from Christianity, it puts the self-deception that lies in moral concepts be hind it; it is, in my phrase, beyond good and evil.
—The two physiological facts upon which it grounds itself and upon which it bestows its chief attention are: first, an excessive sensitiveness to sensation, which manifests itself as a refined susceptibility to pain, and secondly, an extraordinary spirituality, a too protracted concern with concepts and logical procedures, under the influence of which the instinct of personality has yielded to a notion of the “impersonal”. (Both of these states will be familiar to a few of my readers, the objectivists, by experience, as they are to me).
These physiological states produced a depression, and Buddha tried to combat it by hygienic measures. Against it he prescribed a life in the open, a life of travel; moderation in eating and a careful selection of foods; caution in the use of intoxicants; the same caution in arousing any of the passions that foster a bilious habit and heat the blood; finally, no worry , either on one’s own account or on account of others. He encourages ideas that make for either quiet contentment or good cheer he finds means to combat ideas of other sorts.
He understands good, the state of goodness, as something which promotes health. Prayer is not included, and neither is asceticism. There is no categorical imperative nor any disciplines, even within the walls of a monastery (it is always possible to leave).
These things would have been simply means of increasing the excessive sensitiveness above mentioned.
For the same reason he does not advocate any conflict with unbelievers; his teaching is antagonistic to nothing so much as to revenge, aversion, ressentiment (“enmity never brings an end to enmity”: the moving refrain of all Buddhism.)
And in all this he was right, for it is precisely these passions which, in view of his main regiminal purpose, are unhealthful.
The mental fatigue that he observes, already plainly displayed in too much “objectivity” (that is, in the individual’s loss of interest in himself, in loss of balance and of “egoism”), he combats by strong efforts to lead even the spiritual interests back to the ego. In Buddha’s teaching egoism is a duty. The “one thing needful,” the question “how can you be delivered from suffering,” regulates and determines the whole spiritual diet. (Perhaps one will here recall that Athenian who also declared war upon pure “scientificality,” to wit, Socrates, who also elevated egoism to the estate of a morality).

Laurency ():
35Traditional Christianity has painted the path to christos, to unity, as a path of suffering. This has strongly influenced Western thought. Also in the Orient, exoteric Buddhism has contributed to the spread of a pessimistic outlook on existence. This pessimism is radically false.
Laurency ():
7One remembers spontaneously Christos’ parable of the enemy who sowed tares. It has
gone the same way with almost all religions. They have been idiotized, been made unusable in the service of good. They have counteracted consciousness development, which they were intended to further. Through their intolerance they have preached hatred. In this respect Buddhism is an exception.

The wishes of all humans? Or the wishes of a few of nature’s special favorites? The former is simply impossible, and the latter would be dreadful and unjust. There must, therefore, be a middle road. And it can only exist in everyone’s becoming that which, and as much as, he or she is capable of becoming, without causing people with equal rights to suffer; that there be a happiness for individuals which is compatible with the happiness of all. But this happiness will become possible for everyone as soon as they all learn to feel more sensitive to pleasure and less sensitive to displeasure.

[See L3e7.1.10]

Dietrich Eckart:
The Earth-Centered Jew Lacks a Soul
This mere trace would have sufficed, or would suffice, to provide the necessary counterweight to the unadulterated yea-saying to the world, as embodied in the Jewish people. For the inner light—and belief in immortality is the inner light—does not need always to shine with the brightest glow in order to produce an effect; it must simply be there, it must not be allowed to be snuffed out, or otherwise mankind would be lost forever to the terrestrial world. Everything takes its own time, however, a fact which is all too often overlooked. The denial of the world needs a still longer time in order to grow so that it will acquire a lasting predominance over affirmation of the world. At this time it seems again to have sunk to a zero point; its opposite, symbolized by the Jewish people, is triumphant as never before. It seems as if the inner light has completely vanished from this earth. But, to anticipate, it merely seems that way. Denial of the world cannot perish because it is part of the soul of mankind and the soul is immortal. Where the idea of the immortal dwells, the longing for the eternal or the withdrawal from temporality must always emerge again; hence a denial of the world will always reappear. And this is the meaning of the non-Jewish peoples: they are the custodians of world-negation, of the idea of the Hereafter, even if they maintain it in the poorest way. Hence, one or another of them can quietly go under, but what really matters lives on in their descendents.

Laurency (L4e3):
An illustration of what ideas of reality are held by historians, historians of religion in particular, is their unwavering dogma of the superior religious instinct of the Israelite race. Actually no other race has had such a strong physicalist orientation, has been so utterly insensitive to superphysical reality.

Let us repeat once more, and again and again, the most important point that has been made up to now: the Jewish religion completely lacks the belief in a supra-sensible Beyond. Indeed, one even gets an almost positive impression that, in the course of time, everything that in the least could foster a belief in an incorporeal life after death was intentionally eliminated. The Jews, with their religion oriented to purely earthly affairs, stand alone in the world! This should not be forgotten for a single moment; it is highly significant.

Parerga and Paralipomena
The Jewish religion proper, as it is presented and taught in Genesis and all historical books up to the end of Chronicles is the coarsest of all religions, because it is the only one which has absolutely no doctrine of immortality, not even a trace of it. Each king, and each hero or prophet, when he died was buried with his fathers, and therewith everything was finished. There is no trace of any existence after death, every thought of the kind being as if purposely banished. For instance, Jehovah’s long eulogy on King Josiah closes with a promise of reward (2 Chron. xxxiv. 28). And hence that he shall not live to see Nebuchadnezzar. But there is no idea of another existence after death, and thereby of a positive reward; instead of this it is a merely negative one to die and to suffer no further sorrow. When Jehovah had sufficiently utilized and tormented his handiwork and plaything, he throws it away on to the dung-heap that is its reward. Precisely because the Jewish religion has no immortality, and consequently knows no punishments after death, Jehovah can threaten the sinner who prospers on earth with nothing else except that he will punish his misdeeds in the persons of his children and children’s children to the fourth generation, as may he seen from Exodus xxxiv. 7 ; and Numbers xiv. 18. This proves the absence of any doctrine of immortality. Similarly a passage in Tobias, iii. 6, where the latter begs Jehovah that he may die. Nothing more, there is no idea of an existence after death. In the Old Testament the reward promised to virtue is to live long on the earth (e.g. Deut v. 16 and 33); in the Veda, on the contrary, it is not to be born again. The contempt in which the Jews always stood among contemporary peoples may in great measure have been based on the poor character of their religion. What the Kohaleth says, ch. iii. v. 19, 20, is the true sentiment of Jewish religion. If sometimes, as in Daniel xii. 2, immortality is indicated, it is as an imported foreign doctrine, as is evident from Daniel i. 4 and 6. In the 2nd Book of Maccabees, ch. vii. , the doctrine of immortality appears plainly as of Babylonian origin. All other religions, those of the Hindoos, as well Brahman as Buddhist, of the Egyptians, Persians, even of the Druids teach immortality, and also, with the exception of the Persian Zendavesta, metempsychosis.

Laurency (L5e23):
What has made the Jewish nation a constant tool of the black ones is precisely their physicalist attitude. It is also true that there have always been idealistic Jews who have fought that tendency. Those are not the merit of the nation, however, and cannot therefore be quoted by the nation as examples of its idealism.

✡Otto Weininger:
For these reasons Zionism must remain an impracticable ideal, notwithstanding the fashion in which it has brought together some of the noblest qualities of the Jews. Zionism is the negation of Judaism, for the conception of Judaism involves a worldwide distribution of the Jews. Citizenship is an un-Jewish thing, and there has never been and never will be a true Jewish State.

7. Reincarnation

If one says, “this world is evil, I’m throwing my life away” – I like [the world]!

– Hitler, Table Talk, September 1941 (Jochmann)

[Follow-up from section Monism (Haeckel)]

Himmler, June 9, 1942:
We shall once again have to find a new scale of values for our people: the scale of the macrocosm and the microcosm, the starry sky above us and the world in us, the world that we see in the microscope. The essence of these megalomaniacs, these Christians who talk of men ruling this world, must stop and be put back in its proper proportion. Man is nothing special at all. He is an insignificant part of this earth. If a big thunderstorm comes, he can do nothing about it. He cannot even predict it. He has no idea how a fly is constructed – however unpleasant, it is a miracle – or how a blossom is constructed. He must once again look with deep reverence into this world. Then he will acquire the right sense of proportion about what is above us, about how we are woven into this cycle.

[Consistent with what Hitler said in the Table Talks]

Martin Bormann (The Bormann Letters, p.g. 54-55):
To Manja Behrens, February 21, 1944
On the second point: What is it we National Socialists want? We want to adapt our people to the laws of nature, that is to say, we want to make it fit for the ineluctable struggle for existence. This struggle exists, whether we like it or not, whether we reject or accept it. This world of ours is, after all, no paradise and can never be one, because every renewal, every change presupposes action. Just as the individual–as every individual creature, be it animal or plant–must assert and maintain his existence, so must the nation as a whole.
Anyone who feels himself to be a creature of this life and encompassed by this life, in other words, by the will of All-Highest, of Omnipotence, of Nature, that is to say, by the will of God,–anyone who feels himself to be merely one of the countless meshes of the web we call a people–cannot be frightened by the hardships of this existence. He will really fare as in the old hymn: ‘No harm can ever touch me . . .’ We are woven into the eternal pattern of all life, that is, the cycle of Nature, and it cannot be otherwise.

Hitler, Table Talk, September 23, 1941 (Cameron & Stevens):
There are some who say the world is evil, and that they wish to depart from this life. For my part, I like the world! Unless the desire to die is due to a lover’s quarrel, I advise the desperate man to have patience for a year. The consolations will come. But if a human being has any other reason to wish to die than this, then let him die, I’m not stopping him. I merely call attention to the fact that one cannot escape this world entirely. The elements of which our body is made belong to the cycle of Nature; and as for our soul, it’s possible that it might return to limbo, until it gets an opportunity to reincarnate itself. But it would vex me if everybody wanted to have done with life.

I said I had read the doctrines of the Pythagoreans. Let me tell you that Pythagoras was the first to discover the immortality of the soul and its transmigration from one body to another. To this view Virgil gives his adherence in the sixth book of the Æneid in these words:
These, when the wheel full thousand years has turned,
God calls, a long sad line, in Lethe’s stream
To drown the past, and long once more to see
The skies above, and to the flesh return.

Hitler, Table Talk, December 1-2, 1941 (Cameron & Stevens):
Even a man who takes his own life returns finally to nature—body, soul and mind. The toad knows nothing of his previous existence as a tadpole, and our own memory serves us no better as regards our own previous state. That’s why I have the feeling that it’s useful to know the laws of nature—for that enables us to obey them. To act otherwise would be to rise in revolt against Heaven.

Laurency (kr5):
4Earth originates from water, water from air, air from fire. Everything comes from primordial fire and returns to it in an eternal cycle in accordance with imperturbable laws. Some of these are final, others purely mechanical. Everything has a purpose. Everything in the world is governed by perfect wisdom.

Being however such, she proceeds from the vivific Goddess [Rhea.] [For according to the Chaldaean oracle] “Immense Nature is suspended from the back of the Goddess;” from whom all life is derived, both that which is intellectual, and that which is inseparable from the subjects of its government. Hence, being suspended from thence, she pervades without impediment through, and inspires all things; so that through her, the most inanimate beings participate of a certain soul, and such things as are corruptible, remain perpetually in the world, being held together by the causes of forms which she contains.

Now what does this tell us? It tells: that what we know as Nature is a Soul, offspring of a yet earlier Soul of more powerful life;


Marsilio Ficino:
From the Soul of the world, thus, pours forth always a kind of animal spirit, almost an offshoot of the interior life, and this is fire, almost an animal light stretched out towards dimension, a luminous hot spirit and a spark for the generation of all things; a sky, I say, not only surrounding, but also infused in all things and a sky of skies, a breath of the divine spirit in a certain form close to soul; celestial, igneous, luminous, hot, it flies away and expands in the air while it contracts in water and in earth.

Mein Kampf:
The Jew could not possess any religious institution which had developed out of his own consciousness, seeing that he lacks every kind of idealism, which means that belief in a life beyond this terrestrial existence is foreign to him. In the Aryan mind no religion can ever be imagined unless it embodies the conviction that life in some form of other will continue after death.

Laurency (wm3):
1Every religion has some ideas about the hereafter, and they are all wrong. The Christian teaching of hell is the worst of all false teachings and has caused unnecessary suffering in the emotional world to countless people. The only hell there is exists in the physical world, and it is the work of human beings.

Laurency ():
3The Pythagoreans distinguished between three worlds; the mental, emotional, and physical worlds. The Fathers of the Church, who had heard of this tripartite division, but had no idea of what it stood for, invented “heaven, earth, and hell”, also in connection with the Elysian Fields and Hades of the Greeks.

The Track of the Jew
In foreign countries the Jew experienced for the first time something of god as the creator of the universe, of the myths of this creation, of the Fall through sin, of the principles of good and evil, of the immortality of the soul. Here, in its contact with foreign ideas, the Jewish mind showed itself in its characteristic oddity. The images and myths became in its hand anecdotes, the attempt to illustrate an inner experience was interpreted as a material historical fact. The Fall of man, the Sumero-Akkadian symbol for a spiritual event, became a historical narration, the snake was actually nothing but a snake, the apple really an apple, the whole thing an everyday event.

Hitler, Table Talk, November 5, 1941 (Cameron & Stevens):
With the Aryan, the belief in the Beyond often takes a quite childish form; but this belief does represent an effort towards a deepening of things. The man who doesn’t believe in the Beyond has no understanding of religion. The great trick of Jewry was to insinuate itself fraudulently amongst the religions with a religion like Judaism, which in reality is not a religion. Simply, the Jew has put a religious camouflage over his racial doctrine. Everything he undertakes is built on this lie.

Hitler, Political Testament:
Although a number of these men, including Martin Bormann, Dr Goebbels, and others together with their wives have joined me of their own free will, not wishing to leave the capital under any circumstances and prepared to die with me, I implore them to grant my request that they place the welfare of the nation above their own feelings. By their work and loyal companionship they will remain as close to me after my death as I hope my spirit will continue to dwell among them and accompany them always.

Hitler, Table Talk, February 27, 1942 (Cameron & Stevens):
But I shall feel I’m in my proper place if, after my death, I find myself, together with people like me, on some sort of Olympus. I shall be in the company of the most enlightened spirits of all times.

Heinz Linge:
I often noticed that the surrounding mountains inspired Hitler. He once joked that here he stood ‘above the world’ in an environment comparable to Olympus, legendary mount of the gods, but that alone can never have been the motivation for him to put down his private roots on Obersalzberg. Often in quieter moments another reason would surface: the memory of his friend and mentor Dietrich Eckart. Here, not far from the ‘little house on the Göll’ in which the Bavarian writer, poet and dramatist had lived prior to his death, Hitler would often reminisce. Frequently he would remind me of the hero Antaios of Greek legend, who created new energy from his contact with the earth. That Hitler did not envisage Obersalzberg as his ‘eternal’ abode is clear from his intention, more often expressed the longer the war went on, to retire eventually to Linz. But as long as he used the Berghof – and he was still calculating in 1944 how he would need it until 1949 – he regarded himself as domiciled there.

Hermann Giesler, Ein Anderer Hitler, p.g. 197:
Er habe mir schon einmal gesagt, daß ihm eine griechische Sagengestalt symbolhaft vor Augen stehe: Antäus, dem immer wieder Kraft zuströme, wenn er den Beiden berühre. Daß wir diese Kraft in dem ewig sich erneuernden und zuwachsenden Volkskörper gerade im Bauerntum zu finden glaubten, habe nichts mit Romantik zu tun, oder weil dies von jeher so gewesen sei.

Laurency ():
4It is high time it were made clear: C. W. Leadbeater is the only theosophical writer having a scientific way of looking at things, objective and studded with facts… The fact that he sometimes made mistakes does not detract from his importance as an esoteric pedagogue.

To Those Who Mourn
In its rarefied matter, in the spiritual body, a man can move hither and thither as he will; if he loves the beauteous landscape of forest and sea and sky, he may visit at his pleasure all earth’s fairest spots; if he loves art he may spend the whole of his time in the contemplation of the masterpieces of all the greatest painters, and may himself produce masterpieces by the exercise of the wonderful magic of his thought-power; if he be a musician, he may pass from one to the other of the world’s chiefest orchestras, he may spend his time in listening to the most celebrated performers, or with the willing aid of the great Angels of music he may himself give forth such strains as are never heard on earth.
Whatever has been his particular delight on earth — his hobby, as we should say — he has now the fullest liberty to devote himself to it entirely and to follow it out to the utmost, provided only that its enjoyment is that of the intellect or of the higher emotions — that its gratification does not necessitate the possession of a physical body.
Thus it will be seen at once that all rational and decent men are infinitely happier after death than before it, for they have ample time not only for pleasure, but for really satisfactory progress along the lines which interest them most.

BkVI:628-678 The Fields of Elysium
Here is the company of those who suffered wounds fighting
for their country: and those who were pure priests, while they lived,
and those who were faithful poets, singers worthy of Apollo,
and those who improved life, with discoveries in Art or Science,
and those who by merit caused others to remember them:
the brows of all these were bound with white headbands.

To Those Who Mourn
Are there then none in that world who are unhappy? Yes, for that life is necessarily a sequel to this, and the man is in every respect the same man as he was before he left his body. If his enjoyments in this world were low and coarse, he will find himself unable in that world to gratify his desires. A drunkard will suffer from unquenchable thirst, having no longer a body through which it can be assuaged; the glutton will miss the pleasures of the table; the miser will no longer find gold for his gathering. The man who has yielded himself during earth-life to unworthy passions will find them still gnawing at his vitals. The sensualist still palpitates with cravings that can never now be satisfied; the jealous man is still torn by his jealousy, all the more that he can no longer interfere with the action of its object. Such people as these unquestionably do suffer — but only such as these, only those whose proclivities and passions have been coarse and physical in their nature. And even they have their fate absolutely in their own hands. They have but to conquer these inclinations, and they are at once free from the suffering which such longings entail.

BkVI:724-751 The Transmigration of Souls
Why, when life leaves them at the final hour,
still all of the evil, all the plagues of the flesh, alas,
have not completely vanished, and many things, long hardened
deep within, must of necessity be ingrained, in strange ways.

[What’s interesting to note is that Leadbeater never once referenced the Greeks in his formulation, To Those Who Mourn.]

Laurency (kr5):
5The soul lives on for a while after death. The foolish spend this time in the nether world; the wise, on the Elysian Fields. Everywhere the knowledge of pre-existence and reincarnation (not metempsychosis) shines through.

The Riddle of the Universe
The striking resemblance of man’s psychic activity to that of the higher animals—especially our nearest relatives among the mammals—is a familiar fact. Most uncivilized races still make no material distinction between the two sets of mental processes, as the well-known animal fables, the old legends, and the idea of the transmigration of souls prove.

Laurency (L3e11.2):
25The fact that the knowledge of reincarnation has not brought about results in India is due to the superstitious notions held by Hindus on rebirth as well as on the law of reaping, errors that have had a paralysing effect on people rather than affording them energy for action. People do not dare to think or act for fear of making mistakes, not understanding that the motive is the important factor resulting in good or bad reaping, that omission to seize the opportunities offered by life is a serious mistake in life, that inasmuch as life is a unity we have responsibility for each others and should help them to develop.
26The Hindu doctrine of so-called metempsychosis has had the effect that most Hindus do not care for development, but resign to fatalism and seem to think that they have plenty of time. That is a big mistake. They also cause the powers of evolution (the higher kingdoms) extra work to arrange for unnecessary numbers of incarnations. Such drones will get their deserts.

Laurency (L4e4.37):
3Where the Hindus are concerned, it is their superstitious belief in the transmigration of souls (the doctrine that man can be reborn as an animal) and the fatalism of their doctrine of karma that have counteracted self-realization (striving after unity). Both doctrines have had a paralysing effect on their initiative in acting. They dare not act for fear of mistakes: violating the retribution of fate by seeking to alleviate suffering and need. By not “making any new karma” they hope to be finally born into a higher caste.

8. The Jew

Mein Kampf:
One ought to realise that for one Goethe, Nature may bring into existence ten thousand such scribblers who act as the worst kind of germ-carriers in poisoning human soul. It was a terrible thought, and yet one which could not be overlooked, that the greater number of the Jews seemed specially destined by Nature to play this shameful part.

Laurency (L4e5.36):
1Anyone who applies the word “genius” on Strindberg has his own individual criterion of genius. Strindberg must be characterized as the biggest demolisher and corrupter of culture, an apostle of hatred, a poisoner of the public spirit growing. The characters he describes are caricatures, such as they appear when hatred looks at people and enjoys putting the worst construction on them.

[Although August Strindberg was not Jewish, he furnishes an excellent example of what thoroughly Judaized nations regard as cultural. Small wonder that his novel The Red Room was highly acclaimed in Denmark, a country which did the most to help Jews in the 1940s and which has been staunchly pro-Israel. Of course, that doesn’t mean it’s too late for the Danish people. It’s their leaders who have betrayed them. SS Ideology Vol. I has a section titled “The blood of brothers will remain the victor” which pays homage to the bravery and conduct of the Danes in the Second Schleswig War. It’d seem Strindberg’s bouts of anti-Semitism merely amounted to literary exploitation (Jewish caricatures) and for personal gain.

It’s worth pointing out that Strindberg derived heavily from the Jew Otto Weininger’s views on women (I’d add here that I’m only concerned with Weininger’s assessment of the Jewish question). Interestingly enough, the National Socialists had condemned a portrait of Strindberg, by Edvard Munch, as degenerate. Here it’s also worth contrasting the life of Munch and his contemporary Knut Hamsun.]

“Strindberg’s anti-Semitism has no comparable prominence or importance, nor does Mr. Meyer argue that it has. Rather, if Strindberg happens to be in conflict with, say, a Jewish publisher, he simply latches on to that anti-Semitism the Christian tradition provided him with. Wagner’s anti-Semitism is ideological and gigantic, Strindberg’s opportunistic and petty.” (NYT article)

“If only Strindberg had been born in a more liberal country than nineteenth-century Sweden, he would surely have received, if not general acclamation, at least the kind of elitist recognition which he had in Denmark…” (Strindberg: A Biography by ✡Michael Meyer, p.g. 191)

Mein Kampf:
The Jew will stop at nothing. His utterly low-down conduct is so appalling that one really cannot be surprised if in the imagination of our people the Jew is pictured as the incarnation of Satan and the symbol of evil.

All these people who seem to recognize no greater good than power, wealth, and admiration, who will stop at nothing, sneering at every hazard and obstacle, to gain these things, bringing unending turbulence into their lives to that end – these people are, fundamentally and to a man, sensual and leisurely people.

Bolshevism: From Moses to Lenin
Internationalism requires basically good intentions. But the Jew fundamentally and completely lacks these. He hasn’t the remotest idea of classifying himself with the rest of humanity.

Laurency (L5e23):
Since the black ones are lawless, it is much easier for them to win mankind over to their cause. Human egoism is well provided for and the support is much greater. The black ones also work more intensively, which was suggested by the saying “the children of this world are wiser than the children of light”, an esoterism that has always been misinterpreted.

They want to become powerful, rich, and admired – “so they can then sit back and do nothing, enjoy life, and relax. They are active for the purpose of becoming inactive.”

Bolshevism: From Moses to Lenin
His aim is to dominate others in order to extort from them at his leisure.

Because it is exactly this that people deem the greatest advantages of power and money, that neither rich people nor powerful people need work but can purchase or force service from others.

Hitler, Mein Kampf:
Our era is entirely preoccupied with little things which are to no purpose, or rather it is entirely preoccupied in the service of money. Therefore it is not to be wondered at if, with the worship of such an idol, the sense of heroism should entirely disappear.

It is no longer a wonder, then, that money remains this day the world’s idol and greatest driving force; that all human activity revolves around this point; that the desire to enrich oneself is so irresistibly attractive to people that poverty appears the worst of all evils to rich and poor alike.

Laurency ():
2The most common motives for collecting money are probably fear of poverty and striving for the power that wealth affords.
3Many a miser deceives himself by assuring that he collects money to donate it to charities some time. A typical example of the relation between wealth and so-called charity was the man who prayed to god to be given a million so that he could succour a person in distress with one thousand crowns.

Wealth protects you from every future and present lack. It lets people enjoy all possible goods; in this way it puts the Lowest and the Highest into the same class; it gives every human a degree of independence and even influence and power; it creates positions of honor and high standing. Everything that people can seek and desire down here is united in the possession of money.

Mein Kampf:
Simultaneously, the Jew gave himself the air of thirsting after knowledge. He lauded every phase of progress, particularly those phases which led to the ruin of others, for he judges all progress and development from the standpoint of the advantages which these bring to his own people. When it brings him no such advantages, he is the deadly enemy of enlightenment and hates all culture which is real culture as such. All the knowledge which he acquires in the schools of others is exploited by him exclusively in the service of his own race.

Laurency (L5e4):
9Even the agents of the black lodge mostly speak the truth. That is their strength. On certain crucial points, however, they insidiously apply misleading intimations. Or they put known facts and ideas into wrong contexts. The fictions of the mental world are mostly facts put into wrong places.

John F. Kennedy:
As every past generation has had to disenthrall itself from an inheritance of truisms and stereotypes, so in our own time we must move on from the reassuring repetition of stale phrases to a new, difficult, but essential confrontation with reality. For the great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie—deliberate, contrived, and dishonest—but the myth—persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Too often we hold fast to the clichés of our forebears. We subject all facts to a prefabricated set of interpretations. We enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. Mythology distracts us everywhere—in government as in business, in politics as in economics, in foreign affairs as in domestic affairs.

Bolshevism: From Moses to Lenin
“Every time new and promising opportunities for meddling have arisen,” he brought out, “the Jew has been immediately involved. He has demonstrated an uncanny ability to sniff out like a bloodhound anything which was dangerous to him. Having found it, he uses all his cunning to get at it, to divert it, to change its nature, or, at least, to deflect its point from its goal.

Laurency (L5e23):
Whenever the planetary hierarchy through its disciples undertakes something intended to benefit mankind, such a venture is unfailingly met with a corresponding counter-measure from the black lodge. When the planetary hierarchy founded secret knowledge orders, the black lodge was not late to establish its quasi-orders. It has actually happened that information about plans of the hierarchy has reached the black ones so that they have been able to anticipate the agents of the hierarchy. Because the black ones have everywhere their spies who intensively search for all plans, all knowledge ideas, etc.

Mein Kampf:
In order to incur the enmity of the Jew it is not necessary to show any open hostility towards him; it is sufficient if a man is considered capable of opposing the Jew at some time in the future, or of using his abilities and character to enhance the power and position of a nation which the Jew considers hostile to himself.
The Jew’s instinct, which never fails where these problems have to be dealt with, readily discerns the true mentality of those whom he meets in everyday life and those who are not of a kindred spirit may be sure of being listed among his enemies.
Since the Jew is not the object of aggression, but himself the aggressor, he considers as his enemies not only those who attack him, but also those who may be capable of resisting him.

Laurency (L5e23):
1Members of the planetary hierarchy clearly state that wherever they work in the worlds of man, the black lodge is after them and seeks to destroy whatever they achieve. That is why it is necessary that disciples use their understanding and discernment and that their alertness must never relax. If the black ones have succeeded in picking up some detail of the plans of the planetary hierarchy, they will try to prevent it and to launch projects in idealistic disguise and with duped idealists as a deceptive façade.
2Aspirants to discipleship must always count on being put on their black list. Disciples are opposed in all ways. That aspirant who has been accepted as a disciple need not fear the attacks of the black ones, because the defensive resources of the planetary hierarchy are at his disposal. Anyone who is not assured of this defence, however, is wise not to occupy himself with this issue even in his thoughts or talk about it. To be put on the list of the black ones leads to a life-long struggle against secret enemies.

Kreisleiter Stredele:
Gerda Bormann, Bormann Letters, p.g. 193
The Jews were dangerous, because they were obsessed with a belief that they were destined to rule the world, and because they were held in rigid control by the Talmud and the laws of Moses and the prophets.

Laurency (L4e3):
11The obsession of the Jews with their idée fixe of being a chosen people is of all religious delusions the most frightening one. It makes them feel themselves masters of all nations and legislators for all nations. Hence their aggressiveness and sense of being above all laws.

Laurency (L3e18):
13The planetary hierarchy asserts with vigour that in the struggle between justice and injustice, freedom and slavery, for and against consciousness development, the neutrals side with the enemy, whether they want to see it or not. There is no neutrality where evolution is concerned. He who is not for is against. The aggressive ones regard neutrality as a justification for them. Pacifism does not exist for the planetary hierarchy as long as evolution is being combated. The hierarchy does not betray its own, those who fight the “good struggle” against excessive violence and oppression.

Rather we allow them to live freely in our midst despite all their murdering, cursing, blaspheming, lying, and defaming; we protect and shield their synagogues, houses, life, and property. In this way we make them lazy and secure and encourage them to fleece us boldly of our money and goods, as well as to mock and deride us, with a view to finally overcoming us, killing us all for such a great sin, and robbing us of all our property (as they daily pray and hope). Now tell me whether they do not have every reason to be the enemies of us accursed Goyim, to curse us and to strive for our final, complete, and eternal ruin!

Laurency ():
11It has turned out that most reformers of religion were former initiates of esoteric knowledge orders. Luther, for instance, was one of these. His latent learning manifested itself in the “life instinct” that made him react. If in that incarnation he had been initiated anew, and thus received the real knowledge, then his keenness of reform would have found other expressions.


Protocols of Zion

Hitler’s Letters and Notes, p.g. 237:

The ‘Elders of Zion’
Objection: ‘not every Jew knows about it’
What the wise man grasps with his mind
the man in the street grasps instinctively.

Goebbels (Diaries), May 13, 1943:
I have devoted exhaustive study to the Protocols of Zion. In the past the objection was always made that they were not suited to present-day propaganda. In reading them now I find that we can use them very well. The Protocols of Zion are as modern today as they were when published for the first time. . . .  At noon I mentioned this to the Fuehrer. He believed the Protocols were absolutely genuine. . . . The Jewish question, in the Fuehrer’s opinion, will play a decisive role in England, . . . In all the world, he said, the Jews are alike. Whether they live in a ghetto of the East or in the bankers’ palaces of the City or Wall Street, they will always pursue the same aims and without previous agreement even use the same means.

Mein Kampf:
The moment a man arises who profoundly understands the distress of his people and, having diagnosed the evil with perfect accuracy, takes measures to cure it; the moment he fixes his aim and chooses the means to reach it then paltry and pettifogging people become all attention and eagerly follow the doings of this man who has thus come before the public eye.
Just like sparrows who are apparently indifferent, but in reality keenly observant of the movements of their more fortunate companion with the morsel of bread, in order that they may snatch it from him if he should momentarily relax his hold, so it is also with the human species.
All that is needed is that one man should strike out on a new road and then a crowd of poltroons will prick up their ears and begin to hope that some trifling gain may lie at the end of that road.
The moment they think they have discovered where the reward is to be reaped they hasten to find another route by which to reach the goal more quickly.
As soon as a new movement is founded and has formulated a definite programme, people of that kind come forward and proclaim that they are fighting for the same cause.
This does not imply that they are honestly ready to join the ranks of such a movement and thus recognise its right of priority. It implies rather that they intend to steal the programme and found a new party.

Hitler, Memoirs of a Confidant, p.g. 70-71:
The Jew’s parasite brain works quickly with its sixth sense. It thinks: if I can no longer engage in my parasitism in its previous form, then I must simply look for some opportunity in the new, the coming form. Until now, it was my highest aim to gain power in the state in order to secure my domination and my way of life. Now, if new forms of government develop, we must simply try to seize power in the newly formed state. Since the new form will be brought about by revolution and the industrialization of the subjugated working masses, it will be simplest to start by assuming leadership during the revolution. Then we will be able to use the revolution to bring about, by straightforward means, both the new state and our new domination: the state of the working masses, whom we command, and which we rule!
It is hard for me to believe the Jew so purposeful and intellectually superior that he actually submitted these considerations so systematically in the councils of the Elders of Zion; that from the first he thought them through in the way he just elaborated—that would be uncanny. But his sixth sense guides him instinctively and unconsciously along the correct path, where, admittedly, consciousness has long since come to him.

[Some (such as V. K. Clark, that disciple of Richard C. Carrier, who has carried on a feud with the excellent translator Carolyn Yeager, who has on multiple occasions pointed out Clark’s distortion of facts) would like to misconstrue this statement from Hitler as an outright dismissal of the Protocols’ authenticity. But as the above quotes should sufficiently demonstrate, Hitler was consistently persuaded of it’s authenticity. Here, Hitler is merely showing skepticism for the discourse having been delivered in it’s original form.]

Laurency ():
1During many years Platon (Latinized: Plato) was in a position to listen to Sokrates’ talks with the sophists and others interested in the problems of life. Many of Platon’s dialogues would seem to be reports of such discussions. It is obvious that he improved in a superior way on what he had heard. Unprepared discussions are not as logical as these. No talks are recorded that exactly.


Mein Kampf:
How much the whole existence of this people is based on a permanent falsehood is proved in a unique way by ‘The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,’ which are so violently repudiated by the Jews. With groans and moans, the Frankfurter Zeitung repeats again and again that these are forgeries. This alone is evidence in favour of their authenticity. What many Jews unconsciously wish to do is here clearly set forth.
It is not necessary to ask out of what Jewish brain these revelations sprang, but what is of vital interest is that they disclose, with an almost terrifying precision, the mentality and methods of action characteristic of the Jewish people and these writings expound, in all their various aspects, the final aims towards which the Jews are striving. The study of real happenings, however, is the best way of judging the authenticity of these documents.

Laurency (wm9):
Mephisto, in Goethe’s Faust, enunciated an esoteric fact when saying that his force was a portion of that power which always desires evil and always creates good. However, the black ones are absolute opponents of evolution and implacable enemies of all those who make a contribution to evolution, so that you are fully justified in regarding them as the enemies of life, the very incarnations of all evil in existence.

Mein Kampf:
Simultaneously, the Jew gave himself the air of thirsting after knowledge. He lauded every phase of progress, particularly those phases which led to the ruin of others, for he judges all progress and development from the standpoint of the advantages which these bring to his own people. When it brings him no such advantages, he is the deadly enemy of enlightenment and hates all culture which is real culture as such. All the knowledge which he acquires in the schools of others is exploited by him exclusively in the service of his own race.

Mein Kampf:
Therefore, the Jewish intellect will never be constructive, but always destructive. At best, it may serve as a stimulus in rare cases, but only in the limited meaning of the poet’s [Goethe’s] lines, “The Power which always wills the bad, and always works the good” (Die stets Böse will und stets das Gute schafft.).

Mein Kampf:
Moved by my own daily experiences, I now began to investigate more thoroughly the sources of the Marxist teaching itself. Its effects were well known to me in detail, one needed only a little imagination in order to be able to forecast the inevitable consequences.
The only question now was, ‘Did the founders foresee the effects of their work in the form which it was eventually to assume, or were the founders themselves the victims of an error?’
To my mind both, alternatives were possible.
If the second question had to be answered in the affirmative, then it was the duty of every thinking person to push his way into the forefront of this sinister movement with a view to preventing it from producing the worst possible results.
But if it were the first question which had to be answered in the affirmative, then it must be admitted that the original authors of this evil which has infected the nations were devils incarnate, for only the brain of a monster, and not that of a man, could plan an organisation whose activities must finally bring about the collapse of human civilisation and turn this world into a desert waste.
Laurency (L5e23):
3There are two categories of soulless people… The second category are those who have gone so far in evil that they cannot long for the good, noble, beautiful, true…
4In “esoteric” literature it has been asserted that soulless people cannot incarnate any more. This is true only of the second category of soulless people, however…
5Thus there are soulless people for whom there is still some hope. They are characterized by their lack of understanding of the necessity of evolution and welfare of everybody. They gladly join organizations which emphasize the welfare of their own groups at the expense of other groups or individuals. Such organizations are characterized by an all-pervading psychosis to which the individual members fall prey.
196A soulless individual may very well be friends with people, may often be highly popular and be considered by public opinion as a true man of honour and a benefactor. But if someone stands in the way of his intentions or is perceived by him as dangerous or revealing, then that individual must be prepared for a great deal of trouble.

[One should study up on the phenomenon of psychopathy when studying the Jewish question. One will discover profound similarities. Not to say that all Jews are “soulless”, but they’re well on their way.]

Hitler, Table Talk, December 1, 1941 (Jochmann):
I am convinced that there have been Jews among us who have been decent in the sense that they have abstained from any action directed against the Germans. How many there were is hard to say. But none has entered the fight for the Germans against his fellow Jews!

✡Otto Weininger:
I desire at this point again to lay stress on the fact, although it should be self-evident, that, in spite of my low estimate of the Jew, nothing could be further from my intention than to lend the faintest support to any practical or theoretical persecution of Jews. I am dealing with Judaism, in the platonic sense, as an idea. There is no more an absolute Jew than an absolute Christian. I am not speaking against the individual, whom, indeed, if that had been so, I should have wounded grossly and unnecessarily. Watchwords, such as “Buy only from Christians,” have in reality a Jewish taint; they have a meaning only for those who regard the race and not the individual. I have no wish to boycott the Jew, or by any such immoral means to attempt to solve the Jewish question. Nor will Zionism solve that question; as H. S. Chamberlain has pointed out, since the destruction of the Temple at Jerusalem, Judaism has ceased to be national, and has become a spreading parasite, straggling all over the earth and finding true root nowhere. Before Zionism is possible, the Jew must first conquer Judaism.
To defeat Judaism, the Jew must first understand himself and war against himself. So far, the Jew has reached no further than to make and enjoy jokes against his own peculiarities. Unconsciously he respects the Aryan more than himself. Only steady resolution, united to the highest self-respect, can free the Jew from Jewishness. This resolution, be it ever so strong, ever so honourable, can only be understood and carried out by the individual, not by the group. Therefore the Jewish question can only be solved individually; every single Jew must try to solve it in his proper person. There is no other solution to the question and can be no other; Zionism will never succeed in answering it.


I felt personally challenged by Buddhist meditation, which seemed to make its practitioners calmer, wiser, more capable of dealing with difficult emotions. These were qualities I had not found in myself. In our dialogue, the Tibetans wanted to know the path and the goal of our belief system and how it helps us overcome painful feelings. Until then I had never thought to ask such questions of Judaism. For me, being Jewish was wrapped up in our collective history, my family, my identity. I had never before considered Jewishness as a spiritual path.

Laurency ():
9It is interesting to hear Jews describe how they receive their religious instruction. They are made to read the scriptures, and the rabbis see to it that any attempt at reflection on what is being read is stopped at once. Read, read, read, do not think. It is all crammed up, and then you are through with your study. No arguments about it. Religious problems are not to be discussed. Yahweh (Yhwh) does not allow such things. If his peculiar people violated this command, he would reject them.

Mein Kampf:
The great masses can be rescued, but a lot of time and a great deal of patience must be devoted to such work. A Jew, on the other hand, can never be rescued from his fixed notions. I was then simple enough to attempt to show them the absurdity of their teaching. Within my small circle I talked to them until my throat ached and my voice grew hoarse. I believed that I could finally convince them of the danger inherent in the Marxist nonsense.
But I achieved the very opposite. It seemed to me that a growing insight into the disastrous effects of the Social Democratic doctrine in theory and in practice only served to strengthen their opposition.

They have failed to learn any lesson from the terrible distress that has been theirs for over fourteen hundred years in exile. Nor can they obtain any end or definite terminus of this, as they suppose, by means of the vehement cries and laments to God. If these blows do not help, it is reasonable to assume that our talking and explaining will help even less.

Goebbels (Diaries), May 13, 1943:
There is no hope of leading the Jews back into the fold of civilized humanity by exceptional punishments. They will forever remain Jews, just as we are forever members of the Aryan race.

9. Emperor Julian’s philosophy

Leon Degrelle:
The Enigma of Hitler
[Hitler] knew Julian the Apostate as if he had been his contemporary.

[This piece is from the introduction by Leon Degrelle (1906- 1994) to the second volume of his uncompleted series of books on Hitler’s life and legacy, which was provisionally titled “The Hitler Century.”]

Hitler, Table Talk, October 21, 1941 (Jochmann):

21. Oktober 1941, mittags
The boss said, with reference to the book, “The pyre,”110 as follows: If we see how clearly our best men have already recognized the effects of Christianity a hundred or two hundred years ago, it is almost a shame that we are still are not further. I did not know at all how clearly a man like Julian had judged Christians and Christianity. One has to read it once. Christianity was all destructive bolshevism. The Galilean, who was later called Christ, wanted something entirely different. He was a national leader who took a stand against Judaism. Galilee was certainly a colony in which the Romans had settled Gallic legionaries, and Jesus was certainly not a Jew. The Jews also called him a hurensohn, the son of a whore and a Roman soldier.

109 This conversation was recorded and signed by Reichsleiter Martin Bormann himself.

110 The pyre (The Funeral Pile, Burned at the Stake). Words of Great Heretics. Der Scheiterhaufen. Worte großer Ketzer. Edited by Kurt Eggers. Dortmund, 1941.

Hitler, Table Talk, October 25, 1941 (Jochmann):
The book with the sayings of Emperor Julian should be spread in millions: A wonderful insight, ancient wisdom, a recognition, it is fantastic! In general: with what clarity [the authors] of the eighteenth century and, above all, the last century, judged the Christianity and the development which the Church has taken!121

121 This is again the collection of quotations by Kurt Eggers, cf. Note 71.

Hitler, Table Talk, January 27, 1942 (Jochmann):
It would be better to speak of “Constantine the traitor” and of “Julian the faithful,” instead of calling one the Great and the other the apostate. What Christianity has written against Julian is the same Wortgeblödel which has been poured out on us in Jewish literature, while the writings of Julian are pure wisdom. If humanity were to study history, what consequences would arise! To preserve Europe before the repetition of such a crisis will once be celebrated as the merit of fascism and national socialism.

Philosophical Dictionary
At the present day — after having compared facts, memorials and records, the writings of Julian and those of his enemies — we are compelled to acknowledge that, if he was not partial to Christianity, he was somewhat excusable in hating a sect stained with the blood of all his family; and that although he had been persecuted, imprisoned, exiled, and threatened with death by the Galileans, under the reign of the cruel and sanguinary Constantius, he never persecuted them, but on the contrary even pardoned ten Christian soldiers who had conspired against his life.
His letters are read and admired: “The Galileans,” says he, “under my predecessor, suffered exile and imprisonment; and those who, according to the change of circumstances, were called heretics, were reciprocally massacred in their turn. I have called home their exiles, I have liberated their prisoners, I have restored their property to those who were proscribed, and have compelled them to live in peace; but such is the restless rage of these Galileans that they deplore their inability any longer to devour one another.”
What a letter! What a sentence, dictated by philosophy, against persecuting fanaticism. Ten Christians conspiring against his life, he detects and he pardons them. How extraordinary a man! What dastardly fanatics must those be who attempt to throw disgrace on his memory!


Emperor Julian (Der Scheiterhaufen, p.g. 18-19):

[To Atarbius, 362, Const. or Antioch]
By the gods! It is not my intention that all Christians should be killed and abused. But I find this in order and commend it herewith: that all those who have remained faithful to the faith of their fathers are granted an advantage.
Bei den Göttern! MeinWille ist es nicht, dass alle Christen getötet und misshandelt werden sollen. Das aber finde ich in Ordnung und befehle es hiermit: Dass allen, die dem Glauben ihrer Väter treu geblieben sind, ein Vorzug eingeräumt wird.

Christianity can neither form statesmen, nor instill manly courage or patriotism. – It is just as incapable of it as it’s mother, Judaism!
Das Christentum vermag weder Staatsmänner zu bilden, noch männlichen Mut oder vaterländische Gesinnung einzuflössen. – Es ist dazu ebensowenig in der Lage, wie seine Mutter, das Judentum!

[Against the Galileans]
But if this that I assert is the truth, point out to me among the Hebrews a single general like Alexander or Caesar! You have no such man; let alone the Christians!
Binen Feldherrn, wie Alexander oder einen Cäsar zeigt mir bei den Juden; geschweige denn bei den Christen!

[Against the Galileans]
Now this would be a clear proof: Choose out children from among you all and train and educate them in the “holy scripture”. If they, having become men, prove themselves to be somewhat more efficient than the slaves, then you may regard me as a fool and a madman.
Wählt unter euch Knaben und lasst sie in der “Heiligen Schrift” unterrichten. Wenn sie, Männer geworden, sich auch nur etwas tüchtiger erweisen sollten als die Sklaven, so mögt ihr mich für einen Toren und Verrückten halten.

[To Atarbius, 362, Const. or Antioch]
Almost everything has perished from the foolishness of the Christians. Only the grace of the gods can still bring us salvation.
Durch die Narrheit der Christen ist beinahe alles zugrunde gegangen. Nur die Gnade der Götter kann uns noch Rettung bringen.

Christianity, as a result of its abominable principles of life, is a religion for innkeepers, tax collectors, dancers, and similar rabble.
Das Christentum ist infolge seiner abscheulichen Lebensgrundsätze eine Religion für Schenkwirte, Zöllner, Tänzer und änhliches Gelichter!

One must hate the intelligentsia among you, but pity the simple ones, who, as your followers, have fallen so deeply into ruin that they betrayed the eternal gods and passed over to a dead Jew.

Now that the human race possesses its knowledge of God by nature and not from teaching is proved to us first of all by the universal yearning for the divine that is in all men whether private persons or communities, whether considered as individuals or as races.
Hitler, Table Talk, July 11-12, 1941 (Cameron & Stevens):
Man has discovered in nature the wonderful notion of that all-mighty being whose law he worships. Fundamentally in everyone there is the feeling for this all-mighty, which we call God (that is to say, the dominion of natural laws throughout the whole universe).
Hitler, Table Talk, July 11-12, 1941 (Jochmann):
, [hs. Bormann’s Addition: namely, the reign of natural laws throughout the universe.]

Wir werden allenfalls die Gesetze kennenlernen, nach denen sich das Leben der Naturwesenheiten bestimmt; wenn es hoch kommt, werden wir unserem Dasein das Wissen um das Naturgesetz nutzbar machen können; aber warum das Gesetz waltet, erfahren wir nicht. Das versteht sich von selbst: Unser Standort erlaubt uns nicht, in andere Ebenen hineinzusehen.

Dafür hat der Mensch den wunder-schönen Begriff von der Allmacht gefunden, deren Walten er verehrt. Zum Atheismus wollen wir nicht erziehen. In jedem Menschen lebt das Ahnungsvermögen, was das Walten dessen angeht, das man Gott nennt, [hs. Zusatz Bormanns: Nämlich das Walten der Naturgesetze im gesamten Universum.]

Hitler, Memoirs of a Confidant, p.g. 224:
For me, God is the Logos of St. John, which has become flesh and lives in the world, interwoven with it and pervading it, conferring on it drives and driving force, and constituting the actual meaning and content of the world.

Hitler, Memoirs of a Confidant, p.g. 314:
So if I assume for the sake of argument that Goldzier was somehow correct, it follows that the task assigned to the creatures of the earth is: to consume and pass on earth-electricity. In this connection, I am repeatedly reminded of the Gospel of St. John, which begins with the words, ‘In the beginning was the “Logos”’–which is why I translate it as ‘urge.’ Quite simply, in the beginning was the urge to fulfill this purpose of earthly life. From it, the instinct of self-preservation developed logically, as did the instinct to be fruitful and multiply. They are meant to carry out this task presented by nature, this meaning of all life, as long and as abundantly as possible–that is, to the greatest conceivable extent.

[Before 1910, Hitler had come across some pamphlets by a Viennese engineer named Hans Goldzier: “Given his name, he might have been a Jew, and perhaps that was why he began writing under the name Th. Newest. I was deeply impressed by Goldzier’s ideas, but subsequently I never heard anything more about him or his theories. I only know that, as an engineer, he was involved in the building of the Simplon Tunnel.”]

Laurency (L5e7):
72Priests fable about the “will of god”, as if they had access to the consciousness of the planetary ruler in his world (28), as if he “commanded” anything, as if the will of god were a ruthless power.
The will of god is rather what the scientist calls “forces of nature and life”, what the esoterician calls the “individual’s instinctive urge to develop”, his striving after insight and understanding. What the will of god actually is, his endeavour, his intentions, his tasks in his worlds, is beyond the possible knowledge or understanding of even the planetary hierarchy.

Hitler, Memoirs of a Confidant, p.g. 172:
There are those poor creatures, bending their knees and wringing their praying hands before carved wooden figures, and those great hypocrites hoodwink them into believing that, thanks to this behavior, their souls will sizzle a few days less in the fires of hell. But the true link to God, the elevated consciousness of being a divine creature–that is driven out of them and forbidden them!
Here is where I see the λόγος of St. John, which Luther unfortunately translated as ‘word.’ Goethe tried to rectify the error with the critical lines: ‘I cannot possibly place such a high value on the word, I must translate it differently,’ and he said: ‘In the beginning was the deed.’
But I say: ‘In the beginning was the urge! And the urge existed from eternity! And the urge was a creation of God, and God himself was this urge.’ And the urge was the spark of life, which resides in us as well. And though it rose to consciousness in man, we pass it by, as Christ already bemoaned.

Hitler, Memoirs of a Confidant, p.g. 314:
So if I assume for the sake of argument that Goldzier was somehow correct, it follows that the task assigned to the creatures of the earth is: to consume and pass on earth-electricity. In this connection, I am repeatedly reminded of the Gospel of St. John, which begins with the words, ‘In the beginning was the “Logos”’–which is why I translate it as ‘urge.’ Quite simply, in the beginning was the urge to fulfill this purpose of earthly life. From it, the instinct of self-preservation developed logically, as did the instinct to be fruitful and multiply. They are meant to carry out this task presented by nature, this meaning of all life, as long and as abundantly as possible–that is, to the greatest conceivable extent.

Already in Linz, Adolf had started to read the classics. Of Goethe’s Faust he once remarked that it contained more than the human mind could grasp. Once he saw, at the Burg Theatre, the rarely performed second part, with Joseph Kainz in the title role. Adolf was very moved and spoke of it for a long time. It is natural that, of Schiller’s works, Wilhelm Tell affected him most deeply.

Mein Kampf:
Therefore, the Jewish intellect will never be constructive, but always destructive. At best, it may serve as a stimulus in rare cases, but only in the limited meaning of the poet’s [Goethe’s] lines, “The Power which always wills the bad, and always works the good” (Die stets Böse will und stets das Gute schafft.).


Though the logos is common, the many live as if they had a wisdom of their own.

For all of us, without being taught, have attained to a belief in some sort of divinity, though it is not easy for all men to know the precise truth about it, nor is it possible for those who do know it to tell it to all men.

There never was nor will be a man who has certain knowledge about the gods and about all the things I speak of. Even if he should chance to say the complete truth, yet he himself knows not that it is so. But all may have their fancy.

It is, however, not easy for a man to know what these are, unless he obtains this knowledge from one who has heard God, or has heard God himself, or procures it through divine art. Hence also, the Pythagoreans were studious of divination.

The first point relating to the Jews which is fitted to excite wonder, is that they should worship the heaven and the angels who dwell therein, and yet pass by and neglect its most venerable and powerful parts, as the sun, the moon, and the other heavenly bodies, both fixed stars and planets, as if it were possible that ‘the whole’ could be God, and yet its parts not divine…

Still more unreasonably: There are men, bound to human bodies and subject to desire, grief, anger, who think so generously of their own faculty that they declare themselves in contact with the Intelligible World, but deny that the sun possesses a similar faculty less subject to influence, to disorder, to change; they deny that it is any wiser than we, the late born, hindered by so many cheats on the way towards truth.
Their own soul, the soul of the least of mankind, they declare deathless, divine; but the entire heavens and the stars within the heavens have had no communion with the Immortal Principle, though these are far purer and lovelier than their own souls…

What need have I to summon Hellenes and Hebrews as witnesses of this? There exists no man who does not stretch out his hands towards the heavens when he prays; and whether he swears by one god or several, if he has any notion at all of the divine, he turns heavenward. And it was very natural that men should feel thus.
For since they observed that in what concerns the heavenly bodies there is no increase or diminution or mutability, and that they do not suffer any unregulated influence, but their movement is harmonious and their arrangement in concert; and that the illuminations of the moon are regulated, and that the risings and settings of the sun are regularly defined, and always at regularly defined seasons, they naturally conceived that the heaven is a god and the throne of a god.
For a being of that sort, since it is not subject to increase by addition, or to diminution by subtraction, and is stationed beyond all change due to alteration and mutability, is free from decay and generation, and inasmuch as it is immortal by nature and indestructible, it is pure from every sort of stain. Eternal and ever in movement, as we see, it travels in a circuit about the great Creator, whether it be impelled by a nobler and more divine soul that dwells therein, just as, I mean, our bodies are by the soul in us, or having received its motion from God Himself, it wheels in its boundless circuit, in an unceasing and eternal career.

Translated by Alberto A. Martinez
Behold, when a man meditates, he extends his thoughts above the Sun, & then higher, & then wanders beyond the sky, & finally conceives the infinite outer worlds, as the Epicureans themselves realized, giving the truth.
Ecce quando homo meditatur, extendit cogitationes fuas fupra folem,& deinde fuperius,& deinde extra coelum vagatur,& tandem infinitos extra mundos intelligit, ficut & Epicurei ipfi intelligunt, ponúntq; in veritate.


Now I am aware that the great philosopher Plato, and after him a man who, though he is later in time, is by no means inferior to him in genius — I mean Iamblichus of Chalcis, who through his writings initiated me not only into other philosophic doctrines but these also — I am aware, I say, that they employed as a hypothesis the conception of a generated world, and assumed for it, so to speak, a creation in time in order that the magnitude of the works that arise from Helios might be recognised. But apart from the fact that I fall short altogether of their ability, I must by no means be so rash; especially since the glorious hero Iamblichus thought it was not without risk to assume, even as a bare hypothesis, a temporal limit for the creation of the world.

But if you wish to meet with a more complete and more mystical treatment of the same theme, then read the writings of the inspired Iamblichus on this subject, and you will find there the most consummate wisdom which man can achieve. And may mighty Helios grant that I too may attain to no less perfect knowledge of himself, and that I may instruct all men, speaking generally, but especially those who are worthy to learn. And so long as Helios grants let us all in common revere Iamblichus, the beloved of the gods. For he is the source for what I have here set down, a few thoughts from many, as they occurred to my mind. However I know well that no one can utter anything more perfect than he, nay not though he should labour long at the task and say very much that is new. For he will naturally diverge thereby from the truest knowledge of the god.

To Priscus, 358-359
Hunt up for me all the writings of Iamblichus to his namesake. Only you can do this, for your sister’s son-in-law owns a thoroughly revised version. And, if I am not mistaken, while I was writing this sentence, a marvellous sign was vouchsafed me. I entreat you not to let Theodorus and his followers deafen you too by their assertions that Iamblichus, that truly godlike man, who ranks next to Pythagoras and Plato, was worldly and self-seeking. But if it be rash to declare my own opinion to you, I may reasonably expect you to excuse me, as one excuses those who are carried away by a divine frenzy. You are yourself an ardent admirer of Iamblichus for his philosophy and of his namesake for his theosophy. And I too think, like Apollodorus, that the rest are not worth mentioning compared with those two.

The divine Iamblichus, therefore, says rightly, that the whole theory of Plato is comprehended in these two dialogues, the Timaeus and Parmenides.

Laurency ():
4Platon was an initiate not only of the Orphic Mysteries but also of the Pythagorean Order, which was moved to Athens by Pythagoras’ disciple, Kleinias.
5To understand Platon, especially his doctrine of ideas and remembrance anew, one must know the Pythagorean world view on which his authorship was based. What Platon wanted was to give people a hint about higher worlds, reincarnation, and consciousness development, without betraying anything of esoterics. Hence the difficulties with which he had to wrestle.

That the design of the Platonic Timaeus embraces the whole of physiology, and that it pertains to the theory of the universe, discussing this from the beginning to the end, appears to me to be clearly evident to those who are not entirely illiterate. For this very treatise of the Pythagoric Timasus Concerning Nature, is written after the Pythagoric manner; and Plato being thence impelled, applied himself to write the Timaeus, according to Sillographus.

Plato however alone, following the Pythagoreans, delivers indeed, as the concauses of natural things, a universal recipient, and material form, which are subservient to causes properly so called, in the generation of things. But prior to these, he investigates principal causes, viz. the producing cause, the paradigm, and the final cause. Hence also, he places a demiurgic intellect over the universe, and an intelligible cause in which the universe primarily subsists, and The Good, which is established prior to the producing cause, in the order of the desirable.

Laurency ():
1Schiller refused to accept any one of the existing religions for religious reasons. He refused to accept any one of the existing philosophical systems for philosophical reasons. No writer has interpreted Platon as correctly as he did. This shows that he was on the verge of the causal stage. This is a thing that doctors of literature should consider before they find fault with him. If they could grasp the meaning of what is said here!

The Wonders of Life
Schiller has rightly brought the intelligible world visibly before us by treating it as a poet, and thus following in the footsteps of Plato, who, in contradiction to his own dialectic, reached his highest thought when he allowed the supersensual to become a thing of sense in the myth.


10. Clarification on racial purity

Like so many ‘world improvers’ before and after him, Hitler, too, was convinced that he had discovered and grasped what historians and philosophers had sought for millennia – the ‘eternal course of history’. Since early on he came to see himself as a political genius, as someone who had lifted the veil of history and discovered the final truth, the draft for a ‘monumental history of mankind’ he wrote at the start of the political career is of extraordinary history.

— Werner Maser

Hitler’s Letters and Notes, p.g 284:
The Germanic Revolution

Racial purity the highest law.

Miscegenation with inferior types means lowering the level of the whole [last word illegible]

Mein Kampf:
In short, the results of miscegenation are always the following:
(a) The level of the superior race becomes lowered;
(b) physical and mental degeneration sets in, thus leading slowly but steadily towards a progressive drying up of the vital sap.

Hitler, Mein Kampf:
The Aryan neglected to maintain his own racial stock unmixed and therewith lost the right to live in the paradise which he himself had created. He became submerged in the racial mixture and gradually lost his cultural creativeness, until he finally grew, not only mentally but also physically, more like the aborigines whom he had subjected rather than his own ancestors.

Platon, Critias (✝Benjamin Jowett):
By such reflections and by the continuance in them of a divine nature, the qualities which we have described grew and increased among them; but when the divine portion began to fade away, and became diluted too often and too much with the mortal admixture, and the human nature got the upper hand, they then, being unable to bear their fortune, behaved unseemly, and to him who had an eye to see grew visibly debased, for they were losing the fairest of their precious gifts; but to those who had no eye to see the true happiness, they appeared glorious and blessed at the very time when they were full of avarice and unrighteous power.

[A comparison with Thomas Taylor’s translation of Critias will reveal that the two translations are quite different. Why did the Christian theologian Jowett translate it the way he did? The Corpus Hermiticum also suggests a deterioration in mentality and conduct: “and the survivors will be known for Egyptians by their tongue alone, but in their actions they will seem to be men of another race.” It also explicitly mentions immigration from foreigners as a precedent of decline.]

✡Benjamin Disraeli:
What would be the consequence on the great Anglo-Saxon republic, for example, were its citizens to secede from their sound principle of reserve, and mingle with their negro and coloured populations? In the course of time they would become so deteriorated that their states would probably be reconquered and regained by the aborigines whom they have expelled and who would then be their superiors.

Hitler’s Letters and Notes, p.g 283:
The Germanic Revolution

confused and muddled – (Lord Disraeli) Basic Race Law –

Hitler, April 26, 1942 speech:
When understanding and reason have apparently been silenced in international life, then this does not necessarily mean that there is not a rational will somewhere, even if from the outside only stupidity and stubbornness can be discerned as causes. The British Jew, Lord Disraeli, once said that the racial question is the key to world history. We National Socialists have been raised in this belief. By devoting ourselves to the essence of the racial question, we have obtained clarification of many events that would otherwise appear to defy understanding.

SS-Hauptamt, Rassenpolitik:
Yet the Jews are one of the most racially conscious peoples. The laws of the Old Testament and the Talmud strongly prohibit marriage with Gentiles. Leading Jews have always stressed the importance of race and racial purity. Even the Soviet Union, otherwise opposed to race, had passed measures to protect Jewish blood. The most familiar statement comes from the Jew Benjamin Disraeli (originally d’Israeli, later Lord Beaconsfeld), the longtime British prime minister:

No man will treat with indifference the principle of race. It is the key of history, and why history is often so confused is that it has been written by men who were ignorant of this principle and all the knowledge it involves. As one who may become a statesman and assist in governing mankind, it is necessary that you should not be insensible to it; whether you encounter its influence in communities or in individuals, its qualities must ever be taken into account.” (Endymion)

Race and purity of blood are what constitute a type, and nowhere has this type been more carefully preserved than among the Jews. I remember once calling upon a distinguished Jewish gentleman. Mr. D’Israeli, as he was then, had just left him. “What did you talk about?” I asked at haphazard. “Oh,” said my host, “the usual thing — the Race.”

[Now I would have the reader look at another aspect of the problem.]

Platon, Critias (✝Benjamin Jowett):
But when the divine portion began to fade away, and became diluted too often and too much with the mortal admixture, and the human nature got the upper hand,

Platon, Critias (Thomas Taylor):
But when that portion of divinity, or divine destiny, which they enjoyed, vanished from among them, in consequence of being frequently mingled with much of a mortal nature, and human manners prevailed,—then, being no longer able to bear the events of the present life, they acted in a disgraceful manner.

Genesis 6 LXX
2And it came to pass when men began to be numerous upon the earth, and daughters were born to them,
3that the sons of God having seen the daughters of men that they were beautiful, took to themselves wives of all whom they chose.
4And the Lord God said, My Spirit shall certainly not remain among these men for ever, because they are flesh, but their days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

Laurency (L5e21.24):
3Also different races and nationalities involving different racial instincts entail risks for the parties and their children, risks that are unnecessarily great. Mixture of races is always a mistake. It conflicts with the “natural order”. Certainly individuals of the same esoteric group may be found incarnated in different races. But then this implies for the esoterician that marriage between two such individuals in that particular incarnation would be a mistake. They have been given other tasks than marrying each other.
Laurency (l5_21):
3Även olika ras- och nationstillhörighet med olika rasinstinkter medför onödigt stor risk för egen del och barnens. Rasblandning är alltid ett misstag. Det strider mot “naturens ordning”. Visst kan man återfinna individer tillhörande samma esoteriska grupp inkarnerade i olika raser. Men det betyder för esoterikern, att äktenskap mellan dessa just den inkarnationen vore ett misstag. De ha fått andra uppgifter än att gifta sig med varandra.

[It’s interesting how Laurency did not condone Hitler’s racial purity yet recognized that an unmatching racial pair would counteract development.]

Laurency (kl1_9.31):
1How different would not marriages be if the contracting parties had some knowledge of mankind’s various stages of development and understood that by human love is meant physical, emotional, and mental attraction?
The ancients expressed that understanding in the wisdom saying: “Birds of a feather flock together”. Children grown up under similar social and cultural conditions have the best prospects of understanding each other.
The better possibilities man and wife have of understanding everything in their life together, the better prospects of a happy marriage they have. The greater the differences between them in world view and life view, in their outlook on all human problems, the greater is the risk of disharmony in marriage.
How many have understood that ancient experience of life?
Modern marriages bear witness, like almost everything else, to the democracy of our times with its total disorientation.


The phrase also appears in ✝Benjamin Jowett‘s 1856 translation of Plato’s Republic. Clearly, if it were present in the original Greek text then, at around 380BC, Plato’s work would be a much earlier reference to it. What appears in Jowett’s version is:

Men of my age flock together; we are birds of a feather, as the old proverb says.

Mein Kampf:
Even a superficial glance is sufficient to show that all the innumerable forms in which the life-urge of Nature manifests itself are subject to a fundamental law—one may call it an iron law of Nature—which compels the various species to keep within the definite limits of their own life-forms when propagating and multiplying their kind.
Each animal mates only with one of its own species. The titmouse cohabits only with the titmouse, the finch with the finch, the stork with the stork, the field-mouse with the field-mouse, the house-mouse with the house-mouse, the wolf with the she-wolf, etc.
Deviations from this law take place only in exceptional circumstances. This happens especially under the compulsion of captivity, or when some other obstacle makes procreative intercourse impossible between individuals of the same species.
Nature abhors such irregular intercourse with all her might and her protest is most clearly demonstrated by the fact that the hybrid is either sterile, or the fecundity of its descendants is limited.

In the fifth book of Moses (Deuteronomy vi. 5) are to be found words similar to these quoted from Christ’s sayings (from Matthew xxii. 37), but — we must look at the context! Before the commandment to love (to our mind a peculiar conception — to love by command) stands as the first and most important commandment (verse 2), “Thou shalt fear the Lord, thy God, to keep all his statutes and his commandments”; the commandment to love is only one among other commandments which the Jew shall observe and immediately after it comes the reward for this love (verse 10 ff.). “I shall give thee great and goodly cities, which thou buildedst not, and houses full of all good things which thou filledst not, and wells digged which thou diggedst not, vineyards and olive-trees, which thou plantedst not, &c.” That kind of love may be compared to the love which underlies so many marriages at the present day!

Mein Kampf:
This Judaising of our spiritual life and mammonising of our natural instinct for procreation will sooner or later work havoc with our whole posterity. Instead of strong, healthy children, the product of natural feelings, we shall see miserable specimens of humanity resulting from economic calculation, for economic considerations are becoming more and more the foundation and the sole preliminary condition of marriage while love looks for an outlet elsewhere. Here as elsewhere, one may defy Nature for a certain period of time, but sooner or later she will take her inevitable revenge, and when man realises this truth, it is often too late.
Our own nobility furnishes an example of the devastating consequences that result from a persistent refusal to recognise the primary conditions necessary for normal wedlock. Here we are face to face with the results of procreation which is, on the one hand, determined by social pressure and, on the other, by financial considerations. The one leads to inherited debility, and the other to adulteration of the blood-strain; for all the Jewish daughters of the department store proprietors are looked upon as eligible mates to co-operate in propagating his lordship’s stock, and the stock certainly looks it. All this leads to absolute degeneration.
Nowadays our bourgeoisie is making efforts to follow in the same path. Theirs will be a similar fate.

✡Theodor Herzl:
Those who really wished to see the Jews disappear through intermixture with other nations, can only hope to see it come about in one way. The Jews must previously acquire economic power sufficiently great to overcome the old social prejudice against them. An example is provided by the aristocracy, among which the greatest proportion of intermarriage occurs. The old nobility has itself refurbished with Jewish money, and in the process Jewish families are absorbed. But what form would this phenomenon assume in the middle classes, where (the Jews being a bourgeois people) the Jewish question is mainly concentrated?

Mein Kampf:
Even as late as the time of Frederick the Great nobody looked upon the Jews as other than a ‘foreign’ people, and Goethe rose up in revolt against the failure legally to prohibit marriage between Christians and Jews. Goethe was certainly no reactionary and no timeserver; through him there spoke the voice of the blood and the voice of reason. Notwithstanding the disgraceful happenings taking place in Court circles, the people recognised instinctively that the Jew was the foreign body in their own flesh and their attitude towards him was dictated by recognition of that fact.


Hitler, Table Talk (Cameron & Stevens), March 1, 1942:
Marriage, as it is practised in bourgeoise society, is generally a thing against nature. But a meeting between two beings who complete one another, who are made for one another, borders already, in my conception, upon a miracle.


Campanella, The City of the Sun:
A Poetical Dialogue between a Grandmaster of the Knights Hospitallers and a Genoese Sea-Captain, his guest
Capt: Love is foremost in attending to the charge of the race. He sees that men and women are so joined together, that they bring forth the best offspring. Indeed, they laugh at us who exhibit a studious care for our breed of horses and dogs, but neglect the breeding of human beings. Thus the education of the children is under his rule.

Mein Kampf:
The Weltanschauung which bases the State on the racial idea must finally succeed in bringing about a nobler era, in which men will no longer pay exclusive attention to breeding and rearing pedigree dogs, horses and cats, but will endeavour to improve the breed of the human race itself. That will be an era of self-restraint and renunciation for one class of people, while the others will give their gifts and make their sacrifices joyfully.
That such a mentality may be possible cannot be denied in a world where hundreds and thousands accept the principle of celibacy of their own free will, without being obliged or pledged to do so by anything except an ecclesiastical precept.
Why should it not be possible to induce people to make this sacrifice if, instead of such a precept, they were simply told that they ought to put an end to the original sin of racial corruption which is steadily being committed from one generation to another.

Laurency ():
1Sex life is part of normal human life. Condemnation of the pertaining functions on religious grounds is the biggest mistake of the Church (the Catholic Church in particular). Celibacy is against nature. Its practice stunts normal organs. Monastic life in the Middle Ages is the actual cause of the sexual licence of our times, a deplorable reaction even if a normal one. The one extreme turns into its opposite. This phenomenon will soon pass when those who were celibates during several incarnations have had other experiences.

Genesis 6 LXX
5Now the [Nephilim] were upon the earth in those days; and after that when the sons of God were wont to go in to the daughters of men, they bore children to them, those were the giants of old, the men of renown.

[Robert Baker Girdlestone argued in 1871 the word comes from the Hiphil causative stem, implying that the nephilim are to be perceived as “those that cause others to fall down“.]

Hitler’s Letters and Notes, p.g 283:
The Germanic Revolution

1. The Bible – Monumental History of Mankind – 2. Viewpoints –
Idealism – Materialism
Nothing without cause – History is made by men – 2 human types
Workers and drones – Builders and destroyers – Children of God and Men

Hitler, Table Talk (Jochmann), February 22, 1942:
Everything has a cause, nothing comes by accident. The cause of these diseases is a racial nucleus that is so devastating in the blood mixture that it makes people uncertain/unsafe. Physical illnesses have probably also come into being from the fact that different blood groups have come together.
Alles hat eine Ursache, nichts kommt durch Zufall. Die Ursache dieser Erkrankungen ist ein Rassekern, der in der Blutmischung so verheerend wirkt, daß er die Menschen unsicher macht. Wahrscheinlich sind auch physische Erkrankungen schon daraus entstanden, daß in sich verschiedene Blutgruppen zusammengekommen sind.

[The latter two sentences have been omitted from the English translation.]

Mein Kampf:
If we divide mankind into three categories—founders of culture, champions of culture, and destroyers of culture—the Aryan alone can be considered as representing the first category.

Gerda Bormann to Martin Bormann:
24. 2. 1945

My darling Daddy,

I will now give you the report I promised you on Kreisleiter Stredele’s speech. It was not a long speech–he spoke for barely an hour–but it contained all the problems we feel strongly about…
He divided mankind into three groups–the peasants with their roots deep in the soil, the nomadic dwellers in the steppes, and the commercially minded parasites. The first group was composed of ourselves, the Japanese and the Chinese; only the man with his roots deeply in the soil, he said, possessed real culture, for he alone realised the responsibilities of his heritage and he alone knew that his labours would bear fruit for his children and grandchildren.
His whole being was devoted to the dual concept–the sowing and the harvest. The same principle applied equally to the peasant owner of inherited land and to the industrialist who had a community of workmen dependent upon him.

https://third-reich-books.com/product/the-subhuman/ (see Excerpt)

https://germanpropaganda.org/der-untermensch/ (features readable German text of the book without the misleading narrative and unreliable English captions)

[In the publication Der Untermensch (1942), there is no direct mention of Russians, Slavs, or even Jews in an inferior light.]

Women of this kind should become the mother of Europe.
Fate protects us from this type!

By birth, Socrates belonged to the lowest class: Socrates was plebeian. We are told, and can see in sculptures of him, how ugly he was. But ugliness, in itself ban objection, is among the Greeks almost a refutation. Was Socrates a Greek at all? Ugliness is often enough the expression of a development that has been crossed, thwarted in some way. Or it appears as declining development. The anthropological criminologists tell us that the typical criminal is ugly: monstrum in fronte, monstrum in animo [monstrous in appearance, monstrous in spirit].

Mein Kampf:
There must be a certain balance between mind and body. A degenerate body is not more beautiful because it houses a radiant spirit.


Mein Kampf:
Whoever ignores or despises the laws of race really deprives himself of the happiness to which he believes he can attain. For he places an obstacle in the victorious path of the superior race and, by so doing, he interferes with a prerequisite condition of all human progress. Loaded with the burden of human sentiment, he falls back to the level of a helpless animal.

Laurency (L3e5):
The moralists fall below the limit of the human. Such people have placed themselves beyond the pale and could be safely left to their fate. The laws of destiny and of reaping will teach them something different in due course of time.

Laurency (wm9):
1According to the moralists, man is made up of faults and failings. To this it may be said that, if so, they are factors of development, since man nevertheless develops. And the esoterician might add that if they really are faults and failings (and not, as they generally are, the products of other people’s wrong views), then they are necessary experiences.

Laurency ():
8Anyone who wishes to hurt belongs to the majority of harmers and gloaters and is found on such a low level of development that everything he thinks, feels, says or does falls below the line of the human.

Hitler’s Letters and Notes, p.g 284:
The Germanic Revolution

The ‘educated man’, i.e. the man who has been spoon-fed with
knowledge substitutes the idea of humanity and hence
becomes ‘cruel’ in the end.

Hitler, Table Talk, October 14, 1941 (Cameron & Stevens):
An educated man retains the sense of the mysteries of nature and bows before the unknowable. An uneducated man, on the other hand, runs the risk of going over to atheism (which is a return to the state of the animal) as soon as he perceives that the State, in sheer opportunism, is making use of false ideas in the matter of religion, whilst in other fields it bases everything on pure science.

Hitler, Table Talk, September 27-28, 1941 (Cameron & Stevens):
By considering what Bolshevism has made of man, one realises that the foundation of all education should be respect—respect towards Providence (or the unknown, or Nature, or whatever name one chooses). Secondly, the respect that youth owes to maturity. If this respect is lacking, a man falls below the level of the animal. His intelligence, when it ceases to be controlled, turns him into a monster.

Hitler, Table Talk, December 1-2, 1941 (Cameron & Stevens):
It is remarkable that the half-caste Jew, to the second or third generation, has a tendency to start flirting again with pure Jews. But from the seventh generation onwards, it seems the purity ofthe Aryan blood is restored. In the long run nature eliminates the noxious elements.
One may be repelled by this law of nature which demands that all living things should mutually devour one another. The fly is snapped up by a dragon-fly, which itself is swallowed by a bird, which itself falls victim to a larger bird. This last, as it grows old, becomes a prey to microbes, which end by getting the better of it. These microbes, in their turn, find their predestined ends.

K. H., The Mahatma Letters to A. P. Sinnett, Letter No. 10:
Nature is destitute of goodness or malice; she follows only immutable laws when she either gives life and joy, or sends suffering [and] death, and destroys what she has created. Nature has an antidote for every poison and her laws a reward for every suffering. The butterfly devoured by a bird becomes that bird, and the little bird killed by an animal goes into a higher form. It is the blind law of necessity and the eternal fitness of things, and hence cannot be called Evil in Nature. The real evil proceeds from human intelligence and its origin rests entirely with reasoning man who dissociates himself from Nature. Humanity then alone is the true source of evil. Evil is the exaggeration of good, the progeny of human selfishness and greediness. Think profoundly and you will find that save death — which is no evil but a necessary law, and accidents which will always find their reward in a future life — the origin of every evil whether small or great is in human action, in man whose intelligence makes him the one free agent in Nature.

[See L3e5 for Laurency’s assessment of these letters and the theosophist Sinnett.]

Mein Kampf:
Man must realize that a fundamental law of necessity reigns throughout the whole realm of Nature and that his existence is subject to the law of eternal struggle and strife.

Is it not very natural that all the metamorphoses with which the world is covered should have made people imagine in the Orient, where everything has been imagined, that our souls passed from one body to another? An almost imperceptible speck becomes a worm, this worm becomes a butterfly; an acorn transforms itself into an oak; an egg into a bird; water becomes cloud and thunder; wood is changed into fire and ash; everything in nature appears, in fine, metamorphosed.

Goebbels (Diaries), May 13, 1943:
The intellectual does not have the natural means of resisting the Jewish peril because his instincts have been badly blunted. Because of this fact the nations with a high standard of civilization are exposed to this peril first and foremost. In nature life always takes measures against parasites; in the life of nations that is not always the case. From this fact the Jewish peril actually stems.

Laurency (L5e22):
2The Jews occupied Palestine in about 1200 B.C.E. and annihilated the original population – men, women, and children. The land which they had robbed from others they lost themselves 1300 years later, which is what happens according to the law of reaping. They did not care about Palestine for almost two thousand years, until it was discovered that the exploitation of the Dead Sea would yield profits of billions of dollars.

Laurency (L4e4.52):
6The following statement was made by that individual who was once Pythagoras and is now a 44-self in the second department of the planetary hierarchy:

7“And now, after making due allowance for evils that are natural and cannot be avoided, –and so few are they that I challenge the whole host of Western metaphysicians to call them evils or to trace them directly to an independent cause – I will point out the greatest, the chief cause of nearly two thirds of the evils that pursue humanity ever since that cause became a power. It is religion under whatever form and in whatsoever nation. It is the sacerdotal caste, the priesthood and the churches; it is in those illusions that man looks upon as sacred, that he has to search out the source of that multitude of evils which is the great curse of humanity and that almost overwhelms mankind.”

– The Mahatma Letters to A.P. Sinnett, Letter No. 10.

[I do not yet know if this K. H. was Pythagoras in a past life, but if he was, the Mahatma Letters may be worth examining for further compatibility.]

Lars Adelskogh (Fke 9.6):
1In hylozoics, the teaching of the three aspects of existence is fundamental. The beginner is overwhelmed by the idea that everything has a consciousness aspect. But then he must not forget that everything also has a force or energy aspect. It is not enough to develop higher kinds of consciousness, to perceive and understand more and more. It is precisely equally important to develop higher kinds of will and ability, higher kinds of skill in action. For only then you will be able to realize what you have understood. Realization is in the motion or power aspect.

Hitler, Table Talk, January 27, 1942 (Jochmann):
The people have now one-sidedly grown/further-bred themselves towards intellectualism, forgetting what the energy [Tatkraft] means for the nation’s life. To maintain a social order, it is important to have not only a head, but also a fist, otherwise one day the power, divorced from the mind, will smash your head. The process of mind versus power is always decided in favor of power.

Das Volk hat nun einseitig nach dem Intellektualismus sich weitergezüchtet, und es hat dabei vergessen, was für das Leben der Nation die Tatkraft bedeutet.
Zur Erhaltung einer Gesellschaftsordnung ist wichtig, daß man nicht nur einen Kopf, sondern auch eine Faust hat, sonst kommt eines Tages die vom Geist getrennte Kraft und zerschlägt den Kopf. Immer wird der Prozeß Geist gegen Kraft zugunsten der Kraft entschieden.
Die Gesellschaftsschicht, die nur Kopf ist, sieht sich durch eine Art schlechtes Gewissen belastet. Wenn wirklich Revolutionen kommen, wagt sie nicht hervorzutreten, sie setzt auf den Geldsack und ist feige. Ich habe das reine Gewissen gehabt.

Mein Kampf:
Moreover, it must be clearly recognised that if a highly energetic and active body of men emerges from a nation and unites in the fight for one goal, thereby ultimately rising above the inert masses of the people, this small percentage will become masters of the whole. World history is made by minorities, if these numerical minorities possess in themselves the will, energy and initiative of the majority.

Laurency ():
1The voice of one crying in the wilderness dies away unheard. A lone esoterician is seen as a psychopathological phenomenon. But more and more people will reach the insight that Pythagorean hylozoics is the only rational philosophical and scientific working hypothesis. This reduces the risk for the esoterician to end up in a psychiatric hospital. This enhances his prospect of teaching the doctrine of common sense without being regarded as an unreliable fantast. And this increases his duty to life and truth of not being silent about what he knows of the esoteric world view and life view.
He is not alone. They cannot easily lock up one million esotericians who share the same view. If only they become sufficiently numerous, they may hold any opinion whatever without being regarded as mentally deranged. This is seen in the matter of the religious sects. The pertaining follies are regarded as perfectly normal phenomena.

Laurency (L4e1):
6Biologist Ernst Haeckel was the first writer to arouse my interest in hylozoics, in his popular book Lebenswunder. In the final chapter he mentioned the allusion F. A. Lange made in his History of Materialism, first edition, to this the most ancient Greek world view, misinterpreted, of course, for want of facts. In any case, Haeckel had understood that the three aspects of existence are matter, motion, and consciousness, which he expressed in his way as “matter, force, and psychom”. Haeckel’s idle speculations on other issues did not interest me.

The Wonders of Life

On our monistic principles they are not immaterial forces, but based on the general sensation of substance, which we call psychoma, and add to energy and matter as a third attribute of substance.

When sensation in the widest sense (as psychoma) is joined to matter and energy as a third attribute of substance, we must extend the universal law of the permanence of substance to all three aspects of it. From this we conclude that the quantity of sensation in the entire universe is also eternal and unchangeable, and that every change of sensation means only the conversion of one form of psychoma into other forms. If we start from our own immediate sensations and thoughts, and look out on the whole mental life of humanity, we see through all its continuous development the constancy of the psychoma, which has its roots in the sensations of each individual.

Friedrich Christian Prince of Schaumburg-Lippe:
Why was it possible, just recently, for the Pope to speak of “a criminal Germany of the past” when at the same time he has spent almost a decade now, passively watching his Church wage civil war against the Protestants in Northern Ireland – a very criminal war indeed, ever expanding in scope and now spreading even to the British island? Were the wars in Korea and Vietnam not a great deal more brutal than the battles fought by the Germans in the Second World War? Vilification is only ever aimed at the Germans, and almost always by exactly the same circles. For the biggest business on earth has always been war! Not for the warring parties, but for those that supply the arms – and the most evil weapon has ever been slander.

Leon Degrelle:
Hitler Born at Versailles, Chapter 20
The particular hatreds created then no longer have their old vigor, but a dark and profound aversion to the Germans has stolen into the minds of millions since those days. Without genuine reason they hate the Germans. They recognize that the Germans are first-rate as regards their factories and in their business dealings; that they gave the civilized world Goethe, Schiller, Darer, Kant, Nietzsche, and Wagner. But for millions of non-Germans, the Germans are brutes, capable of anything. That summary judgement, born of the invented horrors laid to the Germans in 1914, has remained in the subconscious of the public. Let the occasion arise again, and that mentality is reborn at once, as we saw in 1940-1945. Anything at all will be believed if it is charged to the Germans. Whether it’s a question of gas chambers in which, to believe the figures of the accusers, the victims would have to have been crowded together thirty-two persons per square meter twenty-four hours a day; or whether a description is being given to you of the crematory furnaces which, if they had to burn up all the bodies assigned to them by the Jewish propaganda, would still be working at full capacity in the year 2050, or even 2080. When it’s a matter of denigrating Germans, nothing need be verified. Any testimony whatsoever, whether from liar, conman, swindler, or whether or wrested from an accused person by torture, is swallowed with rapture.

Ernst Haeckel:
The Wonders of Life, Preface
For this reason I do not propose to make any further reply to the opponents of The Riddle of the Universe, and I am still less disposed to take up the personal attacks which some of my critics have thought fit to make on me. In the course of this controversy I have grown painfully familiar with the means with which it is sought to silence the detested free-thinker—misrepresentation, sophistry, calumny, and denunciation. “Critical” philosophers of the modern Kantist school vie in this with orthodox theologians.

Laurency ():
6Especially slander, moral gossip, is the most efficient weapon of the black ones. As soon as somebody has succeeded in making a real achievement in the service of good, he becomes inevitably the victim of always self-blind, hypocritical, indignant, and often maliciously delighted moralists and thereby he and his work are neutralized. Moralism is poisoning, and morality has become the most efficient weapon of poisoning. So it will also always be until mankind has reached the higher emotional stage.
7It is a strange tendency, always trying to drag other people down. The good that a man does they leave unmentioned. But if they hear any slander, they hang on to the telephone the whole day to spread the poison further to as many as possible.
8Morality is the most prominent sign of dishonesty. The Pharisees were the representatives of the ideal of the saint. Moralism is satanism.
9Satan (the black lodge) is the greatest moralist. He defends his devilry by pointing out that god (the planetary hierarchy) is immoral! In contrast, satan is a saint in words and manners.

Der Jude, Der Angriff. Aufsätze aus der Kampfzeit (Munich: Zentralverlag der NSDAP., 1935), pp. 322-324.
The Jew is immunized against all dangers: one may call him a scoundrel, parasite, swindler, profiteer, it all runs off him like water off a raincoat. But call him a Jew and you will be astonished at how he recoils, how injured he is, how he suddenly shrinks back: “I’ve been found out.”
One cannot defend himself against the Jew. He attacks with lightening speed from his position of safety and uses his abilities to crush any attempt at defense.
Quickly he turns the attacker’s charges back on him, and the attacker becomes the liar, the troublemaker, the terrorist. Nothing could be more mistaken than to defend oneself. That is just what the Jew wants. He can invent a new lie every day for the enemy to respond to, and the result is that the enemy spends so much time defending himself that he has no time to do what the Jew really fears: to attack. The accused has become the accuser, and loudly he shoves the accuser into the dock. So it always was in the past when a person or a movement fought the Jew.
That is what would happen to us as well were we not fully aware of his nature, and if we lacked the courage to draw the following radical conclusions:

1. One cannot fight the Jews by positive means. He is a negative, and this negative must be erased from the German system, or he will forever corrupt it.
2. One cannot discuss the Jewish question with the Jews. One can hardly
prove to a person that one has the duty to render him harmless.

Laurency (L3e5):
4In his book, The Real H. P. Blavatsky (London, 1928), William Kingsland tries in every way to explain H.P.B.’s faults and failings and to defend her from the attacks of the moralists. In so doing he only demonstrates that he is a moralist himself. It is about time esotericians refused to waste their time on defending themselves and others from the attacks of hatred. All are imperfect in the fourth natural kingdom. It is a demonstration of too great ignorance of life to defend someone from the moralists, who regard it as their duty to judge and condemn, being blind to their own faults and failings, not seeing that stupidity, which is worse than a crime, sowing the worst sowing conceivable.

However I do acknowledge that all men are born in an imperfect state, and are at first restless, irrational creatures: this, as you will remember, has been already said by us.

Laurency (L3e11):
It is characteristic that the planetary hierarchy never does anything to defend its agents from the slander of the black ones. They did not stir a finger to refute the legends surrounding Rosencreutz, Bacon, or Saint Germain. It is no use refuting things that people want to believe. And what difference does it make? If people are not judicious enough to see through stupidities, then they are not able to grasp the truth either. Some day will come in evolution, when the children come of age.

Laurency ():
1It is not easy to acquire lacking qualities. It is therefore psychologically wrong (unfair) to demand that esotericians should live as they teach. That is no excuse but certainly an explanation. It was this insight which made philosopher Schopenhauer write: “I have certainly learnt what a saint is, but I am not a saint myself.” With the absurd demand that we should be able to live as we teach, there would be no teachers and no progress would be made.

Laurency (wm9):
2When judging and assessing people we must never start from an absolutized ideal of
perfection. An individual may be a genius even if in many respects he is mediocre, he may be a “saint” in spite of many failings. You must not, as one writer does, call Copernicus a coward, Kepler a hypochondriac, Galilei a proudly cantankerous neurotic. Those are subjective judgements, passed without understanding of the situations those people were in. We have no right whatsoever to pass such judgements, for we know too little about man, and everyone has the right to be such as he is, with all his limitation (protected from moral judgements), when he does not transgress the limit of the rights of others.

Laurency ():
21One is surprised and happy at the same time when meeting with such an understanding of Schopenhauer as is expressed in the following statement, trying to explain the contradiction of life and teaching.
22“He had to pay a terribly high price” for his independence of current opinions, of the suggestions of the masses, of the compromises of power, for his intellectual independence, his reckless sincerity: “isolation, misanthropy, pride, an almost pathological self-esteem, because only in this form could he assert himself against the iciness and hostility surrounding him. He paid the price, however, without batting an eyelid, and he gained that dignity, that deep earnest, that passionate objectivity which is the hallmark of intellectual life.”

Comparisons are often made between a man and his teachings. We frequently discover glaring contrasts between the two. It is true enough that this man [Schopenhauer], who in all seriousness regarded himself as the founder of a religion and preached denial of the world, lived a seemingly comfortable life as an established patrician. He was afflicted with a grotesque anxiety about his health and well being. Because of an unpleasant dream and out of fear of cholera, he left Berlin. He lived in Frankfurt on the ground floor of a house so he could save himself quickly in case of fire. When visiting, he always carried his own drinking glass with him so that he did not expose himself to the dangers of infections from dirty cups. Here, his own will makes its appearance with a vehemence amounting almost to sickliness. Schopenhauer was possessed by an almost demonic fear of death. He was also possessed by a brutal egoism and filled with a fury when anyone opposed him. He was, at the same time, a worldwide intellect in whose inspired insight and illumination of spirit thousands of spiritual revelations were captured. He had an amazing insight into many problems and wrote in a German style of splendour, colour and clarity as only a few among the very great can.

Laurency (L4e1.3):
3Philosopher Fechner had an opportunity of meeting that most recent incarnation of Pythagoras. And when Fechner asked him which philosophy best agreed with reality, the reply he received was: that of Schopenhauer. Every esoterician will certainly concur in that judgement.

Hitler’s Letters and Notes, p.g 284:
The Germanic Revolution

Nature is never cruel
Cruelty is – delight in
pointless suffering
Useless during the struggle –

Hitler, May 26, 1944, Platterhof hotel talk:
Nature already eliminates, in the [illegible] struggle the damaged and the weak. Bitches immediately push weak puppies, who want to suck, away from themselves. Why? We do not know. But she allows it to die – cruelly, as we human beings believe – in reality, however, [such perishing is] full of profound insight.

Racial purity in antiquity

Hitler’s Letters and Notes, p.g 283:
The Germanic Revolution

First people’s history (based on) the race law
Eternal course of History –
Nature’s course from half-knowledge via instinct to clear
understanding of its laws

Hitler, Table Talk (Cameron & Stevens), July 5, 1942:
If nowadays we do not find the same splendid pride of race which distinguished the Grecian and Roman eras, it is because in the fourth century these Jewish-Christians systematically destroyed all the monuments of these ancient civilisations. It was they, too, who destroyed the library at Alexandria.

Hitler, Table Talk (Cameron & Stevens), February 17, 1942:
The gods, for the Romans, were familiar images. It is somewhat difficult to know whether they had any exact idea of the Beyond. For them, eternal life was personified in living beings, and it consisted in a perpetual renewal. Those were conceptions fairly close to those which were current amongst the Japanese and Chinese at the time when the Swastika made its appearance amongst them.

Laurency (wm1):
8It is strange that scholars may aver that they know everything about what the ancients taught when they know that the hundreds of thousands of manuscripts lodged in the library at Alexandria were destroyed and that Christian fanatics during the fourth and fifth centuries destroyed systematically all older manuscripts they could lay hands on, regarding them as the delusions of the devil. The learned know practically nothing of what the ancients knew. There was scarcely a manuscript left from the time before 400 C.E., and just the little that was buried or chanced to be outside the dominion of the fanatics was saved.

Hitler, Table Talk (Cameron & Stevens), October 25, 1941:
What a certificate of mental poverty it was for Christianity that it destroyed the libraries of the ancient world! Graeco-Roman thought was made to seem like the teachings of the Devil. “If thou desirest to live, thou shalt not expose thyself unto temptation.” … Christianity set itself systematically to destroy ancient culture. What came to us was passed down by chance, or else it was a product of Roman liberal writers. Perhaps we are entirely ignorant of humanity’s most precious spiritual treasures. Who can know what was there? The Papacy was faithful to these tactics even during recorded history. How did people behave, during the age of the great explorations, towards the spiritual riches of Central America?


Hitler, Table Talk (Cameron & Stevens), August 22, 1942:
I have just been reading some books which every German going abroad should be compelled to read.
The first of them is Alsdorff’s book, which should be read by every diplomat. According to it, it was not the British who taught Indians evil ways; when the first white men landed in the country they found the walls surrounding many of the towns were constructed of human skulls; equally, it was not Cortez who brought cruelty to the Mexicans—it was there before he arrived. The Mexicans, indeed, indulged in extensive human sacrifice, and, when the spirit moved them, would sacrifice as many as twenty thousand human beings at a time! In comparison, Cortez was a moderate man.

[In ✡Manly P. Hall’s The Secret Destiny of America, he demonstrates himself to be a naive idealist (yet quite the exemplary humanist) who believes Plato’s republic to be attainable and considering it to be more or less a commission. He also believes America is capable of attaining this ideal, which is absurd.]

Laurency (kr5):
22Platon’s ideal republic was never intended to be realized. He knew all too well that such a community can never be constructed, can never come into being without leaders who have reached the stage of unity (the fifth natural kingdom), that ideality presupposes individuals at the stage of ideality. He was not interested in practical politics and it was very much against his will that he lent himself to experiments with it.
He had lots of opportunities to study different systems and had come to the conclusion that democracy was the worst of all. Democracy placed power in the hands of an undiscerning majority that allowed itself to be led by sophists and demagogues appealing to its worst instincts in order to get power and then to keep it, being indifferent to the fact that the result could only be economic ruin, social disorder, and cultural decline.

Laurency ():
29The democratic type of society is afflicted with so many weaknesses that a constantly watchful critique is necessary if that society is not to degenerate. Such critique cannot be exercised by a press that is shackled by considerations of party politics.

Laurency (kr5):
23Platon’s republic was a veiled criticism of the democratic ideal of equality as well as an indication in which direction the solution should be sought. The most suitable society is a class society with social tasks apportioned among the classes. Competence (knowledge, ability, readiness to work) determines to which class the individual belongs.

Laurency (kr5):
15There cannot be such a thing as a classless society. The simplest intellect should suffice to see that. Russia and Yugoslavia have even had to admit as much in practice.
16Belonging to a class is the natural order of things, is determined by the individual’s qualities and abilities, his quality, capacity, and calibre, quite independently of his opportunities of upbringing and education.
17It was this inequality that Platon, hitherto completely misunderstood, was hinting at when he outlined his ideal republic with its social classes. It was this inequality that Rousseau saw clearly when he said that a true democracy cannot possibly exist.

Emperor Julian:
Against the Galileans

“Come, tell me why it is that the Celts and the Germans are fierce, while the Hellenes and Romans are, generally speaking, inclined to political life and humane, though at the same time unyielding and warlike? Why the Egyptians are more intelligent and more given to crafts, and the Syrians unwarlike and effeminate, but at the same time intelligent, hot-tempered, vain and quick to learn? For if there is anyone who does not discern a reason for these differences among the nations, but rather declaims that all this so befell spontaneously, how, I ask, can he still believe that the universe is administered by a providence?” (Against the Galileans)

“Therefore, as I said, unless for every nation separately some presiding national god (and under him an angel, a demon, a hero, and a peculiar order of spirits which obey and work for the higher powers) established the differences in our laws and characters, you must demonstrate to me how these differences arose by some other agency. Moreover, it is not sufficient to say, “God spake and it was so.” For the natures of things that are created ought to harmonise with the commands of God.” (Against the Galileans)

“Therefore do not be surprised if I now feel towards you as I do, for I am more uncivilised than he [Cato], and more fierce and headstrong in proportion as the Celts are more so than the Romans. He was born in Rome and was nurtured among the Roman citizens till he was on the threshold of old age. But as for me, I had to do with Celts and Germans and the Hercynian forest from the moment that I was reckoned a grown man, and I have by now spent a long time there, like some huntsman who associates with and is entangled among wild beasts. There I met with temperaments that know not how to pay court or flatter, but only how to behave simply and frankly to all men alike.” (Misopogon)

“But why need I go over their several characteristics, or describe the love of liberty and lack of discipline of the Germans, the docility and tameness of the Syrians, the Persians, the Parthians, and in short of all the barbarians in the East and the South, and of all nations who possess and are contented with a somewhat despotic form of government? Now if these differences that are greater and more important came about without the aid of a greater and more divine providence, why do we vainly trouble ourselves about and worship one who takes no thought for us?” (Against the Galileans)

As for men’s laws, it is evident that men have established them to correspond with their own natural dispositions; that is to say, constitutional and humane laws were established by those in whom a humane disposition had been fostered above all else, savage and inhuman laws by those in whom there lurked and was inherent the contrary disposition. For lawgivers have succeeded in adding but little by their discipline to the natural characters and aptitudes of men.” (Against the Galileans)

“It is therefore clear that the creative gods received from their father their creative power and so begat on earth all living things that are mortal. For if there were to be no difference between the heavens and mankind and animals too, by Zeus, and all the way down to the very tribe of creeping things and the little fish that swim in the sea, then there would have had to be one and the same creator for them all. But if there is a great gulf fixed between immortals and mortals, and this cannot become greater by addition or less by subtraction, nor can it be mixed with what is mortal and subject to fate, it follows that one set of gods were the creative cause of mortals, and another of immortals.” (Against the Galileans)

“But that from the beginning God cared only for the Jews and that He chose them out as his portion, has been clearly asserted not only by Moses and Jesus but by Paul as well; though in Paul’s case this is strange. For according to circumstances he keeps changing his views about God, as the polypus changes its colours to match the rocks, and now he insists that the Jews alone are God’s portion, and then again, when he is trying to persuade the Hellenes to take sides with him, he says: “Do not think that he is the God of Jews only, but also of Gentiles: yea of Gentiles also.” Therefore it is fair to ask of Paul why God, if he was not the God of the Jews only but also of the Gentiles, sent the blessed gift of prophecy to the Jews in abundance and gave them Moses and the oil of anointing, and the prophets and the law and the incredible and monstrous elements in their myths? For you hear them crying aloud: “Man did eat angels’ food.” And finally God sent unto them Jesus also, but unto us no prophet, no oil of anointing, no teacher, no herald to announce his love for man which should one day, though late, reach even unto us also. Nay he even looked on for myriads, or if you prefer, for thousands of years, while men in extreme ignorance served idols, as you call them, from where the sun rises to where he sets, yes and from North to South, save only that little tribe which less than two thousand years before had settled in one part of Palestine. For if he is the God of all of us alike, and the creator of all, why did he neglect us?”

[Recollection: Julian’s philosophyVoltaireRobert Green Ingersoll]

The question has arisen: Why cannot all people form one nation, speak one language, live under one set of laws, and have one set of morals and one religion? When I think of the great variety in people’s ways of thinking, basic convictions and tastes, I cannot help but be amazed that seven or eight people can assemble under the same roof, lock themselves into the same ring of walls, and unite in a single family.

Now different gods had their allotments in different places which they set in order. Hephaestus and Athene, who were brother and sister, and sprang from the same father, having a common nature, and being united also in the love of philosophy and art, both obtained as their common portion this land, which was naturally adapted for wisdom and virtue; and there they implanted brave children of the soil, and put into their minds the order of government; their names are preserved, but their actions have disappeared by reason of the destruction of those who received the tradition, and the lapse of ages.

Great Hymn to the Aten
The lands of Khor and Kush, and the land of Egypt: you set every man in his place, you allot their needs, every one of them according to his diet, and his lifetime is counted out. Tongues are separate in speech, and their characters as well; their skins are different, for you differentiate the foreigners.

Hermes Trismegistus:
Corpus Hermeticum
The dead will far outnumber the living; and the survivors will be known for Egyptians by their tongue alone, but in their actions they will seem to be men of another race.

Hitler, Mein Kampf:
It is not, however, by the tie of language, but exclusively by the tie of blood that the members of a race are bound together, and the Jew himself knows this better than any other, seeing that he attaches so little importance to the preservation of his own language while at the same time he strives his utmost to keep his blood free from intermixture with that of other races.

Well, these are races; men and bodies of men influenced in their conduct by their particular organization, and which must enter into all the calculations of a statesman. But what do they mean by the Latin race? Language and religion do not make a race – there is only one thing which makes a race, and that is blood.

Against the Galileans
And yet among mankind the difference between the customs and the political constitutions of the nations is in every way greater than the difference in their language. What Hellene, for instance, ever tells us that a man ought to marry his sister or his daughter or his mother? Yet in Persia this is accounted virtuous.

Against the Galileans
Therefore, if he did ordain that even as our languages are confounded and do not harmonise with one another, so too should it be with the political constitutions of the nations, then it was not by a special, isolated decree that he gave these constitutions their essential characteristics, or framed us also to match this lack of agreement. For different natures must first have existed in all those things that among the nations were to be differentiated. This at any rate is seen if one observes how very different in their bodies are the Germans and Scythians from the Libyans and Ethiopians. Can this also be due to a bare decree, and does not the climate or the country have a joint influence with the gods in determining what sort of complexion they have?

In fact, the various arrangements [of a country] are not the result of premeditation, any more than the diversities of nations or languages ; they all depend on circumstances and chance. Arts, forms of government, and modes of life, arising from certain [internal] springs, flourish under whatever climate they may be situated; climate, however, has its influence, and therefore while some peculiarites are due to the nature of the country, others are the result of institutions and education. It is not owing to the nature of the country, but rather to their education, that the Athenians cultivate eloquence, while the Lacedaemonians do not; nor yet the Thebans, who are nearer still.
Neither are the Babylonians and Egyptians philosophers by nature, but by reason of their institutions and education. In like manner the excellence of horses, oxen, and other animals, results not alone from the places where they dwell, but also from their breeding. Posidonius confounds all these distinctions.

[Concerning environment, see Hitler Youth Manual (1938), p.g. 26-27]

Hitler, Table Talk (Cameron & Stevens), July 5, 1941:
It is true that, in a sense, every product of human culture, every work gifted with beauty can be born only of the effect of the constraint which we call education.

Mein Kampf:
The born delinquent will always remain a delinquent, but numerous people who show only a certain tendency to commit criminal acts may become useful members of the community if rightly trained; whereas, on the other hand, weak and unstable characters may easily become evil elements if the system of education is bad.

Laurency (kl1_7.14):
2If knowledge of law and social ability were school subjects instead of Christian religion, then young people would learn to live with others without friction instead of imbibing worthless religious fictionalism.

[See Education]

Mein Kampf:
If we try to penetrate the inner meaning of the word völkisch we arrive at the following conclusion. The current political conception of the world is that the State, though it possesses a creative force which can build up civilisations, has nothing in common with the concept of race as the foundation of the State. The State is considered rather as something which has resulted from economic necessity or is, at best, the natural outcome of political urge for power. Such a conception together with all its logical consequences, not only ignores the primordial racial forces that underlie the State, but it also leads to a minimization of the importance of the individual.
If it be denied that races differ from one another in their cultural creative ability, then this same erroneous notion must necessarily influence our estimation of the value of the individual. The assumption that all races are alike leads to the assumption that nations and individuals are equal to one another. Therefore, international Marxism is merely the adoption by the Jew, Karl Marx, of a general conception of life, which had existed long before his day, as a definite profession of political faith. If it had not already existed as a widely diffused infection, the amazing political progress of the Marxist teaching would never have been possible.
In reality what distinguished Karl Marx from the millions who were affected in the same way was that, in a world already in a state of gradual decomposition, he used the unerring instinct of the prophetic genius to detect the essential poisons, so as to extract them and concentrate them, with the art of an alchemist, in a solution which would bring about the rapid destruction of the independent nations of the earth. All this was done in the service of his race.
Thus the Marxian doctrine is the concentrated extract of the mentality which underlies the general Weltanschauung to-day.
For this reason alone it is out of the question and even ridiculous to think that what is called our bourgeois world can put up any effective fight against Marxism, for this bourgeois world is permeated with all those same poisons, and its Weltanschauung in general differs from Marxism only in degree and in the character of the persons who hold it.
The bourgeois world is Marxist, but believes in the possibility of a certain group of people—that is to say, the bourgeoisie—being able to dominate the world, while Marxism itself systematically aims at delivering the world into the hands of the Jews.
Over against all this, the völkisch Weltanschauung recognises that the primordial racial elements are of the greatest significance for mankind.

Robert Ley:
The Jewish mentality and the Jewish spirit are the worldview of fatalism, of ghosts and spirits, of terror, of anxiety and fear, of the money bag and capitalism, of the denial of life and surrender, of begging and pity, of those who lack will, of the cowards — in a word, the bourgeois-Marxist world in which we who are older grew up. That is why it is so hard to free ourselves from it.

Hitler’s Letters and Notes, p.g 286:
The Germanic Revolution

The Bible teaches
2. Facts

I.) All the nations in the Bible (cultures of Asia Minor, Mesopotamia,
Palestine, Egypt)
have been destroyed
by it (i.e. by race…
One nation has escaped: the Jews. Why?

II.) All nations have their own states –
Except for the Jews.

This means: the other nations (Aryans) had their own ‘states’ and
could not save themselves
the Jew had no state of his own and saved himself

Seems incomprehensible at first sight only – why?

Marcus Aurelius:
Meditations, Book II
What links one human being to all humans: not blood, or [seed], but mind. And… that an individual’s mind is God and of God.
Ὅταν δυσφορῇς ἐπί τινι, ἐπελάθου τοῦ, ὅτι πάντα κατὰ τὴν τῶν ὅλων φύσιν γίνεται, καὶ τοῦ, ὅτι τὸ ἁμαρτανόμενον ἀλλότριον, καὶ ἐπὶ τούτοις τοῦ, ὅτι πᾶν τὸ γινόμενον οὕτως ἀεὶ ἐγίνετο καὶ γενήσεται καὶ νῦν πανταχοῦ γίνεται: τοῦ, ὅση ἡ συγγένεια ἀνθρώπου πρὸς πᾶν τὸ ἀνθρώπειον γένος: οὐ γὰρ αἱματίουσπερματίου, ἀλλὰ νοῦ κοινωνία. ἐπελάθου δὲ καὶ τοῦ, ὅτι ὁ ἑκάστου νοῦς θεὸς καὶ ἐκεῖθεν ἐρρύηκεν: τοῦ, ὅτι οὐδὲν ἴδιον οὐδενός, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ τεκνίον καὶ τὸ σωμάτιον καὶ αὐτὸ τὸ ψυχάριον ἐκεῖθεν ἐλήλυθεν: τοῦ, ὅτι πάνθ̓ ὑπόληψις: τοῦ, ὅτι τὸ παρὸν μόνον ἕκαστος ζῇ καὶ τοῦτο ἀποβάλλει.

I have recognized that the wrongdoer has a nature related to my own—not of the same blood or [seed], but the same mind, and possessing a share of the divine.
ἐγὼ δὲ τεθεωρηκὼς τὴν φύσιν τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ ὅτι καλόν, καὶ τοῦ κακοῦ ὅτι αἰσχρόν, καὶ τὴν αὐτοῦ τοῦ ἁμαρτάνοντος φύσιν ὅτι μοι συγγενής, οὐχὶ αἵματοςσπέρματος τοῦ αὐτοῦ, ἀλλὰ νοῦ καὶ θείας ἀπομοίρας μέτοχος, οὔτε βλαβῆναι ὑπό τινος αὐτῶν δύναμαι: αἰσχρῷ γάρ με οὐδεὶς περιβαλεῖ: οὔτε ὀργίζεσθαι τῷ συγγενεῖ δύναμαι οὔτε ἀπέχθεσθαι αὐτῷ.

On the Happy Life
You understand without my mentioning it that an unbroken calm and freedom ensue, when we have driven away all those things which either excite us or alarm us: for in the place of sensual pleasures and those slight perishable matters which are connected with the basest crimes, we thus gain an immense, unchangeable, equable joy, together with peace, calmness and greatness of mind, and kindliness: for all savageness is a sign of weakness.

Hitler’s Letters and Notes, p.g 283:

Half knowledge equivalent to human arrogance – pride etc.
Stupidity but also weakness or cruelty
Arrogance – ‘Man is Lord of Nature’
‘He subdues Nature’
He is free.

Mein Kampf:
The real truth is, that not only has man failed to overcome Nature in any sphere whatsoever, but that at best he has merely succeeded in getting hold of and lifting a tiny corner of the enormous veil which she has spread over her eternal mysteries and secrets. He never invents anything; all he can do is to discover something. He does not master Nature, but has only come to be master of those living beings who have not gained the knowledge he has arrived at by penetrating into some of Nature’s laws and mysteries.

[I realize that by attempting to rehabilitate Hitler, I am working from a severely disadvantegous position. But Hitler is vastly different from the others. The Jew cannot gradually fade him into obscurity, they are obliged to keep him (and the hatred for him) in the documentaries, the press, the films, etc. for as long as they are in power. Their hatred for Hitler is identical to their contempt for Jesus, if not incomparably stronger. It’s remarkable. With Hitler’s rehabilitation naturally comes the rehabilitation of all other misunderstood great men, since at that point, people will have recognized the unreliability of history and will be forced to re-examine everything they have been told.]

Paula Hitler, May 1, 1957:
Gentlemen, never forget this; your names will be forgotten even before your bodies have rotted away in the earth, but the name Adolf Hitler will still be a light in the darkness. You cannot murder him by drowning his memory in your sick buckets, and you cannot strangle him with your filthy, ink stained fingers. His name exists forever in hundreds of thousands of souls. You are far too insignificant to even touch him. He loved Germany. He fretted over Germany, and when he fought for honour and respect, he fought for German honour and respect for Germany. And when there was nothing left, he gave his life for Germany. What have you given so far? Which one of you would give his life for Germany? The only things you care about are riches, power, and never ending luxurious living. When you think of Germany, you think of without responsibility or care.
Trust me on this: the Fuhrer’s utter unselfishness in word and deed alone guarantees his immortality.

Laurency (ps3):
17The creditable, although on the whole unsuccessful, attempts made by Carlyle and Emerson to rehabilitate their heroes show the disadvantage of using historical personages, who have already been besmirched by the biographies of moralists.

Hitler’s Letters and Notes, p.g 284:
The Germanic Revolution

Privilege through strength the basis of all Nature
The prerequisite of the world’s existence.

Hitler, November 12, 1944 speech:
Insofar as the Almighty opened our eyes in order to grant us insight into the laws of His rule, in accordance with the limited capabilities of us human beings, we recognize the incorruptible justice which gives life as a final reward only to those who are willing and ready to give a life for a life. Whether man agrees to or rejects this harsh law makes absolutely no difference. Man cannot change it; whoever tries to withdraw from this struggle for life does not erase the law but only the basis of his own existence.

Mein Kampf:
But such a preservation goes hand-in-hand with the inexorable law that it is the strongest and the best who must triumph and that they have the right to endure. He who would live must fight. He who does not wish to fight in this world, where permanent struggle is the law of life, has not the right to exist. Such a saying may sound hard; but, after all, that is how the matter really stands.

Mein Kampf:
Of course, to settle accounts with the Marxists on a scale which would be of genuine historical and universal importance could not be effected along lines laid down by some secret council or according to a plan concocted in the worn-out brain of some cabinet minister. It would have to be in accordance with the eternal laws of life on this Earth which are, and will remains those of a ceaseless struggle for existence.

Laurency (kl1_9):
2Life is struggle, for it is an eternal conflict between those who want to develop and those who fight evolution (consciousness development). Life is struggle, for all life is subject to the law of change and ignorant man is opposed to change if it does not, at least apparently, satisfy his egoism. Life is struggle for all want more than they need and those desires are always satisfied at the expense of others.

Mein Kampf:
It must be remembered, that in many instances a hardy and healthy nation has emerged from the ordeal of bloody civil war, while from peace conditions which had been artificially maintained there often resulted a state of national putrescence that reeked to heaven.

Hitler, The Artist Within the Warlord, p.g. 108:
Translated by Wilhelm Kriessmann, Ph.D and Carolyn Yeager
“A new, strong and historical order always arises from struggle and war, or–we always have to be aware of that danger–chaos, splitting up of ethnic entities, degeneration of nations, rigor, loss and decline.”

Hitler, Table Talk, February 27, 1942 (Jochmann/Picker):
I am here by virtue of a higher force, if I am necessary [for] something. Apart from being too cruel to me, this glorified Church. I have never yet found pleasure in maltreating others, even though I recognize that without violence it is not possible to assert oneself. Life is only given to the one who fights most strongly. The law of life is to defend yourself! [Es wird nur dem das Leben gegeben, der am stärksten darum ficht. Das Gesetz des Lebens heißt: Verteidige dich!] The time we live, it is the appearance of the collapse of this matter [dieser Sache]. It can last a hundred [100] or two [200] hundred years. I am sorry that, like Moses, I can only see the promised land from afar. We are growing into a sunny, truly tolerant worldview: Man should be able to develop the abilities given him by God. We must only prevent a new, even greater lie from arising: the Jewish Bolshevik world must break!

[“New Atheist” Richard C. Carrier’s narrative is overall misleading, especially when he claims that Hitler was looking forward to “the expediency of his own Nazi-enforced Social Darwinism” rather than the decline of Christianity, by rendering the translation as “the collapse of this idea“. The laws of life cannot be annulled, not even by “god”, and Hitler himself would never have repudiated the laws which form the basis of his philosophy. Also, Mr. Carrier is dead wrong when he claims that “the anti-Christian sentiment exhibited throughout the Genoud/Cameron & Stevens version is largely lacking in the German”. The German translations are arguably more anti-Christian. More on table talks authenticity.]

Hitler’s Letters and Notes, p.g 284:
The Germanic Revolution

The man of genius in tune with nature does not try to test this law
which also informs his own ideas about the world
but performs all his actions in accordance
with it.

Hitler, June 27, 1937 speech:
As weak as the individual may ultimately be in his character and actions as a whole, when compared to Almighty Providence and its will, he becomes just as infinitely strong the instant he acts in accordance with this Providence. Then there will rain upon him the power that has distinguished all great phenomena of this world.

Hitler, January 30, 1944 speech:
The attempt of our enemies to bring about the collapse of the German Volk and Reich through high-explosive and fire bombs will in the end only result in reinforcing its socialist unity even more and create that hard state which Providence has destined to fashion the history of Europe in the coming centuries. That this tremendous, worldshaking process is taking place by causing suffering and pain corresponds to an eternal law of destiny, which states not only that everything great is gained by fighting but also that every mortal comes into this world by causing pain.

Mein Kampf:
If the German people is cramped in an insufficient living space and is, for that reason, faced with a hopeless future, it is not by the law of Destiny, and the refusal to accept such a situation is by no means a violation of Destiny’s laws. Just as no Higher Power has allotted more territory to other nations than to the German nation, an unjust distribution of territory cannot constitute an offence against such a Power. The land in which we now live was not a gift bestowed by Heaven on our forefathers, but was conquered by them at the risk of their lives.

Laurency (kl1_9.53):
1The law of destiny indicates what forces influence the individual with regard to necessary experiences. This does not in the least mean that man learns from these experiences. “Destiny” cannot encroach on the free choice of the individual. The planetary hierarchy asserts with all vigour that “mankind determines its own destiny itself”. The law of reaping sees to it that man will take the consequences of his choice.
2Destiny is a result of partly the forces working purposefully towards the goal of evolution, partly the contribution of free will, partly the repercussions of the law of reaping.
14If mankind does not want to use its reason and apply the laws of life that have been proclaimed during millions of years, then mankind will be taught that lesson, time and again, by painful experiences. There is no other way.

11. Aryan Hitler

Hitler, May 26, 1944, Platterhof hotel talk:
Translated by Carlos W. Porter, hosted by Carolyn Yeager
When one regards the German people from this point of view, as purely biological, then we see a union of peoples with the same language, consolidated through the circuitous route of State-formation – that is perhaps the decisive thing here – but of various racial origins; a Nordic racial nucleus, but Alpine elements are present as well, [also] Mediterranean racial nuclei, with a still-European base race in it all, a pre-historical [prehistoric] race which we are no longer able to identify specifically, but which is there, it was already there among the Greeks; the Helots of the Spartans consisted of them.

[See Table Talk (Cameron & Stevens) entries November 5, 1941, February 17, 1942]


Hitler, Table Talk (Cameron & Stevens), June 24, 1943:
The whole blossoming of our music in Vienna is not due to the town; such things do not spring from their environment, but from the genius of a race. Really creative music is composed partly of inspiration and partly of a sense of composition. The inspiration is of Slavonic origin, the art of composition is of Germanic. It is when these two mingle in one man that the master of genius appears.
In Bach’s music it is the composition which is marvellous, and he certainly had no drop of Slav blood in his veins. As regards Beethoven, on the other hand, one glance at his head shows that he comes of a different race. It is not pure chance that the British have never produced a composer of genius; it is because they are a pure Germanic race.

Hitler, November 8, 1939 speech:
Or when they say that they stand up for culture: England as the creator of culture is a chapter in its own right. The English cannot tell us Germans anything about culture: our music, our poetry, our architecture, our paintings, our sculptures, can more than stand a comparison to the English arts. I believe that a single German, let us say, Beethoven, achieved more in the realm of music than all Englishmen of the past and present together! And we take care of this culture better than the English are capable of doing.

Henriette von Schirach:
I am a Mediterranean man,” [Hitler] confessed in a silent voice. “When the dreadful war is finally over, I will draw and paint in the Albanian mountains like many German artists before me.”

Hitler (attributed):
They know that Benito Mussolini is constructing a colossal empire which will put the Roman Empire in the shade. We shall put up … for his victories. Mussolini is a typical representative of our Alpine race which, in everything it does, has its eye on eternity.


Hitler, Table Talk (Cameron & Stevens), July 7, 1942:
The real protagonists of culture, both in the thousand years before Christ and in the thousand years after Him, were the peoples of the Mediterranean. This may appear improbable to us to-day, because we are apt to judge these people from present-day appearances. But that is a great mistake.

Hitler’s Letters and Notes, p.g 286:
The Germanic Revolution

Causes of the Decline (Negrification of the Mediterranean)

✡Gerald Menuhin:
Following on Coudenhove-Kalergi’s vison of “the Eurasian-Negroid race of the future” (1925), Hitler, in an open letter to Graf Soden-Fraunhofen printed in the Völkischer Beobachterof November 8, 1929, predicted that, ‘They want to transform our people economically and spiritually into white negroes. That is the goal of the Jewish race which rules over Germany today.” (Cited in Hitlers Kontrahenten in der NSDAP, Werner Bräuninger, 2004, p. 106)

[Compare with Corpus Hermeticum]

11a. Genius

Laurency (L5e5):
9The assertion of Marx that physical factors are the only active forces in social development evidences his ignorance of life. Emotional illusions and mental fictions are far more powerful than physical factors.

Fritz Lenz:
Ploetz recognized as unsatisfactory from the very beginning the Marxist doctrine of historical materialism – a doctrine which, biologically speaking, derived from the principle of the omnipotence of the environment. The recognition that not all evil is determined by the environment, and that the roots of most evil lie instead in hereditary defects, became the motivating force in racial hygiene.

[Assessing Marxism]

Leslie Edge:
When [Herbert von Karajan] returned I asked him about it. He said that you don’t need any faith to believe in God, because there are plenty of signs available of His existence. Mozart wrote a symphony as a child. Heredity cannot account for this.

[Or consider the widely attested case of a five year old Einstein receiving a compass as a gift and having his interest piqued.]

The Serbian inventor and electrical engineer Nikola Tesla was heavily influenced by Goethe’s Faust, his favorite poem, and had actually memorized the entire text. It was while reciting a certain verse that he was struck with the epiphany that would lead to the idea of the rotating magnetic field and ultimately, alternating current.

Heinz Linge:
Once I asked Hitler why he did not get married. He gave me a lecture on the destructive influence of women on great men and pointed out that, insofar as this question touched on the propaganda angle, he was anxious to appear to be the statesman who dedicated all his strength to the German people. To Otto Wagener, a former general staff officer and SA chief of staff from 1929 to 1932, who as leader of the NSDAP Political Economy Department was always close to Hitler’s person, Hitler had explained:

If I should be called upon to lead Germany out of despair, if I should succeed in becoming the hero of the German people, then the people should not be burdened with a son of mine. You see, where a great personality has emerged from nowhere and rises to magnificent heights, whether in the arts, science or as a statesman, the son has never been anything near what the father was. The children either slip back or fade into anonymity. Where is the son of Goethe, of Schiller, of Beethoven? What would Siegfried Wagner have become if, apart from being his father’s son and inheriting Bayreuth, he had not had his mother Cosima as well as his equally significant life’s companion Winifred with him? Or take Kant, or Napoleon. A son of mine would only be a burden and accordingly an unhappy person or a danger.

Laurency (kl2_3):
3Regrettably, geniuses seldom have children possessing the same genius. This can have many causes. Old antagonisms, bad reaping for both parties, competition about the place, in which someone has the right of priority, also old friendship between individuals. The individual must develop his brain on his own. Children of a genius have no use for ingenious brains if they are unable to utilize the opportunities. Either they lack the requisite latent ability or they have no opportunity to develop it. Genius is not hereditary, only the brain potential, which must be utilized by a child having a latent genius.

Philosophical Dictionary: Genius
Among the Romans, the word “genius” was not used to express a rare talent, as with us: the term for that quality was ingenium. We use the word “genius” indifferently in speaking of the tutelar demon of a town of antiquity, or an artist, or a musician. The term “genius” seems to have been intended to designate not great talents generally, but those into which invention enters. Invention, above everything, appeared a gift from the gods — this ingenium, quasi ingenitum, a kind of divine inspiration. Now an artist, however perfect he may be in his profession, if he have no invention, if he be not original, is not considered a genius. He is only inspired by the artists his predecessors, even when he surpasses them.

Mein Kampf:
No pupil can take the place of the master in completing a great picture which he has left unfinished; and just in the same way no substitute can take the place of the great poet or thinker, the great statesman or the great general, for their activity lies in the realm of artistic creative ability which can never be mechanically acquired, because it is an innate and divine gift.

Dietrich Eckart:
To be a genius means to use the soul, to strive for the divine, to escape from the mean; and even if this cannot be totally achieved, there will be no space for the opposite of good. It does not prevent the genius to portray also the wretchedness of being in all shapes and colors, being the great artist, that he is; but he does this as an observer, not taking part, sine ira et studio [“without anger and fondness” or “without hate and zealousness”], his heart remains pure.

Laurency (L4e5):
3Genius requires more than mastery of the form. Content is the main thing. The notion of “destructive genius” is a contradiction in terms. The essence of genius at least contains the divination of the ideals, the instinctive understanding of what is fit for life and life-promoting. Those in whom this divination has never been born or in whom it has been devastated do not belong to the stage of culture and are no true geniuses. Strindberg, for example, is not one of those. He is a typical representative of a literary current that is totally disoriented and has not even a minimal understanding of culture.

Rudolf Hess, August 14, 1934:
The great historian Treitschke held the ability to see things correctly as the decisive ability of a statesman, more important even than talent. What leader has ever had this ability more than Adolf Hitler? The proof is in his speeches, even those from 1920. Rarely have political conditions and developments been predicted more accurately, seldom have conclusions been drawn more clearly, thanks to his ability to see the fundamental nature of the most difficult and complicated things. The “simple understanding” of the genius is able to see the essential and the obvious.
The Führer adds to the ability to see correctly, which the historian sees as more critical than talent, not only talent, but also genius. The ability to see correctly, along with genius, to which must be added the workings of providence, gives us an explanation for the miracle that has happened before our eyes in the past few years, particularly since Hitler’s assumption of power. Is not the transformation of our people a miracle!

✡Otto Weininger:
The purest Aryans by descent and disposition are seldom Antisemites, although they are often unpleasantly moved by some of the peculiar Jewish traits; they cannot in the least understand the Antisemite movement, and are, in consequence of their defence of the Jews, often called Philosemites; and yet these persons writing on the subject of the hatred of Jews, have been guilty of the most profound misunderstanding of the Jewish character.
The aggressive Antisemites, on the other hand, nearly always display certain Jewish characters, sometimes apparent in their faces, though they may have no real admixture of Jewish blood.24

[The Jew Weininger made a striking observation here. The first U.S. Ambassador to Israel, James Grover McDonald, furnishes the best example of a non-Jew completely enthralled to Jewish interests.]

Ambassador James Grover McDonald, April 8, 1933:
I had intended to talk about certain aspects of foreign policy first, but Hanfstaengl thought that it would be better to discuss the Jewish question directly. This I did.
Immediately Hitler replied,

We are not primarily attacking the Jews, rather the Socialists and Communists. The United States has shut out such people. We did not do so. Therefore, we cannot be blamed if we now take measures against them. Besides, as to Jews, why should there be such a fuss when they are thrown out of places, when hundreds of thousands of Aryan Germans are on the streets? No, the world has no just ground for complaint.”

[Heinrich Hoffman, Henriette Hoffman, Traudl Junge, and Christa Schroeder describe an incident where Hitler rebuked Hoffman’s daughter. Schroeder gives the fullest account.]

Christa Scroeder:
The next day she learned from her friends that this had been a deportation of Jewish women. She promised to bring the matter to the attention of Hitler, which she was now doing. Hitler answered her in a very brusque manner: ‘Be silent, Frau von Schirach, you understand nothing about it. You are sentimental. What does it matter to you what happens to female Jews? Every day tens of thousands of my most valuable men fall while the inferior survive. In that way the balance in Europe is being undermined,’ and here he moved his cupped hands up and down like a pair of scales. ‘And what will become of Europe in one hundred, in one thousand years?’ In a tone which made it evident that he considered the matter closed, he declared: ‘I am committed by duty to my people alone, to nobody else!’

David Irving:
Hitler’s War, Notes and Sources, page 595
On the Schirachs’ last visit to the Berghof (Jun 1943) I collected testimony from both Schirachs, Otto Günsche, secretary Christa Schroeder, Marion Schönmann – whose wording I have followed – Traudl Humps (who learned about it from her husband, Hans Junge), and the cameraman Walter Frentz; also from the Goebbels diary, Jun 25, and Table Talk, Jun 24, 1943 (evening). Traces of Hitler’s ‘scale-pan’ argument also surface in Table Talks on Sep 14 and Nov 5, 1941, and in Goebbels’s diary, May 23 and 30, 1942.

[Another ambassador, William Dodd, and his acquaintances establish that America’s attitude towards the Jewish question was moderate, vacillating, lukewarm, yet somewhat conscious of the Jewish menace. As usual, any criticism for Jews is interpreted and reported as anti-Semitism…]

Erik Larson:
In the Garden of Beasts
When the conversation turned to Germany’s persecution of Jews, Colonel House urged Dodd to do all he could “to ameliorate Jewish sufferings” but added a caveat: “the Jews should not be allowed to dominate economic or intellectual life in Berlin as they have done for a long time.”

In this, Colonel House expressed a sentiment pervasive in America, that Germany’s Jews were at least partly responsible for their own troubles. Dodd encountered a more rabid form of it later that same day after returning to New York, when he and his family went to dinner at the Park Avenue apartment of Charles R. Crane, seventy-five, a philanthropist whose family had grown wealthy selling plumbing supplies. Crane was an Arabist said to be influential in certain Middle Eastern and Balkan nations and was a generous supporter of Dodd’s department at the University of Chicago, where he had endowed a chair for the study of Russian history and institutions.

Dodd already knew that Crane was no friend of Jews. When Crane earlier had written to congratulate Dodd on his appointment, he had offered some advice: “The Jews, after winning the war, galloping along at a swift pace, getting Russia, England and Palestine, being caught in the act of trying to seize Germany, too, and meeting their first real rebuff have gone plumb crazy and are deluging the world—particularly easy America—with anti-German propaganda—I strongly advise you to resist every social invitation.”

Dodd partly embraced Crane’s notion that the Jews shared responsibility for their plight. He wrote to Crane later, after arriving in Berlin, that while he did not “approve of the ruthlessness that is being applied to the Jews here,” he did think the Germans had a valid grievance. “When I have occasion to speak unofficially to eminent Germans, I have said very frankly that they had a very serious problem but that they did not seem to know how to solve it,” he wrote. “The Jews had held a great many more of the key positions in Germany than their numbers or their talents entitled them to.”

Erik Larson:
In the Garden of Beasts
Dodd countered that Germany’s current approach was doing great damage to the country’s reputation in America. Oddly, Dodd now sought to find a kind of middle ground with the dictator. He told Hitler, “You know a number of high positions in our country are at present occupied by Jews, both in New York and Illinois.” He named several “eminent fair-minded Hebrews,” including Henry Morgenthau Jr., Roosevelt’s secretary of the Treasury since January.
Dodd explained to Hitler “that where the question of over-activity of Jews in university or official life made trouble, we had managed to redistribute the offices in such a way as not to give great offense, and that wealthy Jews continued to support institutions which had limited the number of Jews who held high positions.” Dodd cited one such example in Chicago and added, “The Jews in Illinois constituted no serious problem.”
Dodd in his memorandum explained: “My idea was to suggest a different procedure from that which has been followed here—of course never giving pointed advice.”
Hitler shot back that “59 percent of all offices in Russia were held by Jews; that they had ruined that country and that they intended to ruin Germany.” More furious now than ever, Hitler proclaimed, “If they continue their activity, we shall make a complete end to all of them in this country.”
It was a strange moment. Here was Dodd, the humble Jeffersonian schooled to view statesmen as rational creatures, seated before the leader of one of Europe’s great nations as that leader grew nearly hysterical with fury and threatened to destroy a portion of his own population. It was extraordinary, utterly alien to his experience.

[Let me put that closing sentence in another way. Here was Dodd, raised in humanitarian notions, pestering the modest Jeffersonian leader of one of Europe’s great nations, who himself had long viewed statesmen such as Churchill as salvageable creatures, about an alien portion over his own German populace.]

Hitler, July 28, 1922 speech:
They are indeed not dangerous. They never go to the roots of the evil: they all still think that with forbearance, with humanity, with accommodation they can fight a battle which has not its equal in this world. Through gentleness they think that they must demonstrate to the enemy of the Left that they are ready for appeasement so as to stay the deadly cancerous ulcer through a policy of moderation.

Hitler, Table Talk (Cameron & Stevens), January 23, 1942:
One must act radically. When one pulls out a tooth, one does it with a single tug, and the pain quickly goes away. The Jew must clear out of Europe. Otherwise no understanding will be possible between Europeans. It’s the Jew who prevents everything.

Hitler, Table Talk (Cameron & Stevens), January 23, 1942:
A good three hundred or four hundred years will go by before the Jews set foot again in Europe. They’ll return first of all as commercial travellers, then gradually they’ll become emboldened to settle here—the better to exploit us. In the next stage, they become philanthropists, they endow foundations. When a Jew does that, the thing is particularly noticed—for it’s known that they’re dirty dogs. As a rule, it’s the most rascally of them who do that sort of thing. And then you’ll hear these poor Aryan boobies telling you: “You see, there are good Jews!”

[Here I present the case of two other philosemites who personally knew and interacted with Jews and were occasionally, in times of momentary clarity, in a position to deliver an objective observation concerning Jews. Nothing could be more damning and precise than their testimony, an antisemite could not have written this. Naturally, the Jew and his lackeys will try to get around it by accusing them of having been closet antisemites or self-hating Jews.]

President Harry S. Truman (Diaries), July 21, 1947:
Had ten minutes conversation with Henry Morgenthau about Jewish ship in Palistine [sic]. Told him I would talk to Gen[eral] Marshall about it. He’d no business, whatever to call me. The Jews have no sense of proportion nor do they have any judgement on world affairs. Henry brought a thousand Jews to New York on a supposedly temporary basis and they stayed. When the country went backward-and Republican in the election of 1946, this incident loomed large on the D[isplaced] P[ersons] program.
The Jews, I find are very, very selfish. They care not how many Estonians, Latvians, Finns, Poles, Yugoslavs or Greeks get murdered or mistreated as D[isplaced] P[ersons] as long as the Jews get special treatment. Yet when they have power, physical, financial or political neither Hitler nor Stalin has anything on them for cruelty or mistreatment to the under dog. Put an underdog on top and it makes no difference whether his name is Russian, Jewish, Negro, Management, Labor, Mormon, Baptist he goes haywire.
I’ve found very, very few who remember their past condition when prosperity comes.

Hitler, Memoirs of a Confidant, p.g. 69:
The Jew notoriously likes to remain anonymous as long as he is not in power. He takes off his mask only when he has gained domination – or at least when he believes he has.

Hitler, Memoirs of a Confidant, p.g. 83:
We tend to believe too readily that our repugnance to the Jews is one-sided. In nature such things are never one-sided. The Jew has just as little liking for Nordics as is the case in reverse. Except that, as long as he does not have the power, the Jew is smart enough not to let his feelings show. But once he holds power, he no longer makes a secret of his aversion, and his aversion can easily be intensified to the point of fanatical hatred and acts of sadism. At that point his attitude becomes evident to those who were not aware of it before.

The Track of the Jew
Not always was the Jew, as soon as he acquired influence, the cool businessman and politician; often some insatiability thrust him into immoderation and had for himself the most bitter consequences. Less eagerly conducted exploitation and usury, a less emphasised religious and national arrogance would have fully spared him many sorrows; but the Jewish principle of the exploitation of all peoples, as Dostoyevsky, Fichte, Goethe and other greats recognised it, born of the deep aversion to everything non-Jewish, finally made of the apparently cold Jew a passionate hater. This hatred is as old as Judaism itself, and is manifested everywhere according to the direction that is open to it.

Senator Thomas J. Dodd:
Sepember. 25, 1945 letter
You know how I have despised anti-Semitism. You know how strongly I feel toward those who preach intolerance of any kind. With that knowledge — you will understand when I tell you that this staff is about seventy-five percent Jewish. Now my point is that the Jews should stay away from this trial — for their own sake. For — mark this well — the charge ‘a war for the Jews’ is still being made and in the post-war years it will be made again and again. The too large percentage of Jewish men and women here will be cited as proof of this charge. Sometimes it seems that the Jews will never learn about these things. They seem intent on bringing new difficulties down on their own heads. I do not like to write about this matter —it is distasteful to me — but I am disturbed about it. They are pushing and crowding and competing with each other and with everyone else. (Published JTA 9, October 2007.)

In the next place, ridiculing after his usual style the race of Jews and Christians, [Celsus] compares them all “to a flight of bats or to a swarm of ants issuing out of their nest, or to frogs holding council in a marsh, or to worms crawling together in the comer of a dunghill, and quarrelling with one another…”

✡Otto Weininger (footnote):
Zola was a typical case of a person absolutely without trace of the Jewish qualities, and, therefore, a philosemite. The greatest geniuses, on the other hand, have nearly always been antisemites (Tacitus, Pascal, Voltaire, Herder, Goethe, Kant, Jean Paul, Schopenhauer, Grillparzer, Wagner); this comes about from the fact as geniuses they have something of everything in their natures, and so can understand Judaism.

[For the first half of his footnote, I think he means genius in a conventional sense. I would contest calling Kant a genius. Goethe and Schiller kept their distance from Jean Paul, although Herder apparently appreciated him. Pascal was ruined by his Christianity. Schopenhauer was intelligent, but not a model for life like Goethe was. Wagner based his music on Schopenhauer’s pessimistic philosophy. Nonetheless, their shared merit is that they were all conscious of the Jewish menace. The second part of Weininger’s footnote is remarkably accurate.]

Hitler, July 28, 1922 speech:
Voltaire, as well as Rousseau, together with our German Fichte and many another – they are all without exception united in their recognition that the Jew is not only a foreign element differing in his essential character, which is utterly harmful to the nature of the Aryan, but that the Jewish people in itself stands against us as our deadly foe and so will stand against us always and for all time.

Laurency (L4e5):
2Schiller’s first impression of Goethe appears from his statement: “It is interesting how he apprehends and reproduces everything in his own characteristic, individual way, unlike how others apprehend it. He considers the form too much where I consider the soul. But his greatness is in his all-roundness and endeavour to explore everything and make it a whole.”

Laurency (L5e4):
11The mental consciousnesses of the stage of humanity still remain to be acquired, however. They are of two kinds: perspective thinking (47:5) and system thinking (47:4). We can have an intimation of what this means, although only incompletely of course, by studying Nietzsche and Goethe. The former went around, so to speak, his study subject in work upon work, scrutinizing it from many angles. Goethe saw everything from that synthesis of unity which surveys it all.

Laurency (kl2_8):
9Perspective thinking is seen already in the paradox, which makes two opposites abolish, illustrate, determine one another. That is the first step beyond principle thinking, which is absolute and constantly gets stuck on contradictions.

[Here I am reminded of Tacitus’ compare and contrast between Germans and Jews.]

Laurency (kl2_8):
10Perspective consciousness implies the ability to see anything from all viewpoints and positions, to constantly widen perspectives, constantly higher, a widening horizon.
11“We never get anything finished” because it only grows and widens until it embraces everything.
12Perspective consciousness walks around, so to speak, the object it is looking at, scrutinizing its various aspects, being aware of the fact that it is the same object but that reason sees the same thing from a variety of viewpoints, dividing into pieces what is unified. Therefore, the same thing can appear totally different, as though it were not the same thing. A perspective idea can require a long essay to be dissolved into its components. Nietzsche may be taken as the typical example of a perspective thinker. In work upon work he was concerned with the same problems and proposed different solutions in each.

Laurency (kl2_8):
36A pronounced character of this type was Nietzsche. He had liberated himself from slavish dependence on principle thinking, being the first step towards emancipation from the concrete form-thinking of mentalism.
37In work after work he went against his fundamental problems to extract new viewpoints from them. His contribution was mainly negative and critical because he lacked the basic facts of the esoteric knowledge, which are necessary to a correct conception of existence, its meaning and goal.

Laurency (L5e1):
The much-vaunted Kant, Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel were no initiates. Kant was the most acute and profound of them. But what is the good of the greatest mental genius without esoteric facts? He produced nothing but fictions. Fichte was an acute subjectivist who went totally astray. Schelling and Hegel were eclectics who lived on mishmash of the ideas of other men and beyond that produced illusions and fictions.

✡Count Richard N. Coudenhove Kalergi:
Almost all European ethics are rooted in Judaism. All champions of religious or irreligious Christian morality, from Augustine to Rousseau, Kant and Tolstoy, were Jews by choice [Wahljuden] in the spiritual sense; Nietzsche is the only non-Jewish, the only pagan ethicist in Europe.

Mein Kampf:
From early youth I endeavoured to read books in the right way and I was fortunate in having a good memory and intelligence to assist me. From that point of view my sojourn in Vienna was particularly useful and profitable. My daily experiences were a constant stimulus to study the most diverse problems from new angles.

Hitler, Table Talk, February 6, 1942 (Cameron & Stevens):
As soon as everybody in England is convinced that the war can only be run at a loss, it’s certain that there won’t be anyone left there who feels inclined to carry on with it. I’ve examined this problem in all its aspects, turned it round in all directions. If I add up the results we’ve already achieved, I consider that we are in an exceptionally favourable situation. For the first time, we have on our side a first-rate military Power, Japan.

I have often been asked, and even by Rudolf Hess, who once invited me to visit him in Linz, whether Adolf, when I knew him, had any sense of humour. One feels the lack of it, people of his entourage said. After all, he was an Austrian and should have had his share of the famous Austrian sense of humour. Certainly one’s impression of Hitler, especially after a short and superficial acquaintance, was that of a deeply serious man. This enormous seriousness seemed to overshadow everything else. It was the same when he was young. He approached the problems with which he was concerned with a deadly earnestness which ill suited his sixteen or seventeen years. He was capable of loving and admiring, hating and despising, all with the greatest seriousness. One thing he could not do was to pass over something with a smile. Even with a subject in which he did not take a personal interest, such as sport, this was, nevertheless, as a phenomenon of modern times, just as important to him as any other. He never came to the end of his problems. His profound earnestness never ceased to attack new problems, and if he did not find any in the present, he would brood at home for hours over his books and burrow into the problems of the past. This extraordinary earnestness was his most striking quality. Many other qualities which are characteristic of youth were lacking in him: a carefree letting go of himself, living only for the day – the happy attitude of “What is to be, will be.” Even “going off the rails,” in the coarse exuberance of youth, was alien to him. His idea, strange to say, was that these were things that did not become a young man.

I knew the normal interests of young people of my age: flirtations, shallow pleasures, idle play and a lot of unimportant meaningless thoughts. Adolf was the exact opposite. There was an incredible earnestness in him, a thoroughness, a true passionate interest in everything that happened and, most important, an unfailing devotion to the beauty, majesty and grandeur of art.

I had long since known this behaviour of his, when a self-imposed task engrossed him completely and forced him to unceasing activity; it was as though a demon had taken possession of him. Oblivious of his surroundings, he never tired, he never slept. He ate nothing, he hardly drank. At the most he would occasionally grab the milk bottle and take a hasty gulp, certainly without being aware of it, for he was too completely wrapped up in his work. But never before had I been so directly impressed by this ecstatic creativeness.

Laurency (kr5):
11In textbooks, French popular philosophy is usually mentioned in connection with German humanism, revolution of another kind. Lessing, Herder, Schiller, and Goethe were initiated Rosicrucians representing a sovereign point of view quite different even from the professional philosophers (Kant, etc.), who were still dealing with the principle thinking of the stage of civilization. They showed that they had attained the perspective thinking of the stage of humanity, which facilitates contact with the world of ideas.

I have seen with what absolute dedication, even as early as that, he gave himself to the people whom he loved. Only in this people could he live. He knew nothing other than this people.

Adolf Hitler’s leading emotion is obviously his “love beyond all measure” for Germany and all that is German. “He lived in the German people; nothing counted for him, save they.” These words, describing the future ruler’s feelings already in early youth, are true at all stages of his life. And his main intellectual, or rather, spiritual, feature, is perhaps that inborn, baffling intuition of history in the broadest sense of the word — of history as our planet’s destiny, — which lifts him straight above all politicians, generals and actual kings, to the level of the great Seers, and gives his whole career that extraordinary, “dream-like” [Traumhaft] character of which Hans Grimm so appropriately speaks. The originality of his genius lies in the fact that he lived his German patriotism from a cosmic point of view, giving both Germany and the history of our times their true significance in the light of not merely human but cosmic evolution.

Otto Wagener, Memoirs of a Confidant, p.g. 3-4:
From the first moment, his eyes caught and held me. They were clear and large, trained on me calmly and with self-assurance. His gaze came, not from the pupil, but from a much deeper source–I felt as if it came from the infinite. It was impossible to read anything in these eyes. But they spoke, they wanted to speak. They did not ask, they talked.

Fridolin von Spaun:
Suddenly I noticed Hitler’s eyes resting on me. He was indeed observing me. And that was one of the most curious moments in my life. I had the feeling that he was searching somehow – the gaze which at first rested completely on me suddenly went straight through me and into an unknown distance. It was so strange. And the long gaze which he had given me convinced me completely that he was a man of honourable intentions. I can only say that I’m glad that I saw Hitler’s beautiful side. Surely there must have been dark sides, but I saw his wonderful side, and nobody can take that away from me.

Wallis Warfield, Duchess of Windsor:
The heart has its reasons
Since Hitler spoke neither English nor French, the conversation, which David insisted on continuing in German, despite the presence of Dr. Schmidt, was entirely over my head. I could not take my eyes off Hitler. He was dressed in his brown
Party uniform. His face had a pasty pallor, and under his mustache his lips were fixed in a kind of mirthless grimace. Yet at close quarters he gave one the feeling of great inner force. His hands were long and slim, a musician’s hands, and his eyes were truly extraordinary intense, unblinking, magnetic, burning with the same peculiar fire I had earlier seen in the eyes of Kemal Atatiirk. Once or twice I felt those eyes turned in my direction. But when I tried to meet their gaze, the lids drooped, and I found myself confronted by a mask. I decided that Hitler did not care for women.

[It’s remarkable how the Jewish press constantly tries to stigmatize the Duke and Duchess of Windsor with an association with “Nazism” due to a short visit and a few positive remarks. The Duchess makes it explicitly clear in her memoirs that she was not a sympathizer. It just goes to show that the Jews will not tolerate anything remotely perceived as sympathetic to Hitler.]

11b. Special Impulse: Rienzi

The Bormann Letters:
Gerda Bormann to Martin Bormann
11 . 9 . 1943. . . The Fuehrer’s speech has done me a power of good. All the uncertainty of the last few days, all the anxious worry about ‘What next’ have blown away. And everyone who heard the Fuehrer has had the same experience as I. Never have I felt the power of his voice over people as strongly as this time. There is a world of difference between his speaking, and his proclamation being read by someone else. It isn’t only what he says, but the sound of his voice and the inflexion he gives it. Of course it all makes a much greater impression still on the others who hear him even less frequently than I do. . . .

Traudl Junge:
It wasn’t what Hitler said that was important to me, but the way he said it and how he expressed his essential nature.

[Must be careful in assessing Junge since she was delivered over to the collective German guilt complex, as seen in the latter part of her memoirs.]

Laurency ():
2The hypothesis of the voice of conscience has been confuted logically and psychologically. The voice of conscience is the voice of convention, an automatized “logical” reaction from the inferiority complexes that were established in childhood and overstimulated in adolescence by unpsychological unceasing inculcation of the notions of sin, guilt, and shame, which are hostile to life and which later in life are turned into depression complexes and often grow into anxiety complexes.
3The hypothesis of the “voice of conscience” is also refuted by the fact that there has not been anything true that has not been denied, nor anything rational that has not been silenced, nor anything absurd that has not been accepted, nor any kind of iniquity that has not been approved of, nor any kind of cruelty that has not been commended; by this voice of conscience.
4Those who speak most of “conscience” are usually the ones to be the least embarrassed by self-criticism. They walk with “waves of their own across the ocean” and hurl their spears unconcernedly, “with the warrior’s lawful intent to injure and kill,” at the defenceless they find in their way.
5An English bishop, South, rightly said: “By all means follow thy conscience, but first take heed that thy conscience is not the conscience of a fool!”

Martin Luther:
Do not ask anything of your conscience; and if it speaks, do not listen to it; if it insists, stifle it, amuse yourself; if necessary, commit some good big sin, in order to drive it away. Conscience is the voice of Satan, and it is necessary always to do just the contrary of what Satan wishes. (ref. J. Dollinger, La Reforme et les resultants qu’elle a produits. (Trans. E. Perrot, Paris, Gaume, 1848-49), Vol III, pg. 248).

G. Ward Price:
The susceptibility of the Chancellor’s mind to psychic influences is shown in his public oratory. At the outset of a speech his delivery is sometimes slow and halting. Only as the spiritual atmosphere engendered by a great audience takes possession of his mind does he develop that eloquence which acts on the German nation like a spell. For he responds to this metaphysical contact in such a way that each member of the multitude feels bound to him by an individual link of sympathy.

Memoirs of a Confidant, p.g. 180:
“While I work”–by this phrase he meant making speeches, participating in discussions, attending rallies, as well as his presence at some sports event, for example, or a military demonstration–“I gather renewed strength from the glowing eyes, the applause, and the enthusiasm of my listeners, the audience, the entire mass, and I concentrate it in myself for the sole purpose for which I happen to be present or which I am pursuing.”
That is why some people, quite understandably, say that there is something uncanny, dynamic, in his personality. Occasionally, this trait is also called despotically overpowering. But such an opinion can only be formed only by people who attempt to determine his nature on the basis of outward behavior. Furthermore, it is absolutely wrong and misguided to try to label this sort of thing diabolical.

Leon Degrelle:
All his artistic talent would be channeled into his mastery of communication and eloquence. Hitler would never conceive of popular conquests without the power of the Word. He would enchant and be enchanted by it. He would find total fulfillment when the magic of his words inspired the hearts and minds of the masses with whom he communed. He would feel reborn each time he conveyed with mystical beauty the knowledge he had acquired in his lifetime… The power of Hitler’s word is the key. Without it, there would never have been a Hitler era.

His face showed emotion or indifference according to the passion or apathy of the moment. At times he was as though benumbed, saying not a word, while his jaws moved in the meanwhile as if they were grinding an obstacle to smithereens in the void. Then he would come suddenly alive and launch into a speech directed at you alone, as though he were addressing a crowd of hundreds of thousands at Berlin’s Tempelhof airfield. Then he became as if transfigured. Even his complexion, otherwise dull, lit up as he spoke. And at such times, to be sure, Hitler was strangely attractive and as if possessed of magic powers.

[Baroness Elizabeth von Guttenberg, who was opposed to Hitler, describes him in the exact same manner in her memoir “Holding the Stirrup”: devoid of personality then suddenly taken over by an entity. She also adds that this was the general consensus between Germans who opposed him, something that should be verified.]

Wagener, Memoirs of a Confidant, p.g. 179:
Finally, however, there was also something highly fascinating in his manner of speaking, perhaps even something hypnotic to some listeners. Men who were easily influenced would turn off their own thinking apparatus while they listened, so that they acted under a psychological compulsion, which they might not be in any position to understand themselves.
How strong this power of suggestion was I was able to observe on one occasion when Hitler attended an SA athletic meet. He followed the various events with burning interest and the determination to see extraordinary feats. What happened is almost inconceivable. From the moment Hitler entered the stadium and was greeted with universal cheering, men who at other times were given to average performances began to improve their speed in the hundred-meter dash, increase their distance in the javelin throw, and in the relay race, in swimming, and even in sharpshooting attain scores that approached top international records and on occasion even topped them. These performers were simply under the spell of Hitler’s personality. During the competitions he himself strained forward and visibly concentrated mentally and physically. When each event was finished, he collapsed, seemingly exhausted, for a few moments. [ . . . ]
Whenever he addressed large meetings–always improvising and speaking without the preparation we normally assume–he lost three or four pounds. His only preparation consisted of a quarter of an hour or so of mental concentration on the intended topic.

Hitler, Table Talk (Cameron & Stevens), July 8, 1942:
Whenever I have to make a speech of great importance I am always soaking wet at the end, and I find I have lost four or six pounds in weight. And in Bavaria, where, in addition to my usual mineral water, local custom insists that I drink two or three bottles of beer, I lose as much as eight pounds. This loss of weight is not, I think, injurious to health.

Hitler, Table Talk (Cameron & Stevens), January 22, 1942:
At the time when I ate meat, I used to sweat a lot. I used to drink four pots of beer and six bottles of water during a meeting, and I’d succeed in losing nine pounds! When I became a vegetarian, a mouthful of water from time to time was enough.

[Wagener again and again emphasizes the involvement of concentration in Hitler’s oratory.]

G. Ward Price:
Intensity of purpose is no uncommon cause of celibacy, and, in Hitler’s case, the sublimation of sexual impulses in the performance of public duties would be helped by the self-control that he already shows by doing without tobacco and wine and limiting himself to food of monastic simplicity. It is certain that this disciplined restraint of human instincts implies no lack of human sympathy.

Laurency ():
2Another case is represented by such persons as are so completely absorbed in creative activity (artists, writers, etc.) that they have no thought for anything else, live exclusively for this work. In such an individual, all sacral energies are directed to the throat centre so that nothing remains for the sexual function. That is also a measure of the individual’s faculty of concentration. In such cases we may speak of “sublimation”. And since the pertaining energies then are given their one right outlet, no harm is caused to the sexual organs, as happens when abnormal “continence” is practised. If the person in old age is stricken with dementia, then it is not due to an effect of the sexual energies.

Laurency ():
14People picked up the word “sublimation”. It derives from esoterics but was snatched up by exoterists, and the result was the usual one: the word was not understood. This is most clearly seen from the axiom of the psychoanalysts, “each urge can only find an outlet along its own channel. You cannot satisfy the nutritive urge by playing the Moonlight Sonata.”
What esotericians mean by “sublimation” is the fact that those etheric energies of the etheric envelope which vitalize the sacral centre can be directed to the throat centre. This is done through intensive “creative activity”, a complete absorption in literary, artistic, etc., work. All “creative work” is done through energies in the throat centre, which esoterically is called the “creative centre”. Anyone who “lives to create” absorbs energies from the sacral centre, so that no energies remain for sexual energy. And this is what is meant by “sublimation”.

[What is every portrayal of Hitler from those who personally knew Hitler but that of a creative and artistic intellect?]

Otto Wagener, Memoirs of a Confidant, p.g. 222-223:
That evening, his depression was evident. No conversation developed. He alternated between staring at the paper and silent brooding. Only very late did he ask some terse questions and make small talk. Until he finally seemed to get hold of himself and said:
“It turns out that women play a larger role in a man’s life than we are inclined to suppose when we are not deprived of their presence. It is true that I have overcome the urge to physically possess a woman. But the value I placed on the loving hand of a female being who was close to my heart, and how much the constant solicitude she shed on me meant to me–that I am learning only now, when they are lost to me. The greatest void, a yawning emptiness, though, comes over me in the mornings, when I sit down to my breakfast, or when I return home at noon or in the evening and find myself essentially alone–quite, quite alone. And yet, my sister is there, as she has always been, trying to replace what Geli was to me. But there’s no getting around it, Geli was even more to me than that. Her cheerful laughter always gave me hearty pleasure, her harmless chatter filled me with joy. Even when she sat quietly by my side working a crossword puzzle, I was enveloped in a feeling of well-being that has now given way to a chilly sense of loneliness.”
Hitler paused again, and when he resumed, it was as if he were talking to himself.
“Until now, I still had ties to the world–apparently I still had them, though I was unaware of it. Now everything has been taken from me. Now I am altogether free, inwardly and outwardly. Perhaps it was meant to be this way. Now I belong only to the German Volk and to my mission. But poor Geli! She had to sacrifice herself for this.” As he spoke, his features took on such a deeply human expression of sorrow and pity that one quite forgot the genius in him and saw only Adolf Hitler the man.

Carl Jung:
In comparison with Mussolini, Hitler made upon me the impression of a sort of scaffolding, of wood covered with cloth, an automaton with a mask, like a robot, or a mask of a robot. During the whole performance he never laughed; it was as though he were in a bad humor, sulking. He showed no human sign.
His expression was that of an inhumanly single-minded purposiveness, with no sense of humor. He seemed as if he might be the double of a real person, and that Hitler the man might perhaps be hiding inside like an appendix, and deliberately so hiding in order not to disturb the mechanism. You know you would never be able to talk to that man; because there is nobody there. He is not a man, but a collective. He is not an individual; he is a whole nation. I take it to be literally true that he has no personal friend. How can you talk intimately with a nation?

We have to be up and doing every moment of our lives, and go forward in our sadhana. We have to live and move and have our being in Ahimsa even as Hitler does in Himsa. It is the faith and perseverance and single-mindedness with which he has perfected his weapons of destruction that commands my admiration. That he uses them as a monster is immaterial for our purpose. We have to bring to bear the same single-mindedness and perseverance in evolving our Ahimsa. Hitler is awake all the twenty-four hours of the day in perfecting his sadhana [Savitri Devi: the work for which their deeper nature has appointed them: their life’s dedication]. He wins because he pays the price. His inventions surprise his enemies. But it is his single-minded devotion to his purpose that should be the object of our admiration and emulation. Although he works all his waking hours, his intellect is unclouded and unerring. Are our intellects unclouded and unerring?

I have often been asked, and even by Rudolf Hess, who once invited me to visit him in Linz, whether Adolf, when I knew him, had any sense of humour. One feels the lack of it, people of his entourage said. After all, he was an Austrian and should have had his share of the famous Austrian sense of humour. Certainly one’s impression of Hitler, especially after a short and superficial acquaintance, was that of a deeply serious man. This enormous seriousness seemed to overshadow everything else. It was the same when he was young. He approached the problems with which he was concerned with a deadly earnestness which ill suited his sixteen or seventeen years.

Friedrich Christian Prince of Schaumburg-Lippe:
It is often claimed today that he never let others get a word in edgeways. In truth it was quite the opposite. He asked the others to speak, to recount events from their lives etc. He made jokes to liven up the conversation and to get others to join in. Only when all this failed and the others finally insisted that he should speak himself, as this would be much more interesting in many ways – then he would relent, and could talk for hours. And I must say that this was often a great experience, for this man had already lived a most interesting life. Speaking retrospectively, he viewed everything with incredible objectivity and, hence, amazing modesty.

Anything that might have seemed too solemn in his remarks, he quickly tempered with a touch of humour. The picturesque world, the biting phrase were at his command. In a flash he would paint a word-picture that brought a smile, or come up with an unexpected and disarming comparison. He could be harsh and even implacable in his judgments, and yet almost at the same time be surprisingly conciliatory, sensitive and warm.

His humour was usually aimed at people in his immediate circle, in other words a sphere in which problems no longer existed for him. For this reason his grim and sour humour was often mixed with irony, but always an irony with friendly intent. Thus, he saw me once at a concert where I was playing the trumpet. He got enormous amusement out of imitating me and insisted that with my blown-out cheeks I looked like one of Rubens’ angels.

Otto Ernst Remer:
Hermann Geisler, Hitler’s architect, wrote a book about Hitler. [This is Ein anderer Hitler, a memoir]. It’s a fantastic book that you ought to read. He [the author] was a really great guy, and he could imitate very well, especially Robert Ley [head of the Reich Labor Service]. And Hitler knew this. Hitler would urge him to imitate Ley’s way of speaking. And he would [humorously] say: “My Führer, I can’t do that, he’ll put me in a concentration camp.” “Ah, go ahead,” Hitler would jokingly say, “I’ll get you back out again.” And that’s what Hitler was like. And he would imitate Ley. [Remer imitates the imitation of Ley.] And Hitler would laugh so hard that tears came to his eyes.

The Bormann Letters, p.g. 180:

Martin Bormann to Gerda Bormann

9 . 2 . 1945

My Darling,

Today I am again too tired to write at any length. In brief–yesterday evening a conference with Becher to arrange for the supply of more horses for the North; then a talk with Kaltenbrunner, after which Giesler and I were with the Fegeleins until two o’clock. Finally we went on to see Evi, where we were joined about 3 a.m. by the Chief and Speer. Giesler was to have done his well-known ‘Ley’ act for us, but he was not in good form; even so, we sat on till shortly before six. Then I read your dear letter which I am now returning to you.

Hitler, Table Talk (Cameron &Stevens), January 3-4, 1942:
How could I have been successful without that dose of optimism which has never left me, and without that faith that moves mountains?
A sense of humour and a propensity for laughter are qualities that are indispensable to a unit. On the eve of our setting out for the battle of the Somme, we laughed and made jokes all night.
Young people are optimists by nature. That’s an inclination that should be encouraged. One must have faith in life.

Laurency (L5e16):
12As you know it is an esoteric axiom that anyone who lacks a sense of humour is not ripe for esoterics. Humour liberates us from conceit, self-importance, vulnerability, talking about ourselves. Hand in hand with sense of humour goes general cheerfulness. An esoterician is no member of the association for the long face of ridiculous solemnity. He tries to set himself free from that childishness which most adults demonstrate, especially when they believe themselves clever.

Carl Jung:
Now, the secret of Hitler’s power is not that Hitler has an unconscious more plentifully stored than yours or mine.
Hitler’s secret is twofold: first, that his unconscious has exceptional access to his consciousness, and second, that he allows himself to be moved by it.
He is like a man who listens intently to a stream of suggestions in a whispered voice from a mysterious source and then acts upon them
In our case, even if occasionally our unconscious does reach us as through dreams, we have too much rationality, too much cerebrum to obey it. This is doubtless the case with Chamberlain, but Hitler listens and obeys.
The true leader is always led
. We can see it work in him. He himself has referred to his Voice.
His Voice is nothing other than his own unconscious, into which the German people have projected their own selves; that is, the unconscious of seventy-eight million Germans. That is what makes him powerful. Without the German people, he would not be what he seems to be now. It is literally true when he says that whatever he is able to do is only because he has the German people behind him or, as he sometimes says, because he is Germany.

Laurency (kl2_3):
6When you see how easily people lose their balance and become nutty out of sheer self-importance at even the most trifling homage of the public, you almost congratulate the geniuses for having been unappreciated. Perhaps that, too, was the intention of destiny, and not mere bad reaping. The greatest genius is an idiot whenever he thinks himself important. True geniuses are true channels of higher forces. Any “self” turns into a hindrance.
Laurency (wm8.13):
5Most people consider themselves important, always in some respect (often in many respects), consider they understand, know, and can do things. The esoterician knows, however, that he does not know, understand, or can do it. That is why he is a fit channel for those who know and can do. His entire previous education has had just one purpose: to give him the opportunity to receive whatever his Augoeides wants to use him for.

The Young Hitler I Knew, Chapter 10
As if propelled by an invisible force, Adolf climbed up to the top of the Freinberg. And only now did I realize that we were no longer in solitude and darkness, for the stars shone brilliantly above us.
Adolf stood in front of me; and now he gripped both my hands and held them tight. He had never made such a gesture before. I felt from the grasp of his hands how deeply moved he was. His eyes were feverish with excitement. The words did not come smoothly from his mouth as they usually did, but rather erupted, hoarse and raucous. From his voice I could tell even more how much this experience had shaken him.
Gradually his speech loosened, and the words flowed more freely. Never before and never again have I heard Adolf Hitler speak as he did in that hour, as we stood there alone under the stars, as though we were the only creatures in the world.
I cannot repeat every word that my friend uttered. I was struck by something strange, which I had never noticed before, even when he had talked to me in moments of the greatest excitement. It was as if another being spoke out of his body, and moved him as much as it did me. It wasn’t at all a case of a speaker being carried away by his own words. On the contrary; I rather felt as though he himself listened with astonishment and emotion to what burst forth from him with elementary force. I will not attempt to interpret this phenomenon, but it was a state of complete ecstasy and rapture, in which he transferred the character of Rienzi, without even mentioning him as a model or example, with visionary power to the plane of his own ambitions. But it was more than a cheap adaptation. Indeed, the impact of the opera was rather a sheer external impulse which compelled him to speak. Like flood waters breaking their dikes, his words burst forth from him. He conjured up in grandiose, inspiring pictures his own future and that of his people.
Hitherto I had been convinced that my friend wanted to become an artist, a painter, or perhaps an architect. Now this was no longer the case. Now he aspired to something higher, which I could not yet fully grasp. It rather surprised me, as I thought that the vocation of the artist was for him the highest, most desirable goal. But now he was talking of a mandate which, one day, he would receive from the people, to lead them out of servitude to the heights of freedom.
It was an unknown youth who spoke to me in that strange hour. He spoke of a special mission which one day would be entrusted to him, and I, his only listener, could hardly understand what he meant. Many years had to pass before I realized the significance of this enraptured hour for my friend

[Although the English translators have largely preserved the main body of Kubizek’s account, it’s worth noting that the English translations for Kubizek’s memoirs have come down to us abridged. As such, a quick glimpse at the German translation is in order, beginning on page 123. There you will find what the translators have omitted: at the start of the chapter, Kubizek’s suggestion that the clear starry sky and it’s grandeur (the way he described it could almost be called a religious conviction) was a contributing factor to his strong impression of that event; his summary of Rienzi’s plot coupled with dialogue excerpts.

Court historians have typically downplayed the significance of this momentous occasion, some even going so far as to diminish Kubizek’s reliability. That should come as no surprise, seeing how they pass on the interpretation of others in a monotonous, unbroken circle. The wiki notes how historians such as Joachim Fest and Werner Maser adopted the Jesuit Franz Jetzinger’s criticism of Kubizek; a Jesuit is hardly a trustworthy person. Ian Kershaw at least acknowledges that whatever had taken place on that evening had made an undeniable impression on Kubizek, pointing out how Kubizek had persistently affirmed it’s truth after the war.

Here’s an interesting analysis of the Rienzi experience from an independent, objective researcher who’s hardly a “Nazi” sympathizer.

In recent times, mainstream historians have tried to dismiss the event as an outright fantasy on the basis of an obscure study conducted by a Jonas Karlsson, which was published in the July 2012 issue of Wagner Journal, without, of course, providing an excerpt for the reader’s examination. Instead, we are merely told that Karlsson had established that there were only five performances of Rienzi in the early 1905 and that Hitler and Kubizek could not have attended it together.

Needless to say, Rienzi’s impact on Hitler was corroborated by various members of his inner circle, not least of all by court historian favored National Socialist, Albert Speer. His other architect and intimate Giesler also confirms it.

On a related note, it’s certainly remarkable and uncanny how many assassination attempts Hitler survived. I’m reminded of George Washington’s own account of a near death experience. Who protected Hitler? Who spoke through him? Who did he pray to? Who was his Lord?]

Hermann Giesler:
He also told us stories from his youth: In this small theater I experienced for the first time an opera, it was, ‘Rienzi’.
Er erzählte uns auch Begebenheiten aus seiner Jugendzeit: In diesem kleinen Theater erlebte ich zum erstenmal eine Oper, es war ,Rienzi’.

Speer (Diaries), February 7, 1948:
Amused, Hitler watched Ley’s reaction, enjoying his obvious embarrassment Then he suddenly became very serious and offered in explanation:
“You know, Ley, it isn’t by chance that I have the Party Rallies open with the overture to Rienzi. It’s not just a musical question. At the age of twenty-four this man, an innkeeper’s son, persuaded die Roman people to drive out die corrupt Senate by reminding them of the magnificent past of the Roman Empire. Listening to this blessed music as a young man in the theater at Linz, I had the vision that I too must someday succeed in uniting the German Empire and making it great once more.”

Memoirs of a Confidant, p.g. 216-218:
Wagener: “You probably attach less value to Rienzi.”
Hitler: “But why? It’s a special favorite of mine! Why did you think so?”
Wagener: “I thought it might make you uncomfortable to be in the audience while the stage action shows a man–particularly a man of the people, who has risen to be the leader of his people–in the end nevertheless falling victim to the intrigues of those around him.”
Hitler [giving an odd laugh]: “On the contrary, perhaps I always see the mistakes that can be made–so as to avoid them later on.”
Wagener: “Rienzi was betrayed by the conservatives, by the aristocracy, by the important owners of land and industry, to whom he had extended the hand of friendship.”
Hitler: “But he did not have the backing of a party of his own.”

The Young Hitler I Knew, Chapter 10
In 1939, shortly before war broke out, when I, for the first time visited Bayreuth as the guest of the Reichs Chancellor, I thought I would please my host by reminding him of that nocturnal hour on the Freinberg, so I told Adolf Hitler what I remembered of it, assuming that the enormous multitude of impressions and events which had filled these past decades would have pushed into the background the experience of a seventeen year old youth. But after a few words I sensed that
he vividly recalled that hour and had retained all its details in his memory. He was visibly pleased that my account confirmed his own recollections.

[Here, Kubizek’s description of Hitler matches other accounts of Hitler’s excellent memory.]

Hans-Ulrich Rudel:
Stuka Pilot, Chapter 13, p.g. 166-167
For two days I bask in the sun on the terrace of the Berchtesgadener Hotel, inhaling the glorious mountain air of home. Now gradually I relax. Two days later I stand in the presence of the Führer in the magnificent Berghof. He knows the whole story of the last fortnight down to the minutest detail and expresses his joy that the fates have been so kind, that we were able to achieve so much.

Christa Schroeder:
I was always amazed at how precisely he could describe any geographical region or speak about art history or hold forth on very complicated technical matters. In the same way he could describe with amazing detail how theatres, churches, monasteries and castles were built. The Oberbürgermeister of Munich, with whom Hitler enjoyed discussing the expansion and beautification of the city, related how surprised he was when Hitler recalled the minute details of a conversation they had had months previously. Hitler had reproached him: ‘Six months ago I told you I wanted it done this way!’ and then repeated word for word their conversation, a fact confirmed by architects Speer and Giesler post-war.

The Young Hitler I Knew, Chapter 10
I was also present when Adolf Hitler retold this sequel to the performance of Rienzi in Linz to Frau Wagner, at whose home we were both guests. Thus my own memory was doubly confirmed. The words with which Hitler concluded his story to Frau Wagner are also unforgettable for me. He said solemnly, “In that hour it began.”

[In her book Winifried Wagner, Brigette Hamann seems to have stumbled upon what was said on that occasion: “It was at that moment that it all began.’ Rienzi sings, ‘But if you choose me as the protector of the people’s given rights, then you may look back up on your forebears, and see me as the people’s tribune!’ To which the assembled people reply, ‘Rienzi, hail to you, tribune of the people…'”]

Heinrich Hoffmann:
For a long time Hitler’s friendship with Frau Winifred Wagner was of world-wide interest. He had made her acquaintance as long ago as 1922, and his very sincere feelings were primarily the reflection of his deep veneration for Richard Wagner and his works. He was not interested in Frau Winifred alone, but in the whole of the Wagner family and the Bayreuth Temple of Art, which he supported most generously. Nor was this happy relationship in any way disturbed when the eldest
daughter, Friedelind, went to England and there criticized her mother’s admiration for the Führer. For years he regularly attended the Bayreuth festival and by his presence there he set the fashion for the whole constellation of Party chiefs and the diplomatic world.

Hitler, Table Talk (Cameron & Stevens), January 25-26, 1942:
When I hear Wagner, it seems to me that I hear rhythms of a bygone world. I imagine to myself that one day science will discover, in the waves set in motion by the Rheingold, secret mutual relations connected with the order of the world. The observation of the world perceived by the senses precedes the knowledge given by exact science as well as by philosophy. It’s in as far as percipient awareness approaches truth that it has value.

Ernst Hanfstaengl:
I came to see that there was a direct parallel between the construction of the
Meistersinger prelude and that of his speeches. The whole interweaving of leitmotifs, of embellishments, of counter-point and musical contrasts and argument, were exactly mirrored in the pattern of his speeches, which were symphonic in construction and ended in a great climax, like the blare of Wagner’s trombones.

Wallis Warfield, Duchess of Windsor:
The heart has its reasons
Still under the aegis of the flamboyant Dr. Ley, David and I went on to Dresden, Nuremberg, Stuttgart, and Munich, looking into workers’ houses, hospitals, and youth camps.
On the way, we met many leading Nazis, among them Heinrich Himmler, boss of the Gestapo, whose bespectacled meekness would have seemed more befitting a minor civil servant, a clerk caught up in politics. Rudolph Hess, who was then being pointed out as Hitler’s Heir Apparent, was a different sort—charming of manner and good-looking. Goebbels, the clubfooted mastermind of the Nazi propaganda mills, impressed me as the cleverest of the lot—a tiny, wispy gnome with an enormous skull. His wife was the prettiest woman I saw in Germany, a blonde, with enormous blue eyes and a flair for clothes. Seen together, they reminded me of Beauty and the Beast.
I had never before been thrown in with such a strange, ill-assorted company of men. They both repelled and fascinated. Having read about them in the press, and knowing something of their individual reputations, I had the curious sensation of wandering about the vast backstage of an opera house, watching a cast assemble for a Wagnerian opera. Yet for all their swashbuckling airs, they seemed to be ridden by secret doubts. One thing was sure: they were a humorless lot.
Once, while riding down a Berlin street, I remarked to a Nazi official how charming was the German custom of setting flower boxes in the windows. “That depends upon the point of view” was the solemn response. “We had those things dropped on our heads by the Communists when we entered Berlin, and I still carry a scar from that time.”

Prof. Dr. Turkkaya Ataöv:
Hitler was surrounded by the disreputable Streicher, the mediocre pseudo- “philosopher” Rosenberg, “Putzi” Hanfstaengl with a shallow mind, the ruthless Roehm who organized the first Nazi squads, the drunkard Eckert, the “free slanderer” Strasser, the colourless police officer Frick, the doggedly loyal Hess, the neurotic Goebbbels, the former flying ace Goering, the terroristic Himmler and the intriguing Bormann. Such were the men around the Fuehrer- a misshapen mixing of misfits.

Laurency ():
3An “axiom” of would-be-wisdom, which biographers seldom fail to enounce to reveal their lack of judgement, is that “geniuses generally show a notoriously bad judgement in their choice of company”. Geniuses never have the opportunity of choosing the people they consort with. They must be happy if anyone cares about them at all. The people they associate with are mostly eccentrics of dubious reliability.

[This video features one of his strongest speech moments and a glimpse into his oratory.]

Mein Kampf:
Just as in our daily life the so-called man of genius needs a particular occasion, and sometimes needs a special stimulus to bring his genius to light, so too, in the life of the peoples the race that has genius in it needs the occasion and stimulus to give that genius expression.
In the monotony and routine of everyday life even persons of significance seem just like the others and do not rise beyond the average level of their fellow-men, but as soon as such men find themselves in a special situation which disconcerts and unbalances the others, the humble person of apparently common qualities reveals traits of genius often to the amazement of those who have hitherto known him in the petty round of everyday life. That is the reason why a prophet is seldom honoured in his own country.
War offers an excellent occasion for observing this phenomenon. In times of distress, when the others despair, apparently harmless, boys suddenly spring up and become heroes, full of determination, undaunted in the presence of Death and manifesting wonderful powers of calm reflection in such circumstances. If such an hour of trial did not come, nobody would have thought that the soul of a hero lurked in the body of that beardless youth. A special impulse is, almost always necessary to bring a man of genius into the foreground.
The sledge-hammer of Fate, which strikes down the one so easily, suddenly finds the counter-impact of steel when it strikes at the other, and, after the common shell of everyday life is broken, the core that lay hidden is displayed to the eyes of an astonished world. This surrounding world then grows perverse and will not believe that what had seemed so like itself is really of that different quality so suddenly displayed.
This is a process which is repeated probably every time a man of outstanding significance appears.

Memoirs of a Confidant, p.g. 150-151:
Wagener reports next on a talk he had with Hitler at the Elephant Hotel in Weimar during one of their political trips. When he warned that Hitler ran the risk of misunderstandings by speaking in conversational fashion about important matters, he recalls drawing the following reply.
Hitler: “Actually, I’m now and then aware that is it not I who is speaking, but that something speaks through me. On such occasions, I frequently feel as if there were a mistake in human logic or as if it had limits of which it is not aware. Now and then ideas, concepts, views occur to me that I have read nowhere, heard nowhere, and never before thought, nor can I justify them by logic, and they do not even seem to me capable of being logically justified.
Just the other day I attended a private lecture on Einstein’s theory of relativity. I did not understand all of it. And it would be strange if a one-hour lecture could explain to a layman everything that scientists have thought about and studied for decades, until one special mind succeeded in bringing clarity into these tangled problems. [See Goebbels (Diaries), May 12, 1943]
But I did absorb one idea: that the principal significance of Einstein’s theory lies in the recognition–no, in the proof–that our human thinking machine has its limits but that beyond it other means–in this case, higher mathematics–allow thinking–or rather, calculations–leading to precise results that once again lie in the realm of human consciousness and in part were recognized as facts and known before, but which cannot be arrived at by logical bridges.
In past times, science would probably have rejected the possibility of the existence of things that were not logically provable and would have banished them to the realm of mysticism or religious faith. But when the existence of such things was demonstrated beyond any doubt, science saw itself confronted by a riddle. At that, Einstein, with an unprecedented achievement of thought and calculation, turned to dimensions other than those that are conceivable to three-dimensional man and that were common in science for such purposes, to find the method to demonstrate proof for what until that time seemed unfathomable.
Thus, as it was explained to me and as I understood it, I owe to Einstein the scientific proof that there are things which, recognized by man’s senses, nevertheless cannot be understood and justified, though they are true and could form the basis for a new way of thinking, perhaps even of a new conception of the world.
In future, I will know how to console myself when some perception comes to my mind to which I am lacking a logical bridge. I shall nevertheless have the courage to build on it.”
Wagener: I objected that such a course might well be very dangerous. Especially considering that he would have to take the responsibility for others, for a great movement, perhaps one day even for a whole people, surely major decisions could not be based purely on intuition. For the human senses are so incomplete that their perceptions, to the extent that they could not be proven, could be deceptive.
“But I do not,” Hitler continued, his eyes glowing, “receive such perceptions through the human senses at all! If it were that sort of perception, it would be amenable to logical proof. And if it were not, it would undoubtedly be false. Rather, in such cases I feel as if I were taking my perceptions from that super-dimensional world Einstein has looked into, not with his eyes or conscious mind, but with his mathematics.”
“But do you know whether such a perception comes from the beyond or through the agency of the human senses within this world?”
“I do know each time, without question. But I don’t always take that fully into account. That is also why sometimes I heedlessly pass over such transcendetal inspirations. In general, at such moments I have a sensation like an inner vibration, as if I were being touched by an invisible charge. Whenever I have seized the impulse, what I said or did as result of that feeling always turned out to be correct. Whenever I have let it go, almost invariably it turned out later that it would have been right to follow the inner voice.”
“I believe,” I interrupted Hitler, “that you are not the only one to whom this happens. All human beings, more or less, have this faculty. Some say that they are having a good day or a lucid moment. The merchant has a lucky hand. The gambler insists that somehow he felt he should risk a larger bet. Folk wisdom suggests that it is always best to act on one’s first thought. But most of the time we do not hold on to it–”
“–and damnable logic intervenes!” Hitler continued my sentence, “and human reflection! And then one works up a view or an opinion that is marvelously proven and justified, and we let ourselves be influenced by others who lack any divine spark – and in the meantime, the chance passes and we hit our heads in exasperation and say, ‘if only you’d followed your first impulse!”

[Evidently, Hitler did not adopt Hoerbiger’s theory to “snub” Einstein.]


Nikola Tesla:
In attempting to give a connected and faithful account of my activities in this story of my life, I must dwell, however reluctantly, on the impressions of my youth and the circumstances and events which have been instrumental in determining my career. Our first endeavours are purely instinctive promptings of an imagination vivid and undisciplined. As we grow older reason asserts itself and we become more and more systematic and designing. But those early impulses, though not immediately productive, are of the greatest moment and may shape our very destinies. Indeed, I feel now that had I understood and cultivated instead of suppressing them, I would have added substantial value to my bequest to the world. But not until I had attained manhood did I realise that I was an inventor.

Mein Kampf:
Though an inventor, for example, does not establish his fame until the very day on which he completes his invention, it would be a mistake to believe that the creative genius did not become alive in him until that moment. From the very hour of his birth the spark of genius is alive within the man who has been endowed with the real creative faculty. True genius is an innate quality. It can never be the result of education or training. As I have stated already, this holds good not merely of the individual, but also of the race. Those peoples who manifest creative ability in certain periods of their history have always been fundamentally creative. It belongs to their very nature, even though this fact may escape the eyes of the superficial observer.

Hitler, Table Talk, June 2, 1942 (Cameron & Stevens):
History shows that inventors have met much the same fate. The postmaster who made the epoch-making discovery that it was possible to place a vehicle on rails and propel it by steam was, at the time, uproariously ridiculed by the postal directors—that is, by the experts. The tragedy is that it is always an inventor’s fate to attack something which is already established and which has therefore come to be regarded by the people as immutable. In addition, the initial effect of a new invention is invariably to create disorder. War, which gives added impetus to every form of activity, is therefore undoubtedly the most favourable atmosphere for invention.

Rosenberg (memoirs):
He was not at all like the representatives of other parties. Where the latter appealed to the interests of their listeners, who all belonged to a certain definite group, by promising to press their interests before all others, Hitler invariably spoke for the absent ones. In other words, before an audience of Red workers he spoke about the need for a healthy farmers’ class, or he defended the German officers. Facing officers he criticised the attitude of the intelligentsia which had ignored the workingman and left him to his fate. The time for self-criticism had come, he would say, and the way from man to man had to be found despite all obstacles.

I had by this time heard a number of his public speeches and was beginning to understand the pattern of their appeal. The first secret lay in his choice of words. Every generation develops its own vocabulary of catchwords and phrases, and these date thoughts and utterances. My own father talked like a contemporary of Bismarck, the people of my own age bore the stamp of Wilhelm II, but Hitler had caught the casual camaraderie of the trenches, and without stooping to slang, except for special effects, managed to talk like a member of his audience. In describing the difficulties of the housewife without enough money to buy the buy the food her family needed in the Viktualien Market he would produce just the phrases she would have used herself to describe her difficulties, if she had been able to formulate them. Where other national orators gave the painful impression of talking down to their audience, he had his priceless gift of expressing exactly their own thoughts.

G. Ward Price:
It is certain that this disciplined restraint of human instincts implies no lack of human sympathy. One of the most striking features of Hitler’s personality is his faculty for putting himself in harmony with others. Men of most varying characters alike receive, in contact with him, the conviction that there is some special bond between them. His mind, like that of many great leaders in the past, has a strong psychic strain. I have been told that the Austro-German borderland where he was born is known, like the Scottish Highlands, to be prolific of people with this gift of intuition.

August Kubizek:
Hitler was full of deep understanding and sympathy. He took a most touching interest in me. Without my telling him, he knew exactly how I felt. How often this helped me in difficult times! He always knew what I needed and what I wanted. However intensely he was occupied with himself he would always have time for the affairs of those people in whom he was interested. It was not by chance that he was the one who persuaded my father to let me study music and thereby influenced my life in a decisive way. Rather, this was the outcome of his general attitude of sharing in all the things that were of concern to me. Sometimes I had a feeling that he was living my life as well as his own. Thus, I have drawn the portrait of the young Hitler as well as I can from memory.

In contrast, there is another type of woe which is incomparably more sensitive. No one experiences it more than the man who cares more for others than for himself, whose emotion is too warm for virtue and human welfare – the man who can realize naught in this world of his compassionate heart’s demands, of what his better convictions tell him about the way the world and humanity ought to be.

As far back as the beginning of our friendship, when I could still only visualise my future in the dusty, upholsterer’s workshop, Adolf, though nearly a year younger than I, had made it abundantly clear to me that I ought to become a musician. Having put this idea into my head, he never gave up his efforts to persuade me. He comforted me when I despaired, he bolstered up my self-confidence when I was in danger of losing it, he praised, he criticised, he was occasionally rude and violent and railed at me furiously, but he never lost sight of the goal which he had set for me; and if sometimes we had such furious rows that I believed it was the end of everything, we would enthusiastically renew our friendship after a concert performance in which I had taken part. By God, nobody on earth, not even my mother who loved me so much and knew me so well, was as capable of bringing my secret desires into the open and making them come true as my friend, although he had never had any systematic musical training.

Mein Kampf:
On the contrary, I am firmly convinced to-day that, generally speaking, it is in youth that men lay the essential groundwork of their creative thought, wherever that creative thought exists. I make a distinction between the wisdom of age—which can only arise from the greater profundity and foresight that are based on the experiences of a long life—and the creative genius of youth, which blossoms out in thought and ideas with inexhaustible fertility, without being able to digest these immediately, because of their very superabundance.

Emperor Julian:
Hymn to King Helios
But this at least I am permitted to say without sacrilege, that from my childhood an extraordinary longing for the rays of the god penetrated deep into my soul; and from my earliest years my mind was so completely swayed by the light that illumines the heavens that not only did I desire to gaze intently at the sun, but whenever I walked abroad in the night season, when the firmament was clear and cloudless, I abandoned all else without exception and gave myself up to the beauties of the heavens; nor did I understand what anyone might say to me, nor heed what I was doing myself. I was considered to be over-curious about these matters and to pay too much attention to them, and people went so far as to regard me as an astrologer when my beard had only just begun to grow.
And yet, I call heaven to witness, never had a book on this subject come into my hands; nor did I as yet even know what that science was. But why do I mention this, when I have more important things to tell, if I should relate how, in those days, I thought about the gods? However let that darkness be buried in oblivion. But let what I have said bear witness to this fact, that the heavenly light shone all about me, and that it roused and urged me on to its contemplation, so that even then I recognised of myself that the movement of the moon was in the opposite direction to the universe, though as yet I had met no one of those who are wise in these matters.

August Kubizek:
Adolf Hitler: Mein Jungendfreund, p.g. 33

It was true that, as he told me, he had once eagerly botanised during his school days, and a herbarium had been created. Such work, like a collection of butterflies, or the gathering of minerals, was more the result of his youthful zeal than a peculiar disposition. [It was] not the individual in nature [that] interested him. He took Nature much more as a whole. He called it the “Outside”.

Zwar hatte er, wie er mir erzählte, während seiner Schulzeit einmal eifrig botanisiert und sich ein Herbarium angelegt, doch entsprang solche Beschäftigung ebenso wie die Anlage einer Schmetterlingsammlung oder das Sammeln von Mineralien mehr seinem jugendlichen Eifer als einer besonderen Veranlagung.

Nicht das einzelne in der Natur interessierte ihn. Er nahm die Natur vielmehr als ein Ganzes. Er nannte es das „Draußen”.

Mein Kampf:
The masses are but a part of Nature herself. Their feeling is such that they cannot understand mutual handshakings between men who are declared enemies. Their wish is to see the stronger side win and the weaker wiped out, or subjected unconditionally to the will of the stronger.

Goebbels (Diaries), May 13, 1943:
The situation in Croatia can by no means be regarded as having been settled by the last purge; it continues to be strained. More than 13,000 rebels were killed, among them a great many intellectuals. The fight against European unification through the Axis Powers is for the most part carried on by intellectuals. The broad masses of the people, on the whole, are uninterested in this struggle.

Hitler, Table Talk, November 5, 1941 (Cameron & Stevens):
The great mass of the people is, on the whole, a passive element. On the one hand, the idealists represent the positive force. The criminals, on the other hand, represent the negative element. If I tolerated the preservation of criminals, at a time when the best of us are being killed at the front, I should destroy the balance of forces to the detriment of the nation’s healthy element. That would be the triumph of the rabble.

The Track of the Jew
The masses thrown out of balance who must have an answer to everything that soothes them follow them to their own ruin. This spirit which leads the troops of anarchy diplomatically and brutally at the same time, conscious of its goal, is the religious, economic, political and national spirit of fundamental intolerance that has developed from a racial foundation; it knows only universalism of religion (that is, the rule of the Jewish god), Communism (that is, slave states), world revolution (civil war in all forms) and the internationalism of all Jews (that is, their world-rule).

Dietrich Eckart:
For decades left defenseless as booty for the Jewish spirit, the crowd finally only felt it in the ruling power, power in itself, and went with the liar, yes, had to follow him, because only where strength shows itself does hope thrive, but aside from it nothing else was still present to which the stability needing folk would have been able to cling. Now the things indeed lie so that the masses begin to distrust the Jew as well, but they will not turn away from him until another, a higher energy flows toward them, that spiritual one, in whose steadfastness the great crooked one finds his master.

[Seneca, in his letter to Lucilius, makes the three aspects of deity readily comprehensible and clear; he demonstrates acute knowledge of god. As formulated by Seneca, there is:

1) the god which represents a man’s innate divinity (augoeides);
2) the god which is revealed in Nature (“matter”) and which all things consists of (“spirit”);
3) and the god which manifests and works through man.

This can all be backed up by scripture. The supreme mistake of Christianity has been to universalize the individual’s personal deity as the Holy Spirit and to cast him and “god the father of all” in the same picture, setting up a gulf between the material and the “immaterial” by disclaiming the divine wholeness of the universe, and assigning divine qualities to only one man (Jesus) or group of peoples (Christians).



This is what I mean, Lucilius: a holy spirit indwells within us, one who marks our good and bad deeds, and is our guardian. As we treat this spirit, so are we treated by it.

The augoeides functions as a guardian of each decent individual, a concept picked up by the theosophists but bungled in their preference for Oriental terminology. Jesus alluded to the augoeides with the expression “spirit of truth” (also: Comforter, Helper, Advocate) and when he declared that the children have “angels in heaven” which always see the face of his father. By all this, he meant the augoeides represents the deity to the person.


And we should consider that God gave the sovereign part of the human soul to be the divinity of each one, being that part which, as we say, dwells at the top of the body, inasmuch as we are a plant not of an earthly but of a heavenly growth, raises us from earth to our kindred who are in heaven.

When the gospels describe those moments where the spirit has descended upon Jesus (Matt. 3:16, Luke 4:1), that would be him contacting his augoeides. Of the three Transfiguration accounts, only Luke 9:28-29 clarifies on how Jesus came to be as he was, when he was like another being: prayer. It follows that whether one is a Christian, a pagan, a Muslim, etc. all his prayers are directed towards his personal deity, they do not reach the creator.
Interestingly enough, the founder of the Bavarian Illuminati, Adam Weishaupt, gave a vivid account of apparent contact with his deity.


For the spirit that comes to men from the gods is present but seldom and in few, and it is not easy for every man to share in it or at every time.



…A place not built with hands but hollowed out into such spaciousness by natural causes, your soul will be deeply moved by a certain intimation of the existence of God.

God exists because man is not capable of creating the objects we see in the natural world (Chrysippus). Man has only surpassed these objects in the arts and sculptures. Now the part which causes stumbling for Christians and skeptics alike is when the scriptures (Jeremiah 23:24) and the ancients (i.e. Thales, Plotinus, and Chrysippus) declare that all things are full of gods. What they wanted to impart was that what is invisible and unseen is still material, that the atoms which make up this world derive from primordial atoms (Genesis 1:2) and thereby the world itself is divine and eternal. There is no absolute evil. What falls short of good cannot be called evil. It is a lesser good, a product of ignorance and often, inertia (resistance to change). Evil as it manifests in the animal and human community is nothing more than instinct. There are no other peoples in the world to better exemplify this than the Jews.


If you see a man who is unterrified in the midst of dangers, untouched by desires, happy in adversity, peaceful amid the storm, who looks down upon men from a higher plane, and views the gods on a footing of equality, will not a feeling of reverence for him steal over you, will you not say:

This quality is too great and too lofty to be regarded as resembling this petty body in which it dwells? A divine power has descended upon that man.

Is this not how the Germans viewed Hitler? See Heinz Linge’s With Hitler to the End, Chapter 16 for examples.

Heinz Linge:
One of the excursions to the front took us to Smolensk, another to Zaporozhe, where there was a dramatic incident. While Hitler was in conference with his generals, the airfield where our aircraft were parked came under Russian attack, with the result that part of it was captured. The report came as a shock for us and in confusion, lacking any experience of the front, we waited anxiously to see how Hitler would handle the situation. We had the report passed to him at once. It amazed us to see that he could hardly be bothered with it, this report which had hurled us all into a state of near panic. Issuing a few pithy instructions as to how the problem was to be cleared up, he quietly resumed his conference. If the Russians had got wind of Hitler’s presence this affair would probably have turned out rather differently.

The greatest mistake is to declare only a Moses, Jesus, or Mohammed divine and as the only intermediaries for the rest of humanity. Observe how throughout the Old Testament, “Moses” never once denies the existence of other gods, he only forbids worshiping them.

Exodus 22:28 LXX
Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor speak ill of the ruler of thy people.

It’s an interesting thing how the Greek people attributed divine status to Homer, Pythagoras, Plato, Iamblichus, Apollonius, etc. Can this really be condemned as idolatry if there was a time where Jews were instructed to reverence their leaders? The pagan accounts make it clear that there was a statue of Moses in the Jewish temple and that he was revered as a godsent man who delivered them from their afflictions in their desert wanderings.

In John 10:33-36, when the Jews interpreted Jesus’ declaration to mean that he was god, Jesus counters their accusation with Psalm 82:6. He is saying, how can you condemn me for my declaration when others among you have been declared similarly?]

11c. Rousseau

✡Count Richard N. Coudenhove Kalergi:
Almost all European ethics are rooted in Judaism. All champions of religious or irreligious Christian morality, from Augustine to Rousseau, Kant and Tolstoy, were Jews by choice [Wahljuden] in the spiritual sense; Nietzsche is the only non-Jewish, the only pagan ethicist in Europe.

[With the exception of Voltaire, Rousseau’s critics have been typically Christians (such as Edmund Burke). In recent times, the Jews themselves manifest animosity.]

During the Cold War, Rousseau was criticized for his association with nationalism and its attendant abuses, for example in Talmon, ✡Jacob Leib (1952), The Origins of Totalitarian Democracy. This came to be known among scholars as the “totalitarian thesis”.

✡Arthur Melzer, however, while conceding that Rousseau would not have approved of modern nationalism, observes that his theories do contain the “seeds of nationalism”, insofar as they set forth the “politics of identification”, which are rooted in sympathetic emotion. Melzer also believes that in admitting that people’s talents are unequal, Rousseau therefore tacitly condones the tyranny of the few over the many.[143]

On similar grounds, one of Rousseau’s strongest critics during the second half of the 20th century was political philosopher ✡Hannah Arendt. Using Rousseau’s thought as an example, Arendt identified the notion of sovereignty with that of the general will. According to her, it was this desire to establish a single, unified will based on the stifling of opinion in favor of public passion that contributed to the excesses of the French Revolution.[145]

Laurency (kr5.26):
10There was only one realist among all these sanguine madmen: Rousseau. It was irony of fate that made Rousseau the chosen philosopher of the French revolutionaries, and hence wrongly judged by many. The following quotations from him should suffice. They speak volumes:

“The best natural constitution is the wise ruling the ignorant… Democracy is a form of government suited, not to men, but to a race of gods. There has never been and will never be a real democracy.” [Social Contract]

Social Contract, Translated by G. D. H. Cole
It may be added that there is no government so subject to civil wars and intestine agitations as democratic or popular government, because there is none which has so strong and continual a tendency to change to another form, or which demands more vigilance and courage for its maintenance as it is. Under such a constitution above all, the citizen should arm himself with strength and constancy, and say, every day of his life, what a virtuous Count Palatine said in the Diet of Poland:
Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium. [I prefer liberty with danger to peace with slavery.]
Were there a people of gods, their government would be democratic. So perfect a government is not for men.

Social Contract, Translated by G. D. H. Cole
In a word, it is the best and most natural arrangement that the wisest should govern the many, when it is assured that they will govern for its profit, and not for their own. There is no need to multiply instruments, or get twenty thousand men to do what a hundred picked men can do even better. But it must not be forgotten that corporate interest here begins to direct the public power less under the regulation of the general will, and that a further inevitable propensity takes away from the laws part of the executive power.

[There is a passing mention in Hitler’s Private Library of Hitler possessing Rousseau’s works. It’s not mentioned by Degrelle in The Enigma of Hitler. Compare his remarks on the Russian people in Table Talk entry April 11, 1942 with Rousseau’s. In any case, Hitler acknowledged Rousseau as an Aryan element and seems to have been influenced by him.]

Hitler, July 28, 1922 speech:
Voltaire, as well as Rousseau, together with our German Fichte and many another – they are all without exception united in their recognition that the Jew is not only a foreign element differing in his essential character, which is utterly harmful to the nature of the Aryan, but that the Jewish people in itself stands against us as our deadly foe and so will stand against us always and for all time.

Hitler (attributed, The Myth of German villainy):
The result of the revolution in Germany has been to establish a democracy in the best sense of the word. We are steering towards an order of things guaranteeing a process of a natural and reasonable selection in the domain of political leadership, thanks to which that leadership will be entrusted to the most competent, irrespective of their descent, name or fortune. The memorable words of the great Corsican [Napoleon] that every soldier carries a Field Marshal’s baton in his knapsack, will find its political complement in Germany.

Goebbels (attributed, The Myth of German villainy):
The will of the people is the will of the government, and vice versa. The new political structure raised in Germany is a kind of ennobled democracy; i.e., the government derives its authority from the people, but the possibility of misinterpreting the peoples will or of sterilizing it by the intervention of parliamentary methods has been eliminated altogether.

The German writers Goethe, Schiller, and Herder have stated that Rousseau’s writings inspired them. Herder regarded Rousseau to be his “guide”, and Schiller compared Rousseau to Socrates. Goethe, in 1787, stated: “Emile and its sentiments had a universal influence on the cultivated mind.”[147]

Laurency (kr5.26):
11In textbooks, French popular philosophy is usually mentioned in connection with German humanism, revolution of another kind. Lessing, Herder, Schiller, and Goethe were initiated Rosicrucians representing a sovereign point of view quite different even from the professional philosophers (Kant, etc.), who were still dealing with the principle thinking of the stage of civilization. They showed that they had attained the perspective thinking of the stage of humanity, which facilitates contact with the world of ideas. Just as in ancient Greece, it was these humanists, pyramids in the Sahara of German culture, who made their age a time of new brilliance in European history.

In Germany, the Jewish salons had become centres of political influence; Mendelssohn had won over Lessing for the Jewish goals and was able to mould him for them.


What would become of the world, what would become of ourselves, if everyone were lord and master of creation? If all human beings have the right to have this particular desire, whose desires should be satisfied? – The wishes of all humans? Or the wishes of a few of nature’s special favorites? The former is simply impossible, and the latter would be dreadful and unjust. There must, therefore, be a middle road. And it can only exist in everyone’s becoming that which, and as much as, he or she is capable of becoming, without causing people with equal rights to suffer; that there be a happiness for individuals which is compatible with the happiness of all.

Praise the quality in him which cannot be given or snatched away, that which is the peculiar property of the man. Do you ask what this is? It is soul, and reason brought to perfection in the soul. For man is a reasoning animal. Therefore, man’s highest good is attained, if he has fulfilled the good for which nature designed him at birth. And what is it which this reason demands of him? The easiest thing in the world, – to live in accordance with his own nature. But this is turned into a hard task by the general madness of mankind; we push one another into vice. And how can a man be recalled to salvation, when he has none to restrain him, and all mankind to urge him on?

Nature has made a race of workers, the Chinese race, who have wonderful manual dexterity and almost no sense of honor… A race of tillers of the soil, the Negro; treat him with kindness and humanity, and all will be as it should; a race of masters and soldiers, the European race. Reduce this noble race to working in the ergastulum like Negroes and Chinese, and they rebel… But the life at which our workers rebel would make a Chinese or a fellah happy, as they are not military creatures in the least. Let each one do what he is made for, and all will be well.

Hitler, Table Talk (Cameron & Stevens), January 12-13, 1942:
There are no bloody insurrections in India to-day, but the difficulty for the Indians is to reconcile the divergent interests of such a diverse population. How are the princes and the Brahmins, the Hindus and the Mussulmans, all these hierarchised and partitioned castes to be combined in a common front?

Goebbels (Diaries), March 13, 1942:
Whether the Indians will take their fate into their own hands is very much to be doubted. This people is divided by so many religious sects and so many racial elements that it is scarcely capable of a unified and energetic expression of will.

Hitler, August 15, 1920 speech:
We know that the Hindus in India are a mixed people, stemming from the high Aryan immigrants and from the dark aborigines. And this nation bears the consequences, for it is a slave nation of a race that may seem in many ways almost as a second Jewry.

Hitler, Table Talk (Cameron & Stevens), January 12-13, 1942:
If a British newspaper in India writes an article to-day attacking Churchill, that’s because it can’t do anything else—or it would lose its whole public. The Press doesn’t give an exact picture of the reality. In India, revolt is an endemic condition.
Gandhi tried to succeed by pacific methods, but whatever be the methods chosen, the Indians are unanimous in their desire to shake off the British yoke. Some of them would like to try Bolshevism for that purpose, others would like to try us.
Others would prefer to owe nothing to the foreigner. For all, the object is the same, it’s liberty—and nobody cares about the state of anarchy that will follow in India upon the departure of the English.
When one treats a people as the English have continually treated the Indians, the unpardonable folly is to send the youth of the country to the universities, where it learns things that it would be better for it not to know.

Hitler, Table Talk (Cameron & Stevens), August 22, 1942:
If the British are ever driven out of India, the repercussions will be swift and terrible. In the end, the Russians will reap the benefit. However miserably the inhabitants of India may live under the British they will certainly be no better off if the British go.

George Washington:
Bernard, Retrospections of America, 1797-1811
This may seem a contradiction, but I think you must perceive that it is neither a crime nor an absurdity. When we profess, as our fundamental principle, that liberty is the inalienable right of every man, we do not include madmen or idiots; liberty in their hands would become a scourge. Till the mind of the slave has been educated to perceive what are the obligations of a state of freedom, the gift would insure its abuse. We might as well be asked to pull down our old warehouses before trade has increased to demand enlarged new ones. Both houses and slaves were bequeathed to us by Europeans, and time alone can change them; an event, sir, which, you may believe me, no man desires more heartily than I do. Not only do I pray for it, on the score of human dignity, but I can already foresee that nothing but the rooting out of slavery can perpetuate the existence of our Union, by consolidating it in a common bond of principle.

Laurency ():
5You cannot grant freedom to those who are only able to destroy what the greatest capacities have produced through education and assiduous diligence, through work and toil. You cannot allow the barbarism of ignorance to thwart the contribution of knowledge and skill to the benefit of the whole.

Hitler, Table Talk (Cameron & Stevens), March 3, 1942:
To subjugate an independent country, with the idea of later giving it back its freedom, that’s not logical. The blood that has been shed confers a right of ownership. If the English give India back her liberty, within twenty years India will have lost her liberty again. There are Englishmen who reproach themselves with having governed the country badly. Why? Because the Indians show no enthusiasm for their rule. I claim that the English have governed India very well, but their error is to expect enthusiasm from the people they administer.

There is for nations as for men a period of maturity, which they must await before they are subjected to laws; but it is not always easy to discern when a people is mature, and if time is rushed, the labor is abortive. One nation is governable from its origin, another is not so at the end of ten centuries.
The Russians will never be really governed, because they have been governed too early. Peter had an imitative genius; he had not the true genius that creates and produces anything from nothing. Some of his measures were beneficial, but the majority were ill-timed. He saw that his people were barbarous, but he did not see that they were unripe for government; he wished to civilize them, when it was necessary only to discipline them. He wished to produce at once Germans or Englishmen, when he should have begun by making Russians; he prevented his subjects from ever becoming what they might have been, by persuading them that they were what they were not. It is in this way that a French tutor trains his pupils to shine for a moment in childhood, and then to be for ever a nonentity. The Russian Empire will desire to subjugate Europe, and will itself be subjugated.

Hitler, Table Talk (Cameron & Stevens), July 5, 1941:
By instinct, the Russian does not incline towards a higher form of society. Certain peoples can live in such a way that with them a collection of family units does not make a whole; and although Russia has set up a social system which, judged by Western standards, qualifies for the designation “State”, it is not, in fact, a system which is either congenial or natural to her.

Bertrand Russell, June 25, 1920:
Bolshevism is a close tyrannical bureaucracy, with a spy system more elaborate and terrible than the Tsar’s, and an aristocracy as insolent and unfeeling, composed of Americanised Jews. No vestige of liberty remains, in thought or speech or action. I was stifled and oppressed by the weight of the machine as by a cope of lead. Yet I think it is the right government for Russia at this moment. If you ask yourself how Dostoevsky’s characters should be governed, you will understand. Yet it is terrible. They are a nation of artists, down to the simplest peasant; the aim of the Bolsheviks is to make them industrial and as Yankee as possible. Imagine yourself governed in every detail by a mixture of Sidney Webb and Rufus Isaacs, and you will have a picture of modern Russia. I went hoping to find the promised land.

11d. Change

Werner Maser:
Hitler’s Letters and Notes
Like so many ‘world improvers’ before and after him, Hitler, too, was convinced that he had discovered and grasped what historians and philosophers had sought for millennia – the ‘eternal course of history’. Since early on he came to see himself as a political genius, as someone who had lifted the veil of history and discovered the final truth, the draft for a ‘monumental history of mankind’ he wrote at the start of the political career is of extraordinary history.

Otto Dietrich:
[Hitler] proclaimed a new weltanschauung – but scarcely ever deigned to mention the great thinkers of mankind from Plato to Kant and Goethe. The loftiest truths, the greatest wisdom, the sum of human intellectual labors for centuries, simply did not exist for Hitler unless they happened to fall into line with his nationalistic ideology.

John Burnet:
Early Greek Philosophy
Herakleitos looks down not only on the mass of men, but on all previous inquirers into nature. This must mean that he believed himself to have attained insight into some truth not hither-to recognised, though it was staring men in the face (fr. 93). To get at the central thing in his teaching, we must try then to find out what he was thinking of when he launched into those denunciations of human dulness and ignorance.
The answer seems to be given in two fragments, 18 and 45. From them we gather that the truth hitherto ignored is that the many apparently independent and conflicting things we know are really one, and that, on the other hand, this one is also many. The “strife of opposites” is really an “attunement” (ἁρμονία). From this it follows that wisdom is not a knowledge of many things, but the perception of the underlying unity of the warring opposites.
That this really was the fundamental thought of Herakleitos is stated by ✡Philo. He says: “For that which is made up of both the opposites is one; and, when the one is divided, the opposites are disclosed. Is not this just what the Greeks say their great and much belauded Herakleitos put in the forefront of his philosophy as summing it all up, and boasted of as a new discovery?”56

Wonders of Life
When we survey this enormous mass of philosophic systems from the point of view of general biology, we find that we can divide them into two main groups.
The first and smaller group contains the monistic philosophy, which traces all the phenomena of existence to one single common principle.
The second and larger group, to which most philosophic systems belong, constitutes the dualistic philosophy, according to which there are two totally distinct principles in the universe.
These are sometimes expressed as God and the world, sometimes as the spiritual world and material world, sometimes as mind and matter, and so on. In my opinion, this antithesis of monism and dualism is the most important in the whole history of philosophy. All other systems are only variations of one or the other of these, or a more or less obscure combination of the two.
The form of monism which I take to be the most complete expression of the general truth, and which I have advocated in my writings for thirty-eight years, is now generally called hylozoism. This expresses the fact that all substance has two fundamental attributes; as matter (hyle) it occupies space, and as force or energy it is endowed with sensation (cf. chapter xix.).

Laurency ():
It can hardly be claimed that the theologians have too vast knowledge of reality. The “material world” (the physical world) and the “spiritual world” are the only worlds existing to them. When theologians in the manner of Anders Nygren at Lund University deny the existence of superphysical worlds, they concur in Jewish theology according to which there is no other life than physical life.

Mein Kampf:
As a matter of fact, the Talmud is not a book that lays down principles according to which the individual should prepare for the life to come. It only furnishes rules for a practical and convenient life in this world.

Hearing of enormous landed proprietors of ten thousand acres and more, our philosopher deems this to be a trifle, because he has been accustomed to think of the whole earth; and when they sing the praises of family, and say that some one is a gentleman because he can show seven generations of wealthy ancestors, he thinks that their sentiments only betray a dull and narrow vision in those who utter them, and who are not educated enough to look at the whole, nor to consider that every man has had thousands and ten thousands of progenitors, and among them have been rich and poor, kings and slaves, Hellenes and barbarians, innumerable.


War is the father of all and king of all, who manifested some as gods and some as men, who made some slaves and some freemen.

Hitler, Table Talk, October 10, 1941 (Jochmann):
War has returned to the original form of its existence: in place of international war, the territorial war is once again taking place. Originally, war was nothing more than a fight for the feeding ground. Today it is again about the natural resources. According to the will of creation, they belong to the one who fights hardest for them.

Robert Ley:
Pesthauch der Welt, 1944
All natural life is eternal battle, and battle is the father of all things. Battle, however, is possible only between two opposing poles and powers. Mankind has named these battling worlds “good” and “evil,” “God” and “Satan,” “noble” and “crude,” “construction and destruction,” “life” or “death.” These are all ways of saying that nature is a constant process of coming and going, a constant transformation of forces and materials. Science has a chemical and physical law that says: Nothing perishes; everything is constantly changing. Whatever we call it, whether we use the words of science or say it in a more primitive way, the eternal, inescapable law is that life means battle, that battle comes from competing energies, and that something new comes from their meeting.

In one word, the sharp hostility between National Socialists and Jews means infinitely more than that which the detractors of the Hitler faith so lightly take it to be. It reveals not the usual tension between any two rival “racialisms,” but the unique opposition between the two poles of thinking … That is the hidden but real reason why it is absolute ― and why its tangible expressions have been, and will, at the first opportunity, again be, so deadly. Adolf Hitler knew it. The wisest among his true disciples knew it, and know it. The all-powerful leaders of world Jewry knew it, and know it.

G. G. Otto:
Why do we Germans, and almost we alone, fight Jewry so energetically? Why in the course of German history have there always been times when the German element turns against Jewry? Alfred Rosenberg, in his book The Path of the Jew throughout History, provides the answer: “There is probably no nation in Europe in which people’s inner nature is so deep, and so influential, as in the German people. In its depths, therefore, it is the spiritual opposite of the Jews…”
Rosenberg, The Track of the Jew, p.g. 94:
Now there is in Europe perhaps no nation that has explored and explained the inner mystery of man as the German. It therefore forms in its deepest character the spiritual antithesis of the Jew…”

I fancy to myself Heracleitus repeating wise traditions of antiquity as old as the days of Cronos and Rhea, and of which Homer also spoke. Heraclitus is supposed to say that all things are in motion and nothing at rest; he compares them to the stream of a river, and says that you cannot go into the same river twice.

Laurency (kr2):
8Herakleitos tried to hint at the eternal uniqueness of everything when he said that you can never descend twice into exactly the same river. This demolishes Nietzsche’s fantasies about the “eternal return” to exactly the same. It is impossible, because everything is unique.

Laurency (L4e7):
1“Everything repeats itself”, for the movement of evolution is that of the spiral. Everything returns but in a quite different way, because everything is unique.

Laurency (kr5):
21Herakleitos also taught that the world develops in cycles, that all change occurs in accordance with eternal laws of nature which are the only unchangeable things in the universe. All of it esoteric!

Hitler, Table Talk, October 24, 1941 (Jochmann):
The hardest steel becomes worn out, all elements are decomposed, and just as it is certain that the earth someday passes away, so it is certain that all the institutions will one day perish. All these phenomena are wavy, not a straight path, but upwards or downwards.

Hitler and his Generals: Military Conferences 1942-1945, p.g. 533
The Führer’s Speech to Division Commanders, December 12, 1944, at Adlerhorst
It is very clear, gentlemen, that such a conflict is now progressing like a grand historical struggle, with its ups and downs.

Goethe (aphorism):
Progress has not followed a straight ascending line, but a spiral with rhythms of progress and retrogression, of evolution and dissolution.

Karl Binding & Alfred Hoche:
Permitting the Destruction of Life Unworthy of Life
From Goethe
Von Goethe stammt das Bild des Entwicklungsganges wichtiger Menschheitsfragen, den er sich in Spiralform versinnlicht. Die Achse dieses Bildes ist die Tatsache, daß eine etwa an einem Stamme emporlaufende Spirallinie in gewissen Abständen immer wieder auf derselben Seite des Stammes ankommt und vorüberführt, aber jedesmal ein Stockwerk höher.

SS-Hauptamt, Rassenpolitik:
The development of German culture has not followed a steadily rising course. Decades of no growth are followed by periods of slow but steady progress, then new ideas suddenly appear that transform our culture in fundamental ways.

The Wonders of Life
The progressive development of classes and stems leads slowly but surely to the formation of new species. Every special form of life—the individual as well as the species—is therefore merely a biological episode, a passing phenomenal form in the constant change of life. Man is no exception. “Nothing is constant but change,” said the old maxim. The historical succession of species and classes is, both in the animal and the plant kingdom, accompanied by a slow and steady progress in organization.

Laurency (kl2_3):
1Life is change, constant change, change in every moment. But people, when they have once settled down in life, want no change. Going on in the same old tracks, mechanizing their habits so that they are spared thinking is their desire. And they regard as enemies all who want to alter the traditional things, even the most absurd conditions. To be able to “remain in undisturbed possession” is their ideal, and they accuse life of lacking in love, if some change comes their way.
2A wee bit of reflection should tell them that without change there will be no development. They do not even know that development means consciousness development. They stare at physical material reality as if it were the meaning of life. They defend the superstitions with which they were inoculated in childhood as though they were final truths. They have at all times persecuted all those who have carried development forward. And such enemies of development call themselves rational beings.

Mein Kampf:
In the fight for our new idea, which conforms completely to the primal meaning of life, we shall find only a small number of comrades in a social order which has become decrepit not only physically, but mentally. From these circles only a few exceptional people will join our ranks, only those few old people whose hearts have remained young and whose courage is still vigorous, but not those who consider it their duty to maintain the status quo. Against us we have the innumerable army of all those who are lazy-minded and indifferent rather than evil, and those whose self-interest leads them to uphold the present state of affairs.

The one thing they all pray for, when they pray at all, is “peace”; not the unassailable, inner peace of the Best (of which they have not the foggiest experience), but peace in the sense of absence of war; the indefinite prolongation of a “status quo” which allows them to think of to-morrow’s little pleasure without the fear of to-day’s deadly danger; peace, thanks to which they will, undisturbed, — so they hope — be able to go on rotting in the midst of that increasing comfort, which technical progress secures them; peace, thanks to which they expect to remain (or gradually to become) happy — in the manner pigs are happy, when they have plenty to eat and clean straw to lie upon.

Karl Viëtor:
Goethe The Poet, p.g. 233-234
The poem, Dauer im Wechsel (“Permanence within Change”), also transposes philosophic thought to the sphere of lyric expression. The theme of transitoriness is here dealt with in connecting with Heraclitus’ saying that one can never enter the same stream twice. Where is there anything permanent? Wave follows upon wave; the buds of spring and leaves of summer come, and then the wind wafts them away. In incessant change something new forever arises and perishes in its turn. And so we ourselves constantly see the world in new ways, and our bodies, too, quickly change.
But the close of the poem raises us above the image of constant change by the insight that for mankind there is one fixed point in transitoriness: in the process of transformation our spirit becomes aware of what is permanent, in passing away we learn what is eternal. By virtue of our creative force we ourselves are capable of producing something which does not perish with the instant.

Everything that encounters us leaves traces behind, everything contributes imperceptibly to our education. But it is dangerous to desire to make an inventory of all this. Then we become either proud and negligent or humbled and spiritless, and the one is hampering to the sequel as the other. It always is safest to do only the next thing that lies before us.

– Wilhelm Meisters Lehrjahre, Book VII, chapter i.

Karl Viëtor:
Goethe The Poet, p.g. 120
The substance of the life to which Wilhelm matures is not education for the sake of education (Bildung), not passive self-enjoyment, and not contemplation. This is the first of Goethe’s great writings in which he preaches the gospel of work which he never ceased proclaiming until his death. It combines the activism which is characteristic of the men of the West with the aesthetic and ethical ideal of education of classical humanism. Only a life filled with action is a true life for the cultivated man. “As long as one lives, one must be active.” [Maskenzüge.] … It is only through action that the individual is linked with his fellow men; and it is only in and with the community that the individual can hope to realize the ideal of humanism.

It was impossible for Goethe to view Winckelmann, as did Herder and others, as having had “ein verpfuschtes Leben.” Despite all of Winckelmann’s personal shortcomings, “Winckelmann’s essence lies not in his fate or his suffering, but in his actions, not in the passive, but in the active. Therein lies man, in which he shows and unfolds his personality.”

Laurency (L5e1):
3The best biography of Goethe hitherto is probably the one written by Karl Viëtor, Goethe – The Poet (1949). It is in connection with this book that the following reflections have presented themselves.
4K.V.’s biography is unusual for the understanding it displays. That is the very reason why it is the best illustration of the fact that only esotericians are in a position to interpret initiates somewhat, which should be clear from what will be said in the following.
16What you must admire in K.V. is his deep understanding of Goethe without esoteric knowledge. Thus he writes that Goethe’s desire for “the highest learning and the deepest feeling, his wish to explore how far the limits to human experience can be stretched” are in themselves good and noble. Goethe was, “despite his youth, aware that the moral viewpoint does not suffice when judging man’s existence and life in its complex wholeness.”
34Thanks to Winckelmann’s epoch-making and revolutionary work on ancient Greek art, understanding of the fundamental importance of that art was roused in Europe. He presented the noble simplicity and serene greatness of the works of Greek art as the norm of true art. There was ideal beauty in Greek art, primeval beauty without parallel that puts nature itself into the shade, beauty in which divine perfection could be descried. With reference to this conception Goethe put forward in several works his view on art.

Carl Jung:
For me, scientific research work was never a milch-cow or a means of prestige, but a struggle, often a bitter one, forced upon me by daily psychological experience of the sick. Hence not everything I bring forth is written out of my head, but much of it comes from the heart also, a fact I would beg the gracious reader not to overlook if, following up the intellectual line of thought, he comes upon certain lacunae that have not been properly filled in. A harmonious flow of exposition can be expected only when one is writing about things which one already knows. But when, urged on by the need to help and to heal, one acts as a path-finder, one must speak also of realities as yet unknown.

Laurency ():
18Bjerre rejects the mechanical way in which psychoanalysis interprets man’s state of being conditioned by elementary urges. Besides, Freud’s cynical view of human beings as milch cows and guinea pigs was incomprehensible to him. Freud said to Bjerre:

“I understand that you are particularly interested in psychoanalysis as an art of treatment. Well, it happens that patients recover during an analysis. But they may do so when treated with valerian and cold water as well. … No, treatment is bad business. It is nothing you should waste your time on. Science is everything, that is what you should go in for.”

Laurency (L4e1.3):
6Biologist Ernst Haeckel was the first writer to arouse my interest in hylozoics, in his popular book Lebenswunder. In the final chapter he mentioned the allusion F. A. Lange made in his History of Materialism, first edition, to this the most ancient Greek world view, misinterpreted, of course, for want of facts.

Laurency (L4e1.3):
3Philosopher Fechner had an opportunity of meeting that most recent incarnation of Pythagoras. And when Fechner asked him which philosophy best agreed with reality, the reply he received was: that of Schopenhauer. Every esoterician will certainly concur in that judgement.

[It has been said that Goethe wanted Germans to become a diaspora like the Jews so as to spread culture to other nations. Clearly, the cultural creative faculty has always existed in the Germanic man. It did not begin with Goethe as Laurency asserted. He didn’t take into account the vitriolic influence that the Jew Heinrich Heine exerted among Goethe’s fellow Germans in his unrestrained slander against Goethe.]

Mein Kampf:
It is, therefore, outrageously unjust to speak of the pre-Christian Germans as uncivilised barbarians, for such they never were.

Laurency (L4e3.10):
3The Chinese did not possess that logical methodology which Aristoteles afforded to Occidental thought and which has won such triumphs in natural research and above all in technological research and in application starting from the matter aspect in the physical world.

Der Mythus
It was popular for a long time to compare the Chinese and the Germans, because both peoples have been possessed by a mania for collecting and by a veritable disease for registering everything. This comparison remains completely superficial. One cannot measure the soul of a people by individual characteristics but only by achievements. Thus the Chinaman remains a cataloguer; the German, however, became a master of historical science. He built his collections of facts and deeds with a strong sense of both purpose and direction. With one, the ultimate end was mechanical coordination; with the other, a view of the world. That is the difference. The German’s talent for researching and writing history is deeper than just having a sense of what to save or discard. He brings true philosophical overview to his study. He knows what things serve man, civilisation and race.
The Teuton—especially the German—feels in his heart the value and dignity of personality. He is filled with a conscious intuition of it, knowing that it must be felt as well as known. He is driven by a vital feeling, by the greatest activity of soul, to observe, investigate and fathom his fellow men. Therefore, he has understood history as the development of a people’s personality. He has sought under thousand year old ashes and ruins evidence of human power. Here we have arrived, then, at one of the primordial phenomena which can neither be explained nor investigated.

[However, it’d be remiss of me to completely deny Laurency’s criticisms for Germany.]

Laurency (L3e8):
18The fact that poets in our times are torn to pieces by conflicting emotions is due to their lacking a tenable life view. There are countless untenable views. When whatever he has believed in breaks, man becomes unhappy. Mystics detest the simple, the clear, the mental. They seek the incomprehensible, the inconceivable, and believe that life is complicated. That is why the German, who thinks that pure nonsense is ingenious, is the most typical mystic. It appears in their philosophy as well. No nation has produced so much acute and profound balderdash.

Der Mythus
The greatest and most blessed thing in the German life is the mythical, sensitive, yet strong, awakening. The fact is that we have again begun to dream our own primal dreams—not with willed intent but far more spontaneously—in many places simultaneously—all in the same direction.

John F. Kennedy:
As every past generation has had to disenthrall itself from an inheritance of truisms and stereotypes, so in our own time we must move on from the reassuring repetition of stale phrases to a new, difficult, but essential confrontation with reality. For the great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie—deliberate, contrived, and dishonest—but the myth—persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Too often we hold fast to the clichés of our forebears. We subject all facts to a prefabricated set of interpretations. We enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. Mythology distracts us everywhere—in government as in business, in politics as in economics, in foreign affairs as in domestic affairs.

[But then it becomes perfectly clear that Hitler was not a German. In the same way Jesus represents the negation of Jewish materialism, Hitler represents the negation of German mysticism! Indeed, Hitler did not approve of Rosenberg’s Der Mythus, as seen under section Manifesto.]

Hitler, September 6, 1938:
National Socialism is a cool and highly-reasoned approach to reality based upon the greatest of scientific knowledge and its spiritual expression. As we have opened the Volk’s heart to these teachings, and as we continue to do so at present, we have no desire of instilling in the Volk a mysticism that transcends the purpose and goals of our teachings.

Carl Jung:
Compare the way the German people think and feel about Hitler with the way the Italians think and feel about Mussolini. The Germans are highly impressionable. They go to extremes; are always a bit unbalanced. They are cosmopolitan, world citizens; easily lose their national identity; like to imitate other nations. Every German man would like to dress like an English gentleman. Not Hitler.

Because Hitler is saying to his Germans, “Now, bei Gott, you have got to start being Germans!” The Germans are extraordinarily sensitive to new ideas, and when they hear one which appeals to them they are likely to swallow it uncritically, and for a time to be completely dominated by it; but after a while they are equally likely to throw it violently away and adopt a newer idea, quite probably contradicting the first one entirely. This is the way they have run their political life. Italians are more stable. Their minds do not roll and wallow and leap and plunge through all the extravagant ecstasies which are the daily exercise of the German mind. So you find in Italy a spirit of balance lacking in Germany.

Goebbels (Diaries), September 10, 1943:
The only certain thing about this war is that Italy will lose it. Its pusillanimous treachery to its own leader was the prelude to a cowardly treachery toward its ally. The Duce will enter history as the last Roman, but behind his massive figure a gypsy people has gone to rot. We ought to have realized that sooner, but for ideological reasons we always were too accommodating to the Italians. Once again our old German inheritance, our sentimentality, has had evil consequences when applied to politics. Added to this was a totally inept German diplomacy which didn’t have enough vision to foresee the developments that have now taken place in Italy.

Paula Hitler, May 1, 1957:
The fact that the bitter fight for Germany’s greatness wasn’t crowned by success like Cromwell’s in Britain, for example, has a lot to do with the mentality of the people involved.
On the one hand the Englishman’s character is essentially unfair, ruled by jealousy, self-importance, and lack of consideration. But he never forgets he is an Englishman, loyal to his crown.
On the other hand, you with your need for recognition are never first and foremost a German. Therefore it doesn’t matter to you, you insignificant beings, if you destroy the entire nation. Your only guiding thought will always be me first, me second, me third. In your worthlessness you will never think of the welfare of the nation, and with that pitiful philosophy you wish to prevent the immortality of a giant?

Mein Kampf:
For example, anyone who sincerely wishes the pacifist idea to prevail in this world ought to do all he is capable of doing to help the Germans conquer the world, for in case the reverse should happen, it may easily be that the last pacifist would disappear with the last German. I say this because, unfortunately, scarcely any other people in the world has ever fallen a prey to this nonsensical and illogical idea to the same degree as our own. Whether of the effect that outer circumstances have upon it.

11e. Work

Work is always the best antidote to attacks on the soul and spirit.

— Goebbels, Diaries, February 11, 1942


12. What Hitler wasn’t

12a. Not a Christian

August Kubizek:
In conclusion, I would describe Hitler’s attitude towards the church at that time as follows: he was by no means indifferent to the church, but the church could give him nothing.

Hermann Goering:
As to the attitude towards the church – the Fuhrer’s attitude was a generous one, at the beginning absolutely generous. I should not like to say that it was positive in the sense that he himself was a positive or convinced adherent of any one confession, but it was generous and positive in the sense that he recognized the necessity of the Church. Although he himself was a Catholic, he wished the Protestant Church to have a stronger position in Germany, since Germany was two-thirds Protestant.

Albert Speer:
He too would remain a member of the Catholic Church, he said, although he had no real attachment to it. And in fact he remained in the church until his suicide.

Christa Schroeder:
Er war mein Chef
A popular topic was always the Church. Hitler had no attachment to the Church. He held the Christian religion to be a hypocritical and human enslaving institution. His religion was the laws of nature.
Ein beliebtes Thema war immer die Kirche. Hitler hatte keine Bindung an die Kirche. Er hielt die christliche Religion für eine überlebte heuchlerische und menschenfängerische Einrichtung. Seine Religion waren die Naturgesetze.

Goebbels (Diaries), December 29, 1939:
We come back to religious questions again. The Führer is deeply religious, though completely anti-Christian. He views Christianity as a symptom of decay. Rightly so. It is a branch of the Jewish race. This can be seen in the similarity of their religious rites.

Lucian of Samosota:
It was now that he came across the priests and scribes of the Christians, in Palestine, and picked up their queer creed. I can tell you, he pretty soon convinced them of his superiority; prophet, elder, ruler of the Synagogue–he was everything at once; expounded their books, commented on them, wrote books himself. They took him for a God, accepted his laws, and declared him their president.

Now since the Galilaeans say that, though they are different from the Jews, they are still, precisely speaking, Israelites in accordance with their prophets, and that they obey Moses above all and the prophets who in Judaea succeeded him, let us see in what respect they chiefly agree with those prophets.

And yet there are throughout the whole world—throughout all Greece, and all foreign countries—countless individuals who have abandoned the laws of their country, and those whom they had believed to be gods, and have yielded themselves up to the obedience of the law of Moses

Proselytes to Jewry adopt the same practices, and the very first lesson they learn is to despise the gods, shed all feelings of patriotism, and consider parents, children and brothers as readily expendable.

Another of the most deplorable aspects of Christian morality is its belittlement of the life of the family, of that natural living together with our next of kin which is just as necessary in the case of man as in the case of all the higher social animals. The family is justly regarded as the “foundation of society,” and the healthy life of the family is a necessary condition of the prosperity of the State.

You must flee from these voices as from those which Ulysses did not dare to sail by unless lashed to the mast. They have the same power—they draw you away from your country, from your parents, from your friends, from the virtues, and entice you into a life which is shameful, and if shameful then wretched. How much better it is to pursue the right path and to bring yourself to the point where only what is honourable is satisfying to you.

However, the Jews see to it that their numbers increase. It is a deadly sin to kill a born or unborn child, and they think that eternal life is granted to those who die in battle or execution—hence their eagerness to have children, and their contempt for death.

Lucian of Samosata:
You see, these misguided creatures [Christians] start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them…

Hitler, Table Talk, October 25, 1941 (Cameron & Stevens):
As for the fruits of sin, the soul that fears limbo is a candidate for baptism, that is to say, another customer, and so business goes on! It is a fact that in Catholic parts of the world there are many more illegitimate births than in Protestant parts.
Laurency (wm9):
2Mankind’s irresponsible way of producing children carelessly, without a thought of their future, has its consequences for the parents in their next incarnation. Mankind shall not accuse life of the indescribable misery of overpopulation. Millions are born at a wrong time and are forced down into the physical world practically against their will and in any case contrary to the purposes of the powers of destiny. The Catholic Church still encourages the production of children in an overpopulated world, which is not in agreement with what it calls the “will of god”. That will has never been known to that church, since it has never been in contact with the planetary government. This is a fact which also should be evident to anyone who has studied and understood church history. The church has in all its policies worked against the “will of god”. It has counteracted consciousness development systematically and idiotized mankind with its dogmas hostile to life.
Laurency (L3e11):
2Mormons, for instance, are in great error when asserting that it is their duty to see to it that “souls” are given opportunities to incarnate. There are already too many in incarnation. It is not even desirable that so many incarnate, and if mankind cannot learn the art of birth control, then life must find other expedients to counteract this madness: by sterility, infant mortality, new children’s diseases, etc.

Mein Kampf:
Those who are physically or mentally unhealthy and unfit must not perpetuate their own suffering in the bodies of their children. From the educational point of view there is here a huge task for the völkisch State to accomplish, but in a future era this work will appear greater and more significant than the victorious wars of our present bourgeois epoch. Through education the State must teach individuals that illness is not a disgrace, but an unfortunate accident which is to be pitied, yet that it is a crime and a disgrace to make this affliction worse by passing on disease and defects to innocent creatures, out of mere egotism.
The State must also teach the people that it is an expression of a really noble nature and that it is a humanitarian act worthy of admiration if a person who innocently suffers from hereditary disease refrains from having a child of his own, but gives his love and affection to some unknown child who, through its health, promises to become a healthy member of a healthy community.

In 1884 Kussmaul published his Untersuchungen über das Seelenleben des neugeborenen Menschen, and in 1882 W. Preyer published his Mind of the Child [English translation; Dr. J. Sully has several works on the same subject]. From the careful manuals which these and other observers have published, it is clear that the newborn infant not only has no reason or consciousness, but is also deaf, and only gradually develops its sense and thought-centres. It is only by gradual contact with the outer world that these functions successively appear, such as speech, laughing, etc.; later still come the power of association, the forming of concepts and words, etc. Recent anatomic observations quite accord with these physiological facts. Taken together, they convince us that the phronema is undeveloped in the new-born infant; and so we can no more speak in this case of a “seat of the soul” than of a “human spirit” as a centre of thought, knowledge, and consciousness. Hence the destruction of abnormal new-born infants—as the Spartans practised it, for instance, in selecting the bravest—cannot rationally be classed as “murder,” as is done in even modern legal works. We ought rather to look upon it as a practice of advantage both to the infants destroyed and to the community. As the whole course of embryology is, according to our biogenetic law, an abbreviated repetition of the history of the race, we must say the same of psychogenesis, or the development of the “soul” and its organ—the phronema.

Hitler, Table Talk (Cameron & Stevens), May 12, 1942:
And these same renegades heap sarcasm on the honest German citizen who, with complete disregard of caste, marries the girl by whom he has had a child! It is these hypocrites who are responsible for mass abortions and for the existence of all those healthy women deprived of a man, simply as the result of reigning prejudice. Is there a more lovely consecration of love, pray, than the birth of a handsome babe, glowing with health? Although it is obvious to the eyes of any reasonable person that nature blesses the love of two beings by giving them a child, these sinister degenerates claim, if you please, that the status of a man or a woman depends on a sealed document given by the State—as if that were of any importance in comparison with the ties which unite two people in love!

Hitler, Memoirs of a Confidant, p.g. 146-147:
When I think of all the means that have been invented and constantly used to prevent conception or even to kill and abort the beginnings of life, it seems to me the ultimate in hypocrisy and inner untruth if these same people–and it is them, in the main–call the sterilization of those who are severely handicapped physically and morally and of those who are genuinely criminal a sin against God. I despise this sanctimoniousness in the world, as I despise all those who carry it in their faces and on their lips.
The physicians I gathered recently and consulted on these questions for my own inner confirmation and instruction told me, furthermore, that when a child is born, it is not really fully matured.
If we compare the gestation period of a rabbit, a dog, a horse, a cow, a pig, and so on, with that of a human being, it becomes obvious that the gestation period of the human fetus would have to be much longer. We see that as soon as an animal is born, it can immediately stand on its own feet and can drink, and it rushes to its mother’s udder.
The human infant, on the other hand, is completely helpless, it is unable to walk or to crawl or to search for it’s mother’s breast. The degeneration of the human physique is simply so great by now that the child can no longer be carried to term in the womb, because it would grow too large and would no longer be able to get out. When a child is born, it is therefore not really ‘in the world.’
It takes several months more before it reaches the point where it can actually move by itself and also absorb or express impressions other than the mere sensation of hunger, which is the pure expression of the will to live, just as it already exists in the fetus, simply taking on new form after the umbilical cord is cut and the previous form of food intake has been broken.
But if that is so, then the infant does not actually take its place in human society until several months after its birth. So the question arises whether it runs counter to the basic principles of humaneness and to the divine laws if one refuses to rear a newborn infant, which is clearly unviable when it emerges from the womb, but imposes on it the fate that would probably have befallen it anyway if the human gestation period, corresponding to natural requirements had been longer.
Of course, such a decision cannot be left to the parents. That would open the door to criminality. Such judgments should only be made by a medical commission, which examines the question with the deepest moral gravity. But without the mother’s consent, the extermination of the child is impossible under any circumstances. The child belongs to the mother, not to the state.
But a healthy and vigorous mother–acting precisely out of the feeling of maternal obligation which nature, which the Divinity bestowed on her–will, if the necessity arises, arrive at this harsh and difficult decision–especially if she already has several healthy children and can have more.
For God and nature cannot want a mother to give to birth to sickly, deformed human beings, useless for life! It is not in vain that more than one ancient civilized nation accompanied this action with sacerdotal rites of sacrifice and religious observances.”

[Otto Wagener: Too frequently Hitler’s thinking along this line was misunderstood and rejected as un-Christian and pagan. Yet it is imbued with a deep, religious sense of responsibility, which is essential to a statesman or the creator of a new, socialist worldview.]

[The Jews] prefer to bury and not burn their dead. In this, as in their burial rites, and in their belief in an underworld, they conform to Egyptian custom. Their ideas of heaven are quite different.

You [Galileans] have filled the whole world with tombs and sepulchres, and yet in your scriptures it is nowhere said that you must grovel among tombs and pay them honour. But you have gone so far in iniquity that you think you need not listen even to the words of Jesus of Nazareth on this matter. Listen then to what he says about sepulchres: “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres; outward the tomb appears beautiful, but within it is full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness.” If, then, Jesus said that sepulchres are full of uncleanness, how can you invoke God at them? . . .
Therefore, since this is so, why do you grovel among tombs? Do you wish to hear the reason? It is not I who will tell you, but the prophet Isaiah: “They lodge among tombs and in caves for the sake of dream visions.” You observe, then, how ancient among the Jews was this work of witchcraft, namely, sleeping among tombs for the sake of dream visions.

Sahih al-Bukhari, Book 60, Hadith 121:
Narrated ‘Aisha and Ibn ‘Abbas
On his death-bed Allah’s Messenger put a sheet over his-face and when he felt hot, he would remove it from his face. When in that state (of putting and removing the sheet) he said, “May Allah’s Curse be on the Jews and the Christians for they build places of worship at the graves of their prophets.” (By that) he intended to warn (the Muslim) from what they (i.e. Jews and Christians) had done.

✡Manly P. Hall:
No complete records are available which give the secret doctrine of the Egyptians concerning the relationship existing between the spirit, or consciousness, and the body which it inhabited. It is reasonably certain, however, that Pythagoras, who had been initiated in the Egyptian temples, when he promulgated the doctrine of metempsychosis, restated, in part at least, the teachings of the Egyptian initiates. The popular supposition that the Egyptians mummified their dead in order to preserve the form for a physical resurrection is untenable in the light of modern knowledge regarding their philosophy of death.
In the fourth book of On Abstinence from Animal Food, Porphyry describes an Egyptian custom of purifying the dead by removing the contents of the abdominal cavity, which they placed in a separate chest.

Nevertheless, this is not to be omitted, that the Egyptians, when they buried those that were of noble birth, privately took away the belly and placed it in a chest, and together with other things which they performed for the sake of the dead body, they elevated the chest towards the sun, whom they invoked as a witness; an oration for the deceased being at the same time made by one of those to whose care the funeral was committed.
But the oration which Euphantus has interpreted from the Egyptian tongue was as follows:

O Sovereign Sun, and all ye Gods who impart life to men, receive me, and deliver me to the eternal Gods as a cohabitant. For I have always piously worshipped those divinities which were pointed out to me by my parents as long as I lived in this age, and have likewise always honoured those who procreated my body. And, with respect to other men, I have never slain any one, nor defrauded any one of what he deposited with me, nor have I committed any other atrocious deed. If, therefore, during my life I have acted erroneously, by eating or drinking things which it is unlawful to eat or drink, I have not erred through myself, but through these, pointing to the chest in which the belly was contained. And having thus spoken, he threw the chest into the river [Nile]; but buried the rest of the body as being pure. After this manner, they thought an apology ought to be made to divinity for what they had eaten and drank, and for the insolent conduct which they had been led to through the belly.

[Blavatsky] developed the term Left-Hand Path as a translation of the term Vamachara, an Indian Tantric practice that emphasised the breaking of Hindu societal taboos by having sexual intercourse in ritual, drinking alcohol, eating meat and assembling in graveyards, as a part of the spiritual practice.

Medicine is practised among [the Egyptians] on a plan of separation; each physician treats a single disorder, and no more: thus the country swarms with medical practitioners, some undertaking to cure diseases of the eye, others of the head, others again of the teeth, others of the intestines, and some those which are not local.

Lars Adelskogh (Fke12):
12Diseases will be definitively eradicated when their causes in physical, emotional, and mental defective conditions have been clarified and the right individualized modes of treatment have been introduced into medical practice.

What kind of healing art has ever appeared among the Hebrews, like that of Hippocrates among the Hellenes, and of certain other schools that came after him?

Jeremiah 46:11
“Go up to Gilead and get balm, Virgin Daughter Egypt. But you try many medicines in vain; there is no healing for you.

Mein Kampf:
The fight against syphilis and its pace-maker, prostitution, is one of the gigantic tasks of mankind; gigantic, because it is not merely a case of solving a single problem, but of the removal of a whole series of evils which are the contributory causes of this scourge. Disease of the body in this case is merely the result of a diseased condition of the moral, social, and racial instincts.

Laurency (L3e13):
1Syphilis, cancer, and tuberculosis are diseases that were rife in mankind in Atlantis already. Since organisms permeated with those diseases have been buried, the soil of our entire planet has become so thoroughly poisoned that both plants and animals are carriers of germs of latent disease. Human waste products with their germs of disease have been flushed into the sea and been absorbed by its organisms, by fish, for example, which are consumed by human beings, and so the “circulation” goes on. There are countless germs of disease that are destroyed only when treated with fire.
2What is said here concerns things that science has not yet understood and perhaps has not even been able to understand. It is an esoteric fact, however, which future research will be able to demonstrate. Cremation can reduce the risks of further poisoning and will in the future be decreed by law.

Laurency (wm4):
7The custom of burying human corpses with all their germs of disease, as well as the custom of manuring the earth with human excrements, has had the effect that the earth is thoroughly poisoned. Nowadays also the water is poisoned since faeces are flushed out into lakes. Plants assimilate germs of disease and pass them on, and fish as well. When, some time in the future, science has realized this fact, cremation will be made compulsory and human waste be neutralized in special factories. Cultivated earth with its germs of disease will be disinfected. Many hundreds of years later we may expect that the diseases brought to us through the vegetable life will be eradicated.

Goebbels (Diaries), April 8, 1941:
The Führer is a man totally attuned to antiquity. He hates Christianity, because it has crippled all that is noble in humanity. According to Schopenhauer, Christianity and syphilis have made humanity unhappy and unfree.

Mein Kampf:
It must be made clear to all that a serious fight against this scourge calls for vast sacrifices and an enormous amount of work. To wage war against syphilis means fighting against prostitution, against prejudice, against old-established customs, against current fashion, public opinion, and, last but not least, again false prudery in certain circles.

Goebbels (Diaries), December 29, 1939:
Both (Judaism and Christianity) have no point of contact to the animal element, and thus, in the end they will be destroyed. The Führer is a convinced vegetarian on principle. His arguments cannot be refuted on any serious basis. They are totally unanswerable.


Mein Kampf:
Visionary humanitarianisms became the fashion. In weakly submitting to these aberrations and sparing the feelings of the individual, the future of millions of human beings was sacrificed.

Freedom in science and teaching
In my paper read at Munich I only briefly pointed out the happy results which, in my opinion, the modern doctrine of evolution will entail when the true, natural religion, founded on reason, takes the place of the dogmatic religion of the Church, and its leading principle derives the human sense of duty from the social instincts of animals.

✡Manly P. Hall:
And if a word is to be said for bringing in the clergy, it might be that the
theologian planner who will be truly useful will be one who acquires at least some knowledge of the science of biology

Hitler, Table Talk, November 1941 (Cameron & Stevens):
What revolutions won’t do, will be done by evolution. One may regret living at a period when it’s impossible to form an idea of the shape the world of the future will assume. But there’s one thing I can predict to eaters of meat, that the world of the future will be vegetarian!

[Also see Table Talk entries Nov. 5, 1941, Jan. 22, 1942, April 25, 1942 for discourses on vegetarianism]

Reinhold Hanisch:
“If the Germans had remained faithful to their old mythology, they would today be a united nation, and would have reached a higher standard of civilization.” He meant that the Germanic faith, if retained, would have become more ideal with the changing times, and in this connection pointed to the Greeks, in whose faith he said ideals were revered as gods.

[Take Reinhold Hanisch’s testimony with a grain of salt, of course. But it does seem to be in agreement with what Hitler said in Mein Kampf.]

Mein Kampf:
It is, therefore, outrageously unjust to speak of the pre-Christian Germans as uncivilised barbarians, for such they never were. But the severity of the climate that prevailed in the northern regions which they inhabited, imposed conditions of life which hampered a free development of their creative faculties. If they had come to the fairer climate of the South, with no previous culture whatsoever, and if they had acquired the necessary human material—that is to say, men of an inferior race—to serve them as tools in performing necessary labours, the cultural faculty dormant in them would have blossomed forth in splendour as happened in the case of the Greeks, for example.

Otto Dietrich:
Hitler was convinced that Christianity was outmoded and dying. He thought he could speed its death by systematic education of Germanic youth. Christianity would be replaced, he thought, by a new heroic, racial ideal of God. Hitler’s attitude towards Charles the Great [Charlemagne] can more easily be understood now, although in the past it puzzled many people.

Hitler, November 22, 1937:
Speech at the Ordensburg Sonthofen
Today a new state is being established, the unique feature of which is that it sees its foundation not in Christianity and not in a concept of state; rather, it places its primary emphasis on the self-contained Volksgemeinschaft.

Hermann Giesler, The Artist Within the Warlord, p.g. 49:
Translated by Wilhelm Kriessmann, Ph.D and Carolyn Yeager
“And did not a slight possibility of peace still exist, even though a vague one, which I might have obstructed by a pitiless defeat of the Dunkirk army?”
Hitler was deliberating on rational grounds as he was so often doing in the past years; he did not think only as a German – he thought as a European. He truly thought in a sense of a higher humanity, which he wanted to be realized within ethnically based unified societies (Volksgemeinschaften).

Hitler, March 21, 1943:
Speech in Lichthof of the Zeughaus for the Heroes’ Memorial Day
Instead, it will increasingly strive to realize, in the service of the national interest everywhere, a true Volksgemeinschaft as the highest ideal. All the more so after the war, the German National Socialist state, which pursued this goal from the beginning, will tirelessly work for the realization of a program that will ultimately lead to a complete elimination of class differences and to the creation of a true socialist community.

Robert Ley:
God represents the highest ideal for peoples and for humanity, so how people conceive of god reveals how they think, their spiritual nature. Jahwe, the Jewish god, is a god of revenge, of cursing, of destruction, one who rains sulfur and brimstone down on humanity, who thunders at them, whose lightning sets fields and meadows ablaze. Jahwe is the grim Jewish god who is there only to give Jews profits, much gold and money, and lordship over Gentiles. There is nothing cruder than the Jewish religious books: the Talmud, the Chulchan-aruch, the books of Moses and the prophets.

Laurency (L5e5):
5Our conception of godhood indicates our stage of development.

The lower the level, the coarser the idea of god.

Any attempt at defining the godhead is an evidence of ignorance.

Hitler, Table Talk, August 1, 1942 (Cameron & Stevens):
In this respect, at least, the Mohammedan is more enlightened, when he says: to form a conception of Allah is not vouchsafed to man.

Every race has its soul and every soul its race — its own unique internal and external architectonic shape, its characteristic form of appearance and demeanor of lifestyle, and a unique relationship between its forces of will and reason. Every race cultivates its own highest ideal. If, by the massive infiltration of alien blood and alien ideas, this is changed or overthrown, the result of this inner metamorphosis is chaos and, by epochs, catastrophe.

Robert Ley:
Everything in nature obeys ancient and unchangeable laws. Nothing happens apart from these natural laws. The laws strive toward harmony and construction. Every natural creature must obey some of these countless laws. It has a mission, thereby obeying its drives, its instincts, and its understanding, if nature has given it that. The opposite of harmony is chaos and disharmony. If racial community displays harmony in blood and nature, the Jew is the chaotic, disharmonic factor in such human harmony.

Laurency (kl1_2):
10[Jesus] showed them nature, the flowers on the ground, how perfect everything is in its kind, more perfect than any human creation and so because everything in nature unresistingly obeys its own inner law, the law of development.

Hitler, Memoirs of a Confidant, p.g. 314:
So if I assume for the sake of argument that Goldzier was somehow correct, it follows that the task assigned to the creatures of the earth is: to consume and pass on earth-electricity. In this connection, I am repeatedly reminded of the Gospel of St. John, which begins with the words, ‘In the beginning was the “Logos”’–which is why I translate it as ‘urge.’ Quite simply, in the beginning was the urge to fulfill this purpose of earthly life. From it, the instinct of self-preservation developed logically, as did the instinct to be fruitful and multiply. They are meant to carry out this task presented by nature, this meaning of all life, as long and as abundantly as possible–that is, to the greatest conceivable extent.

Martin Bormann, June 6, 1941:
When we National Socialists speak of a belief in God, by God we do not understand, as do naive Christians and their clerical beneficiaries, a manlike being who is sitting around in some corner of the spheres.
The assertion that this world-force can worry about the fate of every individual, every bacillus on earth, and that it can be influenced by so-called prayer or other astonishing things, is based either on a suitable dose of naiveté or on outright commercial effrontery.

Laurency (wm8.25):
1Anyone who has some knowledge of the cosmic organization, the organizations of the solar systems and the planets, sees clearly that all beings in higher worlds have their own special problems and that individual supervision and treatment of human beings (such as religions teach) is an absurdity, that god cannot watch over each particular individual, knowing his desires and needs.

Kurt Eggers:
Der Scheiterhaufen. Worte großer Ketzer
Do you really believe, sir, hand on heart, that heaven concerns itself with the quarrels, exchanges of words and bloody actions, which we street urchins engage in among ourselves? Do you believe that I, if I take a stroll in my garden at Sans-souci and trample an anthill, have even the slightest thought that my path takes me right over tiny creatures, which bustle about and endeavor? Would it not be ridiculous of these animals – provided, they could think – to presume that I knew they were there and now had to take consideration for their existence. No, my friend, free yourself of this self-love, which only deceives you, if according to it heaven is supposed to have nothing further to do than constantly concern itself with your personal well-being. Instead press upon yourself the conviction that nature does not worry about the individual being: but indeed about the whole species: it, the species, may not perish. And our closing words to all this? That a king never has to take note of it, if on a stroll he tramples an anthill, which by coincidence finds itself on his path, that he, looking at the big thing, which puts claim to his full attention and which he frequently cannot even completely keep in sight, does not think of ants nor looks around, whether they crawl around in his gardens and park facilities.

Hitler, Memoirs of a Confidant, p.g. 223-224:
If I use the word ‘divine,’ I am not visualizing a god in human form with a long white beard. You know perfectly well what my thinking is on that subject. Somewhere or other Goethe says, ‘ ‘Twould be no kind of god who only moves from the outside, letting the circle of the universe course round his fingertip!’ For me, God is the Logos of St. John, which has become flesh and lives in the world, interwoven with it and pervading it, conferring on it drives and driving force, and constituting the actual meaning and content of the world.
Perhaps the adherents of the Roman Catholic Church would call this ‘paganism.’ That may well be so. In that case, Christ was a pagan. I call pagan their distortions of Christ’s ideas and teachings, their cults, their conception of hell and purgatory and heaven, and their worship of saints. None of the religions of antiquity, no Negroid idolatry, not even the most primitive sects of the Mohammedan, Indian, or Chinese religions has created so many gods and auxilary deities as the Roman Church. And yet their choirs join in singing from the Book of Moses: ‘Thou shalt have no other gods before me.’ But let’s drop it; it’s too stupid.

Hitler, Table Talk, December 13, 1941 (Picker):
Christianity teaches “Transubstantiation,” which is the craziest thing that a human brain has ever produced in its delusion, a mockery of all divinity. A negro with his fetish is superior to one who believes in the miracle of Transubstantiation.

Goebbels (transcript):
Our opponents say: But you’ve had luck! Yes, luck, you only have to have luck. When the government has no luck, but rather always misfortune is, what does it do to its people? It doesn’t speak against us. But rather for us that we have reinvented ourselves and that God had helped us a bit in the process. We haven’t peddled it constantly and we haven’t acted as if God is our political fraction leader, it was the rage by other parties. But anyway – But anyway, it doesn’t look like God is ungracious to us at the moment. When someone from an opposing party has something against us, it’s: ‘You’re pagans!’ So we can only say: How come? Why on earth is that? Do we act like pagans? Is it pagan to organize a Winter Relief and thereby to feed millions of people? Is it pagan to give a people its peace of mind back? Is it pagan to help your poor brother and neighbor? Is it pagan to restore the family values? And is it pagan to give the workers a purpose in life? Is it pagan to rebuild the state on moral principles, to weed out atheism, to clean the theater and film from the contamination and poison of the Jewish-liberal Marxism. Is that pagan? If that’s pagan, then we certainly give thanks to Christianity that did the opposite!

Martin Bormann:
No one would know anything about Christianity if pastors had not crammed it down his throat in his childhood. The so-called loving God by no means reveals the knowledge of his existence to young people, but amazingly enough, and despite his omnipotence, he leaves this to the efforts of a pastor. When in the future our youth no longer hear anything about this Christianity, whose doctrine is far below our own, Christianity will automatically disappear.

Robert Ley:
Since he does not even trust his god, the Jew sets the “rabbi” above Jahwe and declares the Jewish god Jehovah must study the laws written down by the rabbis in the Torah in order to rule the world.

Goebbels (Diaries), May 12, 1943:
The Fuehrer spoke very derogatorily about the arrogance of the higher and lower clergy. The insanity of the Christian doctrine of redemption really doesn’t fit at all into our time.

Thomas Paine:
Since, then, no external evidence can, at this long distance of time, be produced to prove whether the church fabricated the doctrine called redemption or not, (for such evidence, whether for or against, would be subject to the same suspicion of being fabricated,) the case can only be referred to the internal evidence which the thing carries of itself; and this affords a very strong presumption of its being a fabrication.
For the internal evidence is, that the theory or doctrine of redemption has for its basis an idea of pecuniary justice, and not that of moral justice. If I owe a person money, and cannot pay him, and he threatens to put me in prison, another person can take the debt upon himself, and pay it for me. But if I have committed a crime, every circumstance of the case is changed. Moral justice cannot take the innocent for the guilty even if the innocent would offer itself. To suppose justice to do this, is to destroy the principle of its existence, which is the thing itself. It is then no longer justice. It is indiscriminate revenge.
This single reflection will shew that the doctrine of redemption is founded on a mere pecuniary idea corresponding to that of a debt which another person might pay; and as this pecuniary idea corresponds again with the system of second redemptions, obtained through the means of money given to the church for pardons, the probability is that the same persons fabricated both the one and the other of those theories; and that, in truth, there is no such thing as redemption; that it is fabulous; and that man stands in the same relative condition with his Maker he ever did stand, since man existed; and that it is his greatest consolation to think so.

Goebbels (Diaries), May 12, 1943:
Nevertheless there are learned, educated men, occupying high positions in public life, who cling to it with the faith of a child. It is simply incomprehensible how anybody can consider the Christian doctrine of redemption as a guide for the difficult life of today. The Fuehrer cited a number of exceptionally drastic and in part even grotesque examples. The opinionated “sky pilots” of course know exactly how the world is constituted.
Whereas the most learned and wisest scientists struggle for a whole lifetime to study but one of the mysterious laws of nature, a little country priest from Bavaria is in a position to decide this matter on the basis of his religious knowledge. One can regard such a disgusting performance only with disdain. A church that does not keep step with modern scientific knowledge is doomed. It may take quite a while, but it is bound finally to happen. Anybody who is firmly rooted in daily life, and who can only faintly imagine the mystic secrets of nature, will naturally be extremely modest about the universe. The clerics, however, who have not caught a breath of such modesty, evidence a sovereign opinionated attitude toward questions of the universe. . . .

Rosenberg (Memoirs):
The Führer correctly differentiated between the religious beliefs of the individual and political reasoning. What his own beliefs were he never told me in so many words. Once, at table, he said a high-placed Italian had asked him point-blank what his religious beliefs were. He had begged permission not to answer that question.

Quran, Surah Al-Isra 17:85
And they ask you, [O Muhammad], about the soul. Say, “The soul is of the affair of my Lord. And mankind have not been given of knowledge except a little.”

Laurency ():
There is only one true religion, the religion of love and wisdom, and it can never become a form. For the true essence of religion is individualistic, and the form is the individual’s private matter corresponding to an individual need.

Thomas Jefferson:
To Benjamin Rush, April 21, 1803
I am moreover averse to the communication of my religious tenets to the public; because it would countenance the presumption of those who have endeavored to draw them before that tribunal, and to seduce public opinion to errect itself into that inquisition over the rights of conscience which the laws have so justly proscribed. It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself to resist invasions of it in the case of others, or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own. It behooves him, too, in his own case, to give no example of concession, betraying the right of independent opinion by answering questions of faith, which the laws have left between God and himself.

To John Adams, January 11, 1817
Say nothing of my religion. It is known to my God and myself alone. Its evidence before the world is to be sought in my life; if that has been honest and dutiful to society, the religion which has regulated it cannot be a bad one.

Laurency ():
Any life that is led in accord with the Law is a religious or “spiritual” life. What world view or creed the individual has or what work he does is in this very respect unimportant. Any work is spiritual work, when it is done in the right spirit. Anyone who has faithfully fulfilled his task in life, however small it seems to people, has led a spiritual life.

Hitler, Table Talk (Cameron & Stevens), November 11, 1941:
I don’t dream of imposing my philosophy on a village girl. Although religion does not aim at seeking for the truth, it is a kind of philosophy which can satisfy simple minds, and that does no harm to anyone. Everything is finally a matter of the feeling man has of his own impotence. In itself, this philosophy has nothing pernicious about it. The essential thing, really, is that man should know that salvation consists in the effort that each person makes to understand Providence and accept the laws of nature.

All moral infirmities come from underestimating or overestimating one’s own worth. Nothing forgets its common origin so completely; nothing is so arrogant and impertinent, nothing has so much difficulty coming to moral consciousness and a genuine understanding of one’s self, than a person who is only aware of his strengths, before whom everything bends, who only lives among his own kind or people more lowly than he; who never finds out by comparison with Higher and Better things what and how much he still lacks.
Such people, people never repulsed by bad luck, absolutely have to be brought into proximity with such things that they are forced to say to themselves, ad admit, that they lose by comparison. These giants must be placed next to a tower, and this tower itself must be built at the foot of a high mountain. He who thinks himself great must be brought into the presence of someone Greater. He before whom all bow must see himself forced to bow to someone Higher.
To this end, morality must acquaint people with objects that make them feel small; it must ask them to fall down in order to stand up the greater; it must confront them, as they are, with what they are capable of becoming, their lifetime versus Eternity, and their fancied splendor versus God and Nature; it must use contrasts to shake their self-confidence; people must experience and become convinced by deed that things exist incomparably stronger and mightier than themselves. This proud king of nature must meet the ten thousand lords mightier than he.

Hitler, Table Talk (Cameron & Stevens), October 24, 1941:
True piety is the characteristic of the being who is aware of his weakness and ignorance. Whoever sees God only in an oak or in a tabernacle, instead of seeing Him everywhere, is not truly pious. He remains attached to appearances—and when the sky thunders and the lightning strikes, he trembles simply from fear of being struck as a punishment for the sin he’s just committed.

Hitler, Table Talk (Cameron & Stevens), July 11-12, 1941:
I think the man who contemplates the universe with his eyes wide open is the man with the greatest amount of natural piety: not in the religious sense, but in the sense of an intimate harmony with things.

The philosophers bid us imitate the gods so far as we can, and they teach us that this imitation consists in the contemplation of realities. And that this sort of study is remote from passion and is indeed based on freedom from passion, is, I suppose, evident, even without my saying it. In proportion then as we, having been assigned to the contemplation of realities, attain to freedom from passion, in so far do we become like God.

Then this must be our notion of the just man, that even when he is in poverty or sickness, or any other seeming misfortune, all things will in the end work together for good to him in life and death: for the gods have a care of any one whose desire is to become just and to be like God, as far as man can attain the divine likeness, by the pursuit of virtue? Yes, he said; if he is like God he will surely not be neglected by him.

As to piety towards the gods you must know that this is the chief thing, to have right opinions about them, to think that they exist, and that they administer the All well and justly; and you must fix yourself in this principle (duty), to obey them, and to yield to them in everything which happens, and voluntarily to follow it as being accomplished by the wisest intelligence. For if you do so, you will never either blame the gods, nor will you accuse them of neglecting you.

Otto Dietrich:
In his speeches, he often mentioned the Almighty and Providence. But he personally was sharply hostile to Christianity and the churches, although the Party program came out for a “positive” Christianity.

Otto Dietrich:
In private conversation he often remarked sarcastically, in reference to churches and priests, that there were some who “boasted of having a direct hook up with God:” Primitive Christianity, he declared, was the “first Jewish Communistic cell.”
Goebbels (Diaries), 1939-1941:
To him, the Augustinian period is the high-point of history. And so far as the slaves are concerned, the people who were supposedly freed by Christianity: they were far less free and far more oppressed than in ancient Rome.

Otto Dietrich:
And he denied that the Christian churches, in the course of their evolution, had developed any genuine moral foundation. Having ordered trials of certain Catholic priests on charges of immorality, he used the findings of the courts as the basis for the broadest generalizations.
Goebbels (Diaries), April 8, 1941:
What a difference between the benevolent, smiling Zeus and the pain-wracked, crucified Christ. The ancient peoples’ view of God was also much nobler and more humane than the Christians’.
Rosenberg (Memoirs):
That I know even though in the course of the years I heard only two or three pertinent remarks. Once he told me: Look at the head of Zeus! What nobility and exaltation there are in those features!
Hitler, Table Talk, February 20-21, 1942 (Cameron & Stevens):
If we consider the ancient Greeks (who were Germanics), we find in them a beauty much superior to the beauty such as is widespread to-day—and I mean also beauty in the realm of thought as much as in the realm of forms. To realise this, it’s enough to compare a head of Zeus or of Pallas Athene with that of a crusader or a saint!

Rosenberg (Memoirs):
About communion: It is primitively religious to crush one’s God with one’s teeth.
Hitler, Table Talk, December 13, 1941 (Picker):
Christianity teaches “Transubstantiation,” which is the craziest thing that a human brain has ever produced in its delusion, a mockery of all divinity.
Das Christentum lehrt die “Wandlung”, das ist das Tollste, was je ein Menschengehirn in seinem Wahn hervorgebracht hat, eine Verhöhnung von allem Göttlichen.

Otto Dietrich:
He considered the Reformation Germany’s greatest national misfortune because it “split the country and prevented its unification for centuries.”
Hitler, Table Talk, December 13, 1941 (Cameron & Stevens):
For thirty years the Germans tore each other to pieces simply in order to know whether or not they should take Communion in both kinds. There’s nothing lower than religious notions like that.

Bolshevism: From Moses to Lenin
It would never have come to the splitting of the Church or to the war which, in accordance with the wishes of the Hebrews, spilled Aryan blood in torrents for thirty long years.

Hitler, Memoirs of a Confidant, p.g. 319:
And both enjoy the complacent protection and support of the Christian churches, who see the ultimate success of their mass murders after Christ’s crucifixion and at the time of the Inquisition and the Thirty Years’ War threatened by the definite victory of socialism, which calls for freedom of conscience! Woe if the forces of reaction should succeed in becoming our masters!

Mein Kampf:
How devoid of ideals and how ignoble is the whole contemporary system! No effort is being made to perfect the breed for the future, but things are simply allowed to slide. The fact that the churches join in committing this sin against the image of God, even though they continue to emphasize the dignity of that image, is quite in keeping with their present activities.

Hitler, Memoirs of a Confidant, p.g. 139-141:
But the communities that called themselves Christian churches did not understand [socialism]! Or if they did, they denied Christ and betrayed him! For they transformed the holy idea of Christian socialism into its opposite! They killed it, just as, at the time, the Jews nailed Jesus to the cross; they buried it, just as the body of Christ was buried.

Mein Kampf:
At that time Christ was nailed to the Cross for his attitude towards the Jews, whereas our modern Christians enter into party politics, and when elections are being held they debase themselves to beg for Jewish votes. They even enter into political intrigues with the atheistic Jewish parties against the interests of their own Christian nation.

Hitler, Memoirs of a Confidant, p.g. 139-141:
For what did the falsification of the original concept of Christian love, of the community of fate before God and of socialism lead to? By their fruits ye shall know them! The suppression of freedom of opinion, the persecution of the true Christians, the vile mass murders of the Inquisition and the burning of witches, the armed campaigns against the people of free and true Christian faith, the destruction of their towns and villages, the hauling away of their cattle and their goods, the destruction of their flourishing economies, and the condemnation of their leaders before tribunals, which, in their unrelenting hypocrisy, can only be described as blasphemous.
That is the true face of those sanctimonious churches that have placed themselves between God and man, motivated by selfishness, personal greed for recognition and gain, and the ambition to maintain their high-handed willfulness against Christ’s deep understanding of the necessity of a socialist community of men and nations.

Laurency (L4e4.17):
3The tree is known by its fruit. And the fruits of Christianity during two thousand years bear sufficient witness for anyone who is able to see. A humanist religion would never try to save mankind with a devil of a god and with torture and burning at the stake.

Hitler, Table Talk, February 20-21, 1942 (Cameron & Stevens):
In their fight against the Church, the Russians are purely negative. We, on the other hand, should practise the cult of the heroes who enabled humanity to pull itself out of the rut of error. Kepler lived at Linz, and that’s why I chose Linz as the place for our observatory. His mother was accused of witchcraft and was tortured several times by the Inquisition.

August Kubizek:
My own recollections can be summed up in a few sentences: as long as I knew Adolf Hitler I never remember his going to church. He knew that I used to go every Sunday with my parents, and accepted this fact. He never tried to persuade me not to go, though he said occasionally that he couldn’t understand me – his mother was also a religious woman, but nevertheless he would not let her drag him to church. Moreover he made these comments only by the way, with a certain tolerance and patience, which was not usual with him. But in this case, apparently, he was not even interested in imposing his own idea. I cannot remember that, when he used to meet me at the close of the Sunday service, he ever made any derogatory remarks about this Sunday churchgoing, or behaved improperly. To my astonishment, he never made this an occasion for an argument. Yet one day he came to me full of excitement and showed me a book about witch trials, and another time about the Inquisition. But however worked up he got about the events described in these books, he never drew any political conclusions from them. Perhaps this was a case in which he did not consider me the right audience.

Hitler, Memoirs of a Confidant, p.g. 139-141:
We must turn all the sentiments of the Volk, all its thinking, acting, even its beliefs, away from the anti-Christian, smug individualism of the past, from the egotism and stupid Phariseeism of personal arrogance, and we must educate the youth in particular in the spirit of those of Christ’s words that we must interpret anew: love one another; be considerate of your fellow man; remember that each one of you is not alone a creature of God, but that you are all brothers!
This youth will, with loathing and contempt, abandon those hypocrites who have Christ on their lips but the devil in their hearts, who give alms in order to remain undisturbed as they themselves throw their money around, who invoke the Fatherland as they fill their own purses by the toil of others, who preach peace and incite to war!
If we want to see the reasons for any war, we need only glance at the measures taken by the victor after the suppression of his adversary and to which, usually with hypocritical mien, he gives the name of ‘peace treaty’! By this, too, we can judge his Christianity!

Rosenberg (Memoirs):
He held against Gothic art that it symbolised everything dark and brain-beclouding.
Goebbels (Diaries), April 8, 1941:
The Führer cannot relate to the Gothic mind. He hates gloom and brooding mysticism. He wants clarity, light, beauty.
Otto Dietrich:
He built temples of art – but despised the cathedral of the spirit!
Hitler, September 6, 1938 speech:
In this period of the most inward orientation, Christian mysticism demanded an approach to the solution of structural problems and hence to an architecture whose design not only ran contrary to the spirit, of the time, but which also helped produce these mysterious dark forces which made the people increasingly willing to submit themselves to cosmopolitism.

Hitler, Table Talk (Cameron & Stevens), October 29, 1941
The Ring in Vienna would not exist without the Paris boulevards. It’s a copy of them. The dome of the Invalides makes a deep impression. The Pantheon I found a horrible disappointment. The busts alone can be defended, but those sculptures—what a riot of cancerous tumours! The Madeleine, on the other hand, has a sober grandeur.
Hermann Giesler, Ein Anderer Hitler:
[translated by me]
In addition to the Paris Opera, Hitler was particularly interested in the Church of St. Madelaine, built in the form of a Greek temple to commemorate the Napoleonic victories and close to his own neoclassical ideas.
Neben der Pariser Oper interessierte Hitler besonders die Kirche St. Madelaine, die in der Form eines griechischen Tempels zur Erinnerung an die napoleonischen Siege gegebaut worden war und seinen eigenen klassizistischen Vorstellungen nahekam.

Hitler, Table Talk (Cameron & Stevens), November 11, 1941:
We can be glad that the Parthenon is still standing upright, the Roman Pantheon and the other temples. It matters little that the forms of worship that were practised there no longer mean anything to us. It is truly regrettable that so little is of these temples. The result is, we are in no risk of worshipping Zeus.
Amongst us, the only witnesses of our greatness in the Middle Ages are the cathedrals. It would be enough to permit a movement of religious persecution to cause the disappearance of all the monuments that our country built from the fifth to the seventeenth century. What a void, and how greatly the world would be impoverished!
Rosenberg (Memoirs):
Later on he granted at least the impressiveness of the cathedral in Straßburg. When, in the course of one of these conversations, I ventured the opinion that one could not destroy the churches, but could merely attempt to fill them gradually with new people, he replied: That is a very wise thought!
Fundamentally, as far as his attitude was concerned, Hitler had very definitely discounted churches and Christianity, although he fully acknowledged the importance of their initial appearance on earth, granted everyone the right to his own conviction, and supported the Wehrmacht in its religious and confessional demands.
In fact, by setting up a Church Ministry and instituting a Protestant Bishop of the Reich, he even tried to give the strife-torn Evangelicals a chance to unite in one all-embracing social group. For this purpose he received in audience a delegation of Protestant bishops. Afterward he spoke of this meeting with utter contempt. You would think, he said at dinner one day, that these gentlemen would understand that an audience with the Reich Chancellor is in a way a rather solemn affair. Instead they came garbed in their clerical robes, most of which were already a bit tacky with age, and the thing that was of the greatest importance for them was – their allowance! I’ll say this much for the Catholics: if they had come, they would have been more dignified.
Hitler, Table Talk, October 25, 1941 (Cameron & Stevens):
There is a form of hypocrisy, typically Protestant, that is impudence itself. Catholicism has this much good about it, that it ignores the moral strictness of the Evangelicals.

Mein Kampf:
Why should it not be possible to induce people to make this sacrifice if, instead of such a precept, they were simply told that they ought to put an end to the original sin of racial corruption which is steadily being committed from one generation to another. Further, they ought to be made to realise that it is their bounden duty to give to the Almighty Creator beings such as He Himself made in His own image.
Naturally, our wretched army of contemporary philistines will not understand these things. They will ridicule them or shrug their round shoulders and groan out their everlasting excuses: “Of course it is a fine thing, but the pity is that it cannot be carried out.” And we reply: “With you indeed it cannot be done, for your world is incapable of such an idea. You know only one anxiety and that is for your own personal existence. You have one God, and that is your money.

Robert Ley:
Since the churches and sciences have also bowed down to this rule of gold over the years, they also are not free of Jewry and its devilish system. They all dance around the Jewish golden calf. Gold is their idol, and the meaning of their earthly life.

Augustan History:
But, lest any Egyptian be angry with me, thinking that what I have set forth in writing is solely my own, I will cite one of Hadrian’s letters, taken from the works of his freedman Phlegon, which fully reveals the character of the Egyptians.

From Hadrian Augustus to Servianus the consul, greeting.

The land of Egypt, the praises of which you have been recounting to me, my dear Servianus, I have found to be wholly light-minded, unstable, and blown about by every breath of rumour. There those who worship Serapis are, in fact, Christians, and those who call themselves bishops of Christ are, in fact, devotees of Serapis. There is no chief of the Jewish synagogue, no Samaritan, no Christian presbyter, who is not an astrologer, a soothsayer, or an anointer. Even the Patriarch himself, when he comes to Egypt, is forced by some to worship Serapis, by others to worship Christ. They are a folk most seditious, most deceitful, most given to injury; but their city is prosperous, rich, and fruitful, and in it no one is idle. Some are blowers of glass, others makers of paper, all are at least weavers of linen or seem to belong to one craft or another; the lame have their occupations, the eunuchs have theirs, the blind have theirs, and not even those whose hands are crippled are idle. Their only god is money, and this the Christians, the Jews, and, in fact, all nations adore. And would that this city had a better character, for indeed it is worthy by reason of its richness and by reason of its size to hold the chief place in the whole of Egypt. I granted it every favour, I restored to it all its ancient rights and bestowed on it new ones besides, so that the people gave thanks to me while I was present among them. Then, no sooner had I departed thence than they said many things against my son Verus, and what they said about Antinous I believe you have learned. I can only wish for them that they may live on their own chickens, which they breed in a fashion I am ashamed to describe.


Ronald Syme described the late Roman biographical collection that we call the Historia Augusta as ‘the most enigmatic work that Antiquity has transmitted’.
In 1889, ✡Hermann Dessau demonstrated that the work, which purports to be the product of six different authors writing in the early fourth century, is in fact the product of a single author writing decades later. Since that demonstration, no fully satisfactory explanation of the HA has won out. The HA combines false and invented passages with passages drawn from traditional historians and biographers, but identifying the authentic material is particularly challenging in the absence of a full understanding of the purpose and nature of the work itself.
Dessau’s arguments were immediately opposed by Mommsen, who offered a complicated series of mostly-unconvincing explanations for the problems Dessau had revealed. But Mommsen’s scepticism found takers as late as Momigliano because of his pointed question, ‘cui bono?’. Why would someone undertake such a complicated, extensive, and unprecedented fraud?

[Mommsen was later invoked by the National Socialists, notably in Hitler’s April 12, 1922 speech. The mainstream narrative claims this was a distortion of his quote and that Mommsen defended the Jews. One book cites the Jew J. P. Stern as “setting straight” Hitler’s alleged misquote.]

Letter to the High-priest Theodorus
For I hold that we ought to observe the laws that we have inherited from our forefathers, since it is evident that the gods gave them to us. For they would not be as perfect as they are if they had been derived from mere men. Now since it has come to pass that they have been neglected and corrupted, and wealth and luxury have become supreme, I think that I ought to consider them carefully as though from their cradle [Literally “from the hearth,” i.e. from their origin, a proverb.]. Therefore, when I saw that there is among us great indifference about the gods and that all reverence for the heavenly powers has been driven out by impure and vulgar luxury, I always secretly lamented this state of things. For I saw that those whose minds were turned to the doctrines of the Jewish religion are so ardent in their belief that they would choose to die for it, and to endure utter want and starvation rather than taste pork or any animal that has been strangled or had the life squeezed out of it; whereas we are in such a state of apathy about religious matters that we have forgotten the customs of our forefathers, and therefore we actually do not know whether any such rule has ever been prescribed.

When, meanwhile, the customs of that most accursed nation have gained such strength that they have been now received in all lands, the conquered have given laws to the conquerors… For those, however, know the cause of their rites, whilst the greater part of the people know not why they perform theirs.

Thomas Paine:
Soon after I had published the pamphlet Common Sense, in America, I saw the exceeding probability that a revolution in the system of government would be followed by a revolution in the system of religion. The adulterous connection of church and state, wherever it had taken place, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, had so effectually prohibited, by pains and penalties, every discussion upon established creeds, and upon first principles of religion, that until the system of government should be changed, those subjects could not be brought fairly and openly before the world; but that whenever this should be done, a revolution in the system of religion would follow. Human inventions and priest-craft would be detected; and man would return to the pure, unmixed, and unadulterated belief of one God, and no more.

Cassius Dio:
The entrance to the temple was now laid open to the Romans. The soldiers on account of their superstition would not immediately rush in, but at last, as Titus forced them, they made their way inside.
Then the Jews carried on a defence much more vigorous than before, as if they had discovered a rare and unexpected privilege in falling near the temple, while fighting to save it. The populace was stationed in the outer court, the senators on the steps, and the priests in the hall of worship itself. And though they were but a handful fighting against a far superior force they were not subdued until a section of the temple was fired.
Then they went to meet death willingly, some letting themselves be pierced by the swords of the Romans, some slaughtering one another, others committing suicide, and others leaping into the blaze. It looked to everybody, and most of all to them, apparently, that so far from being ruin, it was victory and salvation and happiness to perish along with the temple.


After Titus had taken Jerusalem, and when the country all round was filled with corpses, the neighboring races offered him a crown; but he disclaimed any such honor to himself, saying that it was not himself that had accomplished this exploit, but that he had merely lent his arms to God, who had so manifested his wrath; and Apollonius praised his action, for therein he displayed a great deal of judgment and understanding of things human and divine, and it showed great moderation on his part that he refused to be crowned because he had shed blood.
Accordingly Apollonius indited to him a letter which he sent by the hands of Damis and of which the text was as follows:
“Apollonius sends greetings to Titus the Roman general. Whereas you have refused to be proclaimed for success in war and for shedding the blood of your enemies, I myself assign to you the crown of temperance and moderation, because you thoroughly understand what deeds really merit a crown. Farewell.”
Now Titus was overjoyed with this epistle, and replied: “In my own behalf I thank you, no less then in behalf of my father, and I will not forget your kindness; for although I have captured Jerusalem, you have captured me.”

Laurency (kl1_2):
16It might be added, however, that Jeshu in a new incarnation about 70 years later, as Apollonios of Tyana, acquired superessential consciousness, and so became an esoteric master.
17The manifest poverty and lack of detail of the gospels, particularly strange if any biography had been intended, should have clarified the fact of the matter to acute minds, especially since there are in the gospels numerous parallels to the lives of earlier avatars.


12b. Not a Pagan

[It’s strange how Hitler’s childhood friend August Kubizek claimed that he had been obsessed with the old Germanic myths yet he never once refers to Wotan and other pre-Christian Germanic elements in his speeches and even seems to repudiate them in his private conversations. It has also been claimed that a performance of Richard Wagner’s Rienzi was the impetus for Hitler becoming a politician. Wagner, as anyone knows, embodied the pagan spirit. Hitler understood that the pre-Christian Germanic cults had been deprived of their basis of knowledge/reality, which Christianity destroyed, leaving behind only the typical dead forms of worship and the drapery that coloured it. He understood that in order for any religion to become viable again, the content of the system had to be resupplied and revitalized. The fundamental teachings were the essential thing and he extracted them from the nearest thing to Germany: Greek/Roman antiquity.]

Laurency (L3e18):
3Ritual and ceremony were the attempts of ignorance to mimic the conformity to law and finality of the processes of nature, not understanding the energies that must have their effects on the matter aspect as well as the consciousness aspect to achieve the intended results.

Mein Kampf:
The impression which I often get, especially of those so-called religious reformers whose creed is grounded on ancient Germanic customs, is that they are the missionaries and protégés of those forces which do not wish to see a national revival taking place in Germany. All their activities tend to turn the attention of the people away from the necessity of fighting together in a common cause against the common enemy, namely the Jew. Moreover, that kind of preaching induces the people to use up their energies, not in fighting for the common cause, but in absurd and ruinous religious controversies within their own ranks.

Hitler, Table Talk, October 14, 1941 (Cameron & Stevens):
It seems to me that nothing would be more foolish than to re-establish the worship of Wotan. Our old mythology had ceased to be viable when Christianity implanted itself. Nothing dies unless it is moribund. At that period the ancient world was divided between the systems of philosophy and the worship of idols.

Hitler, Table Talk, February 26, 1942 (Cameron & Stevens):
What is ruining Christianity to-day is what once ruined the ancient world. The pantheistic mythology would no longer suit the social conditions of the period. As soon as the idea was introduced that all men were equal before God, that world was bound to collapse.

Hitler, Memoirs of a Confidant, p.g. 278:
I have nothing against celebrating Christmas. I even give high marks to the clever thinking of the Roman Church fathers, who did not abolish the most solemn holiday of the Nordic world, the day when the sun is at its lowest point and from that moment on begins to rise on the horizon. Instead, they moved the birth of Christ to this day, turning a nature festival of the Old Germanic people into Christ’s day. By this way, this shows us that a high percentage of Germanic tribes were part of Roman Christendom and that Rome found it necessary to win them over in particular by using this device.

Hitler, Memoirs of a Confidant, p.g. 279:
Of course, if we wanted to lead these young people up a mountain merely to sing the same kind of stupid songs women and men sing in the churches to this day, and if we then wished to worship these fires in the same way old people worship carved wooden figures and painted pictures or even fake relics in those same churches–then those people would be right who say: it would be better to let the children go to the enclosed houses of God; at least they won’t catch cold.

Memoirs of a Confidant, p.g. 277:
Since Hitler paused briefly, Schemm noted:
“I’m very glad, Herr Hitler, to hear you say this. There’s such a lot of nonsense talked about blond men, about the Nordic race, about the cult of Wotan and the spirit of the Edda, as if no one else on the globe had any right to exist, or at best to exist only in a second-class position, as subhuman creatures. Those idiotic windbags have no idea what harm their spouting causes. For all they do is arouse inferiority complexes and hatred in those who don’t happen to be lucky enough to be born blond, and so they divide the German Volk into two racial halves: the Germanic and the non-Germanic people.”
“I’ve expressly and repeatedly forbidden this sort of thing!” Hitler interrupted, flaring up. “All that rubbish about the Thing places, the solstice festivals, the Midgard snake, and all the rest of the rubbish they dredge up from the German prehistory! Then they read Nietzsche with fifteen-year-old boys and, using incomprehensible quotations, paint a picture of the superman, exhorting the boys: ‘That is you – or that is what you are to become.’

Goebbels (Diaries), December 28, 1939:
I put forward my complaints about the church. The Fuhrer shares them completely, but does not believe that the churches will try anything in the middle of a war. But he knows that he will have to get around to dealing with the conflict between church and state. At the moment, however, our own extremists are making things too easy for the churches. They are presenting them with cheap ammunition. The Fuhrer passionately rejects any thought of founding a religion. He has no intention of becoming a priest. His sole, exclusive role is that of a politician.

Hitler, Table Talk (Cameron & Stevens), October 14, 1941:
I especially wouldn’t want our movement to acquire a religious character and institute a form of worship. It would be appalling for me, and I would wish I’d never lived, if I were to end up in the skin of a Buddha!

Heinz Linge:
Hitler also rejected Himmler’s plan to replace Christianity with the old Germanic gods and the cults of Wotan and Thor. For him it was sufficient that the SS had no ties to a Church.

Laurency ():
6Excepting the pre-Sokratean philosophers, only Platon, Aristoteles, Chrysippos, Plotinos, Bacon, and Leibniz were initiates of esoteric knowledge orders. Posterity had little use of this, however, since those thinkers were not permitted to reveal anything of what they knew. They were permitted to present “new” ideas only if they could seek out such ones in old literature and thus invoke authorities. It is indeed possible to find hidden allusions to esoteric ideas in their writings. In their case, “after-wisdom” is permissible, since you know what they knew.
7We should not be content with the mere information that a certain philosopher was an initiate. Most orders had seven degrees (some of them ten, three of which were preparatory). And those who did not rise above the third degree did not know much. They did not even know that there were higher degrees.

Laurency ():
5It should therefore be noted that the mere fact that someone was an initiate of an esoteric knowledge order does not necessarily imply that he was particularly acquainted with esoterics. If you do not know the degree the initiate had attained it is impossible to determine the extent of his esoteric knowledge.

Laurency ():
3The fact that Platon was an initiate of the Orphic mysteries as well as of the Pythagorean esoteric knowledge order seems to conflict with the information that no one was permitted to belong to two orders. There was a very great difference between the mysteries and the knowledge orders, however, and they should not be confused with each other. Even if the mysteries were “secret” and it was forbidden on pain of death to disclose what was taught in them, the knowledge that was taught in them was utterly primitive and also a right that accrued to every blameless, free citizen, so that a great part of the population were initiates.
The initiates of the mysteries were not taught anything on the meaning and goal of life, on consciousness development, on worlds higher than the mental, on the monad, etc. The mysteries were intended for the people, the orders for the élite, for those who had reached the stage of emotional attraction. It was only by Pythagoras (700 BCE) that the Greeks were given a knowledge order, complete with all the degrees.

12c. Not a Pantheist

✝Richard Weikart, Hitler’s Religion:

In a monologue in December 1941, Hitler tried to describe briefly his view of the afterlife… Rather than the continued existence of an individual person, he saw the afterlife as the dissolution of individuals, whose matter – but also their soul and spirit – somehow contribute to spawning new life.

Weikart’s translation:

“The idea of eternity is in a way well-grounded. Spirit and soul certainly go back again into the general reservoir, just as the body does. As basic matter we thus fertilize the stock out of which new life arises. I do not need to rack my brains about the whys and the wherefores!”

Despite the fact that Hitler opposed Marxism for denying the worth of the individual! Besides, as Richard Carrier (possible Jew) points out in his article (although he still misrepresents Hitler’s conception of the afterlife as a version of Christianity):

Hitler once remarked, “I feel good in the historical society I am in if there is an Olympus. In the place I’m entering will be the most illuminated spirits of all times” (HHBC, pp. 181-82). Weikart never mentions this passage anywhere in his book. He simply omits entirely the one clear declaration from Hitler that expressed his belief in a personal afterlife.

Weikart also mistakes something Hitler said about what the Japanese believed—that people dissolve back into nature, body and soul—as being what Hitler himself believed (loc. 1160); in fact Hitler said he wasn’t going to wrack his brain trying to understand that Japanese view of the afterlife. So we can’t really get Hitler to be a denier of an afterlife, either, as hard as Weikart tries.

These three religions are neither monotheistic nor polytheistic, nor are they even pantheistic, Buddhism, at any rate, is not; since Buddha did not look upon a world sunk in sin and suffering, whose tenants, all subject to death, only subsist for a short time by devouring each other, as a manifestation of God. Moreover, the word Pantheism, properly speaking, contains a contradiction; for it denotes a self-destroying conception, and has therefore never been understood otherwise than as a polite term of expression by those who know what seriousness means. It accordingly never entered into the heads of the clever, acute philosophers of the eighteenth century, not to take Spinoza for an Atheist, on account of his having called the world Deus; on the contrary, this discovery was reserved for the sham philosophers of our own times, who know nothing but words: they even pique themselves on the achievement and accordingly talk about Acomism, the wags! But I would humbly suggest leaving their meanings to words in short, calling the world, the world; and gods, gods.

Atheism affirms that there are no gods or goddesses, assuming that god means a personal, extramundane entity. This “godless world-system” substantially agrees with the monism or pantheism of the modern scientist; it is only another expression for it, emphasizing its negative aspect, the non-existence of any supernatural deity. In this sense Schopenhauer justly remarks:

“Pantheism is only a polite form of atheism. The truth of pantheism lies in its destruction of the dualist antithesis of God and the world, in its recognition that the world exists in virtue of its own inherent forces. The maxim of the pantheist, ‘God and the world are one,’ is merely a polite way of giving the Lord God his congé.”


It is a misconception of the idea of original pantheism, if it is taken as the abolition of individual diversity, as the destruction of individuality. This misinterpretation of pantheism denies the immortality of the individual and considers life in the form annihilated when the form dissolves to return to an impersonal source of life.

The cosmic total consciousness is what the ancients called the “universal soul” or “god immanent”. Some speak of “the soul’s merging with the universal soul”. One cannot merge with something of which one is already a part.

It is easy to understand that self-consciousness, if thought of as having no firm point for its own existence, must be assumed to merge with the primordial soul once it is freed from matter.

The very ancient burial formula read: “Thou art come from earth; thou wilt once more become earth; the spirit will return to god who gave it.” [Ecclesiastes 12:7] This testifies to a pantheistic view according to which the universal soul separates the individual soul, which in death is annihilated by merging with the universal soul. One of the many imaginative speculations, that is to say: guesswork.

[The National Socialist contempt for Spinoza’s take on pantheism can be examined here.]

The Riddle of the Universe
To Descartes we must trace the widespread notion that consciousness and thought are man’s exclusive prerogative, and that he alone is blessed with an “immortal soul.” This famous French philosopher and mathematician (educated in a Jesuit College) established a rigid partition between the psychic activity of man and that of the brute. In his opinion the human soul, a thinking, immaterial being, is completely separated from the body, which is extended and material. Yet it is united to the body at a certain point in the brain (the glandula pinealis) for the purpose of receiving impressions from the outer world and effecting muscular movements. The animals, not being endowed with thought, have no soul: they are mere automata, or cleverly constructed machines, whose sensations, presentations, and volitions are purely mechanical, and take place according to the ordinary laws of physics. Hence Descartes was a dualist in human psychology, and a monist in the psychology of the brute. This open contradiction in so clear and acute a thinker is very striking; in explaining it, it is not unnatural to suppose that he concealed his real opinion, and left the discovery of it to independent scholars. As a pupil of the Jesuits, Descartes had been taught to deny the truth in the face of his better insight; and perhaps he dreaded the power and the fires of the Church. Besides, his sceptical principle, that every sincere effort to attain the truth must start with a doubt of the traditional dogma had already drawn upon him fanatical accusations of scepticism and atheism.

Laurency (kr5.18):
5Descartes took the term substance from the schoolmen. They had come to know of the concepts of spirit and matter of the Persian religion. Spirit represented light and good, matter darkness and evil. Thus “matter” was banned from speculation. In its place the very vague term “substance” was used, meaning something that could not be explained, something that was assumed to lie behind the qualities of things. By using the term “substance” instead of “matter”, Descartes avoided the risk of being accused an ally of the powers of darkness.
6Everything consists of substance, being that which is independent of everything else. God is “absolute substance”. Man is relative, which means that he consists of two substances: body, which is of material substance; and soul, which is of immaterial substance.
7In fact, these are just new names for Chrysippos’ concepts of the body as visible and the soul as, to most people, invisible matter. The fiction of immaterial substance was definitely a change for the worse, since it implies a contradiction. The word “substance” is just another word for matter.
8Since substance, in contrast to matter, was not supposed to consist of atoms, he had to find ways of paraphrasing it. He made body consist of extension and soul of thought. As a result, the objective concepts were made subjective. By similar tricks all objective concepts were subjectivized, until everything had become subjective.

SS-Hauptamt (Rassenpolitik):
Today we are in the middle of another revolutionary epoch. Revolutionary scientific understandings of genetics and race have found political expression in the National Socialist world view. Once again a world of appearances collapsed, which had concealed from our eyes the true nature of humanity and the connections between body, soul, and spirit. The foundation of the Christian worldview is the doctrine of the separation of body and soul; the soul and spirit belong to a world independent of the physical, free of natural laws, and they are even to a certain degree able to free the human body from its natural setting. It is a major shift when racial theory recognizes the unity of body, soul and spirit and sees them as a whole that follows the eternal laws of nature. A new epoch is coming, one perhaps even more revolutionary than that resulting from Copernicus’s work. Ideas about humanity and peoples that have endured for millennia are collapsing.

12d. Not satanist/black lodge

Reminder: Henry T. Laurency

[Here I will be examining the hostile assessment of National Socialism from “Henry T. Laurency” to clear up any misunderstandings that could arise from the obvious conflict between his writings and Hitler’s. This is still very much a WIP as his condemnations of NS are surplus. Laurency unfortunately had a predeliction for America, as can be seen at the end of this section. His assessments should be evaulated rather than swept away as this matter has tremendous implications concerning the world’s direction and future.
If I’m somehow in the wrong, even after all this objective and extensive inquiry, analysis, and reading, may “god” help us all.
Also, I should point out that even if he really were a satanist, his descriptions of the Jew’s activities really has no parallel. Take what he said about Jews and apply it to moralistic types and you’ll know how to detect what is hateful among you.
Above all, it must be remembered that neither physical success nor failure guarantees the validity of a system.]

The significance of a political philosopher does not depend on the practical success of the plans he lays down but rather on their absolute truth and the influence they exert on the progress of mankind.
– Mein Kampf

Laurency ():
8The Christians see the “blessing of god” in “good” reaping: wealth, fame, success in enterprises, etc.
The esoterician has learnt that in any case good reaping has not the least to do with the “satisfaction of god”, rather the opposite. Good reaping and individual consciousness development rarely go together.

Giselher Wirsing:
The American is a city-dweller, a metropolitan; he is, even when he lives in the countryside. The eternal pursuit after the success, that the Puritanism has lowered so deeply in the American psyche, has scarcely at all given rise to a relationship with nature, as the European and East Asian cultures have grown.
Der Amerikaner ist Stadtmensch, Großstadtmensch; er ist es, selbst wenn er auf dem Lande lebt. Das ewige Jagen nach dem Erfolg, das der Puritanismus so tief in die amerikanische Seele gesenkt hat, hat ein Verhältnis zur Natur, wie es die europäischen und ostasiatischen gewachsenen Kulturen kennen, überhaupt kaum aufkommen lassen.

Sprechabenddienst, Sept./Oct. 1944:

Consider [the Jew’s] spiritual relationship to Puritanism, the teaching that wealth is a sign of God’s favor.

Paula Hitler, May 1, 1957:
The fact that the bitter fight for Germany’s greatness wasn’t crowned by success like Cromwell’s in Britain, for example, has a lot to do with the mentality of the people involved.
On the one hand the Englishman’s character is essentially unfair, ruled by jealousy, self-importance, and lack of consideration. But he never forgets he is an Englishman, loyal to his crown.
On the other hand, you with your need for recognition are never first and foremost a German. Therefore it doesn’t matter to you, you insignificant beings, if you destroy the entire nation. Your only guiding thought will always be me first, me second, me third. In your worthlessness you will never think of the welfare of the nation, and with that pitiful philosophy you wish to prevent the immortality of a giant?

[So again, it must be stressed that neither success nor failure guarantees the validity of a system. To say otherwise is to condemn the struggles of all great men, religious founders, and reformers as irrevocably doomed (as they have largely failed in their tasks, excepting Mohammed) and to concede that Zionism and Communism are in the right and have the right to exert their influence in politics. Especially when one suggests that Hitler merely enabled the rise of the Zionists and the perpetuation of Communism in Eastern Europe, that he was a controlled opposition. It all leads to blatant nihilism! That is why I reject the notion that Hitler lost the war.]

Laurency (L5e23):
6A soulless individual may very well be friends with people, may often be highly popular and be considered by public opinion as a true man of honour and a benefactor. But if someone stands in the way of his intentions or is perceived by him as dangerous or revealing, then that individual must be prepared for a great deal of trouble.
7Hitler and the six highest chiefs around him were, according to D.K., “soulless”. They received their terrible power from the black lodge. They can thus be cited as striking examples (cunning, heartless, merciless). Goebbels is an example of the degree of intelligence they can attain. Never count on their gratitude. Other people are valuable only as tools for their purposes.

[Was it really dictated by “D.K.” or did it arise from former Christian missionary Alice A. Bailey’s predilection for Judaism?]

Laurency (L5e23):
4It is to be expected that in the future these orders will blacklist the co-workers of the planetary hierarchy and eventually combat them. The hierarchy inculcates upon their disciples never to count on compassion of any kind on the part of the black ones.

[Except Goebbels, a prominent member of Hitler’s inner circle, was not slavishly enthralled to Hitler. His diaries are the best proof of his individuality. He opposes, contradicts, and criticizes Hitler on a number of points. It’s also clear that he went public with these views. Pray tell, where was Goebbels’ imprisonment or execution? Hitler did not treat people as tools to be discarded.]

Hitler, March 27, 1945 speech:
It would be a good thing if the Führer would apply to the Luftwaffe the severe measures he has in mind for Speer or the SS troops, for example. This is where they are most necessary. It is to be hoped that the Führer will not only grasp the facts correctly and say as much but also draw the correct conclusions.
Here in my view lies the great difference between him and Frederick II; Frederick after all was so ruthless in his measures both against high and low that he frequently aroused hatred and disgust even among his troops and his generals. After this talk with the Führer one could say yet again: “Yes, you are right. Everything you say is right. But what are you doing about it?”

Rochus Misch:
The Party leadership had to be passed to somebody else, and Hitler then appointed Martin Bormann as chief of the Party chancellery. In this, Hitler chose the wrong man, in our opinion. ‘Goebbels in, Bormann out,’ we said. We might have admitted that Martin Bormann’s contacts with us were conciliatory to some extent, but nobody had a soft spot for him. Even his own brother did not exist for him, after Albert Bormann had married a woman completely unacceptable in Martin’s eyes. Goebbels we liked. He was usually cheerful and was man enough to contradict Hitler even if only to turn down a dinner invitation. That impressed us. Meanwhile Bormann always fawned on Hitler. Certainly almost everyone did, but Bormann was the champion at it.

Traudl Junge:
Professor [Hugo] Blaschke, a gentleman in his sixties, was the scholarly type. His hair was greying at the temples, while his thick eyebrows and carefully tended moustache were like black bars marking his pale, thin face. In himself he was a reserved, quiet man. But during these sessions round the hearth Hitler sometimes drew him into a conversation in which he was one of the few to defend his own point of view firmly, even when it was not in line with the Führer’s.

[In Louis P. Lochner’s introduction to Goebbels 1942-1943 diaries, he makes a crucial observation, listing entries from 1925-26 to support his conclusion.]

Louis P. Lochner:
If one had only the typewritten diaries to go by, one might conclude from the adulation amounting almost to deification of the Fuehrer that Goebbels was writing with a view to expediency rather than from conviction—witness an entry like that of March 19, 1942:
“As long as he [the Fuehrer] lives and is among us in good health, as long as he can give us the strength of his spirit and the power of his manliness, no evil can touch us.”
Could such an apotheosis have been written in sincerity by as coldly calculating a realist as Joseph Goebbels, by a man who from time to time even disagreed with the leader?

When one reads these earlier diary entries, one cannot but conclude that the diaries of 1942 and 1943 are sincere in their portrayal of a very close relationship of mutual trust between Hitler and Goebbels.
The sequel to the diaries, too, bears testimony to the sincerity of Goebbels’s adoration of his Fuehrer and to the sincerity of the diaries: he committed suicide immediately after Hitler passed out of his life!

[Furthermore, such alleged ruthlessness is only apparent in Bormann, but even here, there was a sense of responsibility. His letter against the Christians demonstrate him to be a humanist.]

Laurency (kl2_3):
3Then may all the authorities of religion, philosophy, science gang up to stop evolution. They fight a hopeless battle. But they will probably say (as did Hitler): “If I will not have my way, then let heaven and earth perish.” Poor superman apes who believe they are gods. You know what happened to Hitler. Try to learn at least something of the history of our times.

[But did Hitler ever remotely say anything like that? It’s a fact that his speeches have been deliberately mistranslated in English. The closest that could probably come to that was Goebbels declaration that they will slam the door in the event of their departure and even that one seems to have been falsified. The declaration “Wir können untergehen, vielleicht. Aber wir werden eine Welt mitnehmen” has been attributed to Hitler, but I’m unable to confirm if he really said this. Allegedly, it was recounted by Nicolaus von Below. A search through Von Below’s memoirs yields no phrase of this sort. But even if it were authentic, is this not merely a recurrence to Wagner’s Götterdämmerung theme?]


[Here it’s worth pointing out that Israel embodies the aforementioned self-destructive collapse, as seen in their Samson option (anti-Semitic interpretation), more accurately called a “Samson complex“, which is distinguishable from the heroic and idealistic sacrifice embodied by the German people. Was it a coincidence that Tacitus selected Jews and Germans for his compare and contrast? These are direct opposites.]

So it is in the case of Tristan and Siegfried: loyalty as the basis of the idea of honour, the significance of maidenhood, victory in downfall (in other words, the true heroism centred in the inner motive, not in the outward success). Such features distinguish a Siegfried, a Tristan, a Parzival not only from a Semitic Samson whose heroism lies in his hair, but equally from the more closely related Achilles.

Mein Kampf:
It would, therefore, be a complete mistake to interpret the mutual help, which the Jews render one another when they have to fight or, to put it more accurately, to exploit their fellow-beings, as the expression of a certain idealistic spirit of sacrifice. Here again, the Jew merely follows the call of his individual egotism. That is why the Jewish State, which ought to be a vital organisation to serve the purpose of preserving or increasing the race, has absolutely no territorial boundaries, for the territorial delimitation of a State always demands a certain idealism of spirit on the part of the race which forms that State, and especially a proper acceptance of the idea of work.

Hitler, Table Talk (Cameron & Stevens), November 5, 1941:
The Jew is the incarnation of egoism. And their egoism goes so far that they’re not even capable of risking their lives for the defence of their most vital interests.

Hanna Reitsch:
August 1943, Berlin
I first approached Field-Marshal ✡Milch, Deputy-Chief of the Luftwaffe and Goring’s Second-in-Gommand. He refused point-blank to consider the idea. In his opinion, it was contrary to the German mentality to undertake a task in which the chance of personal survival was nil. I found it impossible in a formal interview to persuade him that self-sacrifice with the object of saving others’ lives was fully justified and contented myself with the request that he leave the question to the conscience of the individual volunteers, whom, after all, it primarily concerned.

[Speaking of the biblical Samson, it’s worth reflecting on Goethe’s response to a proposition from his friend Zelter concerning an opera modeled off Samson’s story. His verdict speaks volumes.]

To Zelter, May 19, 1812
Just now I should have no faith in Samson; it is one of the most monstrous of the old myths. A perfectly bestial passion of a supematurally strong, divinely -gifted hero for the most accursed wretch, that the earth has ever seen,— the mad desire, that ever leads him back to her, though, owing to repeated acts of treachery, he is each time conscious of his danger—this lustfulness, which itself springs from the danger—the mighty conception one must form of the overweening savoir faire of this gigantic woman, who is capable of fettering such a bull!

Hitler, Table Talk (Cameron & Stevens), December 1, 1941:
Probably many Jews are not aware of the destructive power they represent. Now, he who destroys life is himself risking death. That’s the secret of what is happening to the Jews. Whose fault is it when a cat devours a mouse? The fault of the mouse, who has never done any harm to a cat?

Mein Kampf:
The final consequence is not merely that the people lose all their freedom under the domination of the Jews, but that in the end, these parasites themselves disappear. The death of the victim is followed sooner or later by that of the vampire.

[Goethe depicts Samson as being enthralled to worldly temptation. How much more does this apply to Solomon!]

Laurency (L5e16):
9Solomon the wise had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines. Was that wisdom? Was that moral?

Did not this Solomon serve our gods also, deluded by his wife, as they assert? What great virtue! What wealth of wisdom! He could not rise superior to pleasure, and the arguments of a woman led him astray! Then if he was deluded by a woman, do not call this man wise.

Bolshevism: From Moses to Lenin
The pinnacle, the flowering, the glory of Jewish statesmanship, namely, King David, was such a rascal that even the unprecedented villainy of the letter condemning Uriah was not enough for him; on his deathbed he urged his son to murder his old war comrade, Joab.

Now man can be opposed to himself in a twofold manner: either as a savage, when his feelings rule over his principles; or as a barbarian, when his principles destroy his feelings. The savage despises art, and acknowledges nature as his despotic ruler; the barbarian laughs at nature, and dishonours it, but he often proceeds in a more contemptible way than the savage, to be the slave of his senses. The cultivated man makes of nature his friend, and honours its friendship, while only bridling its caprice.

Laurency (L5e23):
3In extreme cases the influence from the black ones has resulted in a kind of collective “possession”, so that even otherwise level-headed members have been seized with psychosis.

Mein Kampf:
I found it difficult to understand how men, who always had reasonable ideas when I spoke to them as individuals, suddenly lost this reasonableness the moment they came under the influence of the mass. I was often on the verge of despair.

Hitler, Memoir of a Confidant, p.g. 189:
It is hard to believe the world is actually caught up in a utopian delusion, is in the grip of what amounts to a hypnotic obsession. Marx, even Lenin and Stalin, cannot be understood until one has recognized these things.

August Kubizek:
Greater even than his fear of being infected by the moral and political decadence of the ruling classes, was his fear of becoming a proletarian. Undoubtedly he lived like one, but he did not want to become one. Perhaps what drove him to his intensive studies was his instinctive feeling that only a thorough education could save him from descending to the level of the masses.

Hitler, Memoir of a Confidant, p.g. 189:
But is there really no other way out of the labyrinth of this delusion that originated in a Jewish exploit? I know you think you’ve found a way, and at the time it made sense to me, too. But the subject is too foreign for me to be able to arrive at my own judgment. But that is precisely what makes the situation so bad–that the subject is too foreign to almost everyone. Only this makes it possible to keep up the world-wide deception.

[The subject pertains to money, banking, economics, finance, usury, etc.]

Laurency (L5e23):
5At the showdowns between the black lodge and the planetary hierarchy in the physical world, the black ones have almost always triumphed and the planetary hierarchy has had to withdraw. One of the rare exceptions was at the latest conflict during the Second World War. There was a situation in the year 1942, when the black ones seemed to triumph once again, but fortunately for mankind, Hitler and his gang were defeated. Even the black lodge was defeated in the process, but far from definitively. Because Hitler’s agency was soon taken over by the Communists and the Zionists, which both are a constant threat to world peace.

[Was it a rare exception or is that what they wanted you to believe? The belief that Hitler’s organization was superseded by Communists and Zionists can only lead to the idea that they were all working on the same side, a popular conclusion many people have ended up at.
It has become increasingly evident that the Allied forces and their leaders were culpable for even worse crimes and were interested in preserving the status quo, democracy, Jewish interests, etc. The Myth of the Good War by the impartial historian Jacques R. Pauwels, and other books, delves into the heart of the matter. G. D. H. Cole and Francis Parker Yockey are two examples of independent people who would have preferred a Hitler or Stalin. For a time, even the humanist Bertrand Russell was willing to open Britiain’s doors to Germany.
So if the Allies were just as bad as the NS and Soviets have been made out to be, where does that leave us with?
Nihilism. It is merely the attribution of an omnipotent quality to the Jews and their dominating systems. At that point, it may be very well justified to produce a “Kalki” type and pursue an all-encompassing war of destruction. Savitri erred greatly in connecting Hitler with this fatalistic and bestial Hindu conception. The war has to be waged in accordance with laws of nature and laws of life, not outside of it.
Therefore, one side necessarily has to be representing “god” in the war.]

Laurency (L5e23):
6Most importantly, however, mankind did not have to experience a new tyranny as in Atlantis. If the Axis Powers, Germany, Japan and Italy, had succeeded in winning the Second World War, the same individuals as in Atlantis would have gained the power over mankind, and then mankind would have had to be drowned in a new flood. Therefore, it was the salvation of mankind that the United States intervened so energetically and managed to end the war.

Laurency (kr3):
7The result for the misled masses was a tyranny, which our age would have been better able to understand if Hitler had succeeded in carrying out his plans. Things came to such a pass that, in the case of Lemuria and later in that of Atlantis, the planetary hierarchy had to appeal to the planetary government to intervene. And the planetary government saw the necessity of submerging both continents into the sea. The tidal wave that at the destruction of Atlantis finally swept over the remaining continents was distorted in Jewish writings into the so-called flood.

Hitler, Table Talk (Cameron & Stevens), October 26-27, 1941:
If the British Empire collapsed to-day, it would be thanks to our arms, but we’d get no benefit, for we wouldn’t be the heirs. Russia would take India, Japan would take Eastern Asia, the United States would take Canada. I couldn’t even prevent the Americans from gaining a firm hold in Africa.
In the case of England’s being sunk, I would have no profit—but the obligation to fight her successors. A day might come when I could take a share of this bankruptcy, but on condition of its being postponed.

[It’s a rule of life that tyrants will eventually be overthrown and sure enough, this is a vulnerability carried exclusively by dictatorship and monarchy. Whereas a democracy will churn out a waiting line of mediocre and unscrupulous politicians, easily expendable. No one’s going to miss a democratically elected leader besides the ruling powers he indulged.]

Mein Kampf:
During 1919 and 1920 there was a danger that the members of secret organisations, under the influence of great historical examples and overcome by the immensity of the nations misfortunes, might attempt to wreak vengeance on the destroyers of their country, in the belief that this would end the miseries of the people.
All such attempts were sheer folly, by reason of the fact that the Marxist triumph was not due to the superior genius of one remarkable person, but rather to immeasurable incompetence and cowardly shirking on the part of the bourgeoisie.
The hardest criticism that can be uttered against our bourgeoisie is simply to state the fact that it submitted to the Revolution, even though the Revolution did not produce one single man of outstanding worth.
One can, after all, understand how it was possible to capitulate to a Robespierre, a Danton, or a Marat; but it was utterly scandalous to go down on all fours before the withered Scheidemann, the obese Herr Erzberger, Friedrich Ebert, and the innumerable other political pygmies of the Revolution.
There was not a single man of parts in whom one could see the revolutionary man of genius. Therein lay the country’s misfortune, for they were only revolutionary Spartacist vermin wholesale and retail.
To put one of them out of the way was of little avail, as the only result was that another pair of blood-suckers, equally fat and thirsty, was ready to take his place.

[Such a triumph of the “Axis”, if it really were that bad, would have merely precipitated a greater revolution. But what was the Allied victory but an unmistakable preservation of the status quo?]

Mein Kampf:
It must be remembered, that in many instances a hardy and healthy nation has emerged from the ordeal of bloody civil war, while from peace conditions which had been artificially maintained there often resulted a state of national putrescence that reeked to heaven.

Zwei Theorien stehen sich also hier gegenüber: der konservative Pazifismus saturierte Völker, deren Ziel die Bekämpfung jedes Friedensbrechers, die Erhaltung des Status quo und der gegenwärtigen Herrschaftsverhältnisse ist – und der revolutionäre Pazifismus, dessen Ziel ein letzter Weltkrieg zur Befreiung aller unterdrückten Klassen, Völker und Rassen und damit die Vernichtung jeder künftigen Kriegsursache und die Begründung – der pazifistischen Weltrepublik ist. Der konservative Pazifismus hat seine Zentrale im Genfer Völkerbund – der revolutionäre in der Moskauer Internationale.

[rough Google translation:] So here are two theories opposite: the conservative pacifism saturated peoples whose aim is to fight any peace breaker, preserving the status quo and the present domination – and the revolutionary pacifism, whose aim is one final world war for the liberation of all oppressed classes, nations and races and thus the Annihilation of any future cause of war and the reason is – the pacifist world republic. The conservative pacifism has its headquarters in Geneva League of Nations – the revolutionary in the Moscow International.

[Since our general knowledge of Atlantis comes from Plato, it’s only fair to make recurrence to his writings.]

Now in this island of Atlantis there was a great and wonderful empire which had rule over the whole island and several others, and over parts of the continent, and, furthermore, the men of Atlantis had subjected the parts of Libya within the columns of Heracles as far as Egypt, and of Europe as far as Tyrrhenia.
This vast power, gathered into one, endeavoured to subdue at a blow our country and yours and the whole of the region within the straits; and then, Solon, your country shone forth, in the excellence of her virtue and strength, among all mankind. She was preeminent in courage and military skill, and was the leader of the Hellenes.
And when the rest fell off from her, being compelled to stand alone, after having undergone the very extremity of danger, she defeated and triumphed over the invaders, and preserved from slavery those who were not yet subjugated, and generously liberated all the rest of us who dwell within the pillars.
But afterwards there occurred violent earthquakes and floods; and in a single day and night of misfortune all your warlike men in a body sank into the earth, and the island of Atlantis in like manner disappeared in the depths of the sea.

[The only difference here is that the NS lost. But the inner circle fought on despite their anticipation of a natural conflagration.]

Goebbels (Diaries), February 27, 1945:
[Hitler] says to me, for instance, that it is essential to work for one’s people but that there is a limit to what men can do. Who knows when the moon may not crash into the earth and this whole planet go up in flame and ashes. Nevertheless, he says, it must be our mission to do our duty to the last.


Laurency (L5e23):
7Many idealists grasped so little of this and were so blinded by the German propaganda. The persecutions of dissidents and especially the testimonies about the gas chambers should have opened their eyes. But they did not. One will not see what one does not want to see.

Laurency (wm6):
13There are risks involved in starting your higher consciousness development (acquisition of subjective causal consciousness) before you have rooted out your selfishness and tendency to hatred. Concentration on the superconscious draws down energies from it, and such energies strengthen all tendencies. Those who do not heed these risks develop Nietzschean superman follies, which may imperceptibly draw them onto the left-hand path leading to the black lodge. In politics, this produces such phenomena as the group of nazis around Hitler and the rulers of the Soviet Union, groups characterized by absolute contempt of all human values and lying elevated to norm.

Laurency (L5e5):
3Devotion can blind you. The illusions of devotion include glorification of all manner of talents and geniuses, undiscerning worship of authority which proclaims a book the word of god and turns an idiology into supreme truth. This makes for the brutalities of despotism commanded by a Jahwe, an inquisition, a Hitler, or a Stalin. All of this gives evidence of the unreliability of so-called conscience. Without a knowledge of the laws of life, man is like a reed shaken with the wind.

Laurency (L5e23):
1There are two international so-called social orders the leaders of which are conscious agents of the black lodge. That does not at all imply that all the members of such an order know its real purpose. There is an inner secret circle, however. Entrance into this is only for those who after careful testing have been found “reliable”. This élite of unscrupulous people learn about the “left-hand path” and become the conscious agents of the black lodge.
2Outwardly the order flaunts noble causes, such as charity of various kinds, leaving the mass of the brothers in the dark about the inner circle abusing their loyalty for its own purpose. These deceived, honourable people also make up the façade that dupes public opinion.


Laurency (L4e4):
15Men’s total disorientation in a life sense, total blindness in life, cannot be clarified more efficiently than in their assessment of Hitler (that agent of the black lodge), of nazism, and bolshevism. The socialists sympathized with bolshevism from the very beginning. They approved of Hitler as long as he was allied with Stalin. Nowadays they pretend that they were always against Hitler.

Laurency (L3e18):
2Actually, the Second World War could have been averted. During seven critical years there was a possibility to divert the catastrophe. However, the spirit of Christos had been lost in ecclesiastical organizations. Their sole interest was in dead dogmas and technical theology. Good will was theoretical and negative, not practical and positive. Humanists had no real understanding of the values that were at stake. A general passivity, listlessness, and indifference made themselves felt among those who had a grasp of the situation. No measure taken by the planetary hierarchy could rouse them to powerful action or to give up temporary benefits for enduring ones. The individual was more important to himself than mankind.
The fact that Hitler and his gang of bandits succeeded so in blinding and seducing people has deeper causes than people have yet been able to see. The ground for it is mankind’s ancient, unchecked selfishness, lust for power and wealth, and its constant sacrifice of all higher things for lower ones. Such an attitude must lead to disaster sooner or later. And if mankind will not learn from the two world wars that it must embark on the way opposite to the one trodden hitherto, then even greater disasters must be expected. We are faced with the choice between the matter aspect and the consciousness aspect: do we desire power, glory, and an insatiable
craze for possessions, with indifference to our fellow men, or do we desire a human culture with right human relations?
3What “ideals” have characterized European politics? Mussolini was bent on reviving the ancient Roman Empire at the cost of helpless, small nations. French culture had to be the dominant one, and the security of France had to outweigh all other considerations. British imperialism in the past has exceeded that of other nations. German hegemony with demands for Lebensraum had to be satisfied, and German supermen had to decide other’s people’s lives. American isolationism was about to let Hitler win. Russia has sufficiently revealed her 4intentions. Japan sought to conquer Asia. When will mankind wake up to see the madness of such policies? See where it all must end?
4Strange that the German nation, which ought to have known better, suffered itself be idiotized by the militarists, those advocates of violence, and tolerated an unbearable military regime that made people robots. How little that nation had learnt from its great humanists it boasts of!

13. Britain

Hermann Giesler, The Artist Within the Warlord, p.g. 107:
Translated by Wilhelm Kriessmann, Ph.D and Carolyn Yeager
Presently, each nation thinks egotistically for itself and not for a European condominium; that has to be our goal–a Germanic social revolution to overcome Marxism! Logically, that would lead to a league of Germanic states–not too closely knitted, but within a wise boundary–because England, for instance, is not Europe oriented, but worldwide.

[Excerpts] Memoirs of a Confidant, p.g. 76-78, 85:
At four-thirty we were at the entrance to the Germanic Museum; the man who had asked to be introduced to Hitler the night before at the opera was waiting for us.

Since Hitler remained silent, he [the museum director] continued. “In the third place, England has amassed an empire that has unquestionably made it the strongest world power. England’s interests lie solely and alone in the area of protecting and maintaining this world power. Germanic feelings and sentiments–insofar as they might exist at all–can only hinder or disturb these English interests. England must side with its empire against the Germanic states–and that means only Germany–rather than with the Germanic people against the empire.
A Germanic spirit of solidarity is therefore quite unthinkable. To hope for it or even to build on it is a utopian notion.”
Otto Wagener: I found these remarks as interesting as they were surprising, particularly as they so rudely challenged Hitler’s preconceived notions about England. This man was a pragmatist. I would dearly have loved to put him on our list of foreign-policy advisers…
His presentation of the language problems seemed to me of particular significance. I had never before realized that the odd fact of the impossibility of translating the word Germanic could frequently give rise to misunderstandings, and especially to the view of the British and Americans that we Germans were arrogant and strove for world domination – while in truth the exact opposite is the case. I was also aware that Hitler, too, had shown a keen interest in all these remarks.

Hitler: “That was twenty thousand years of Nordic history. I no longer say Germanic history. An Englishman might think I was trying to lay claim to Nebuchadnezzar and the Egyptian pharaohs as Germans.”

Wallis Warfield, Duchess of Windsor:
The heart has its reasons
The British are an insular and an ancient race. As Sir Winston Churchill is fond of reminding us, their insularity has armed them with a closed system of moral judgment that is as impervious to outer appeal as their coasts are invulnerable to the beating of the seas.
And, being an ancient people, they have long memories. Just about anything that could possibly happen has a remembered precedent in their past; and having experienced just about everything they are inevitably cynical about what can be done with the generality of human beings, including themselves.
In the back of every Englishman’s mind is a kind of Domesday body of moral principles that continuously sits in judgment upon the affairs of others; and yet, the English, more than any other race, have an ingrained reluctance to interfere. Perhaps this is really what is meant by British reserve.

Hitler, Table Talk (Cameron & Stevens), August 26, 1942:
The Germans, too, once possessed that sense of insular security which is such a source of strength to the British. At one time they could with justice claim that all western Europe identified itself with the German State. It was the Peace of Westphalia which was the foundation of the permanent weakness of modern Germany. I have always said to my supporters: “It is not the Treaty of Versailles we must destroy, but the Treaty of Westphalia.” The French, of course, regarded the Versailles Treaty as just a continuation of the Westphalian Peace.

Hitler, Memoirs of a Confidant, p.g. 167:
I am no follower of Oswald Spengler! I do not believe in the decline of the West. No, I consider it my task, with which Providence has charged me, to contribute to its prevention. I do not believe in the emergence of a new Slavic culture. No cultures have ever been born under Jewish leadership, though some have been destroyed! On the contrary, I believe that the old Aryan culture, which has begun to falter as a result of industrialization, will experience a rebirth under the direction of the Nordic peoples. It will evolve on a socialist basis and then conquer the world.

Hermann Giesler:
But Spengler, in his time-ahead thinking, as a shearer and interpreter of the downfall of Western culture, paid little attention to the unpredictable. So he overlooked the possible overcoming of the turmoil and thus the formation of a new community of the people. This community wants and will manifest itself in the building because it recognizes the inadequacy of its spatially unformed environment. She sees the disorder, the chaotic, and sets the demands and the standards of conscious national and social obligation.
Aber Spengler hat bei seinem Zeitenvorausdenken, als Scher und Deuter des Untergangs der abendländischen Kultur das Unwägbare gering geachtet. So übersah er die mögliche Uberwindung der Zerrissenheit und damit die Bildung einer neuen Gemeinschaft des Volkes. Diese Volksgemeinschaft will und wird sich im Bauwerk manifestieren, weil sie tlas Unzulängliche ihrer räumlich ungestalteten Umwelt erkennt. Sie sieht die Unordnung, das Chaotische, und stellt die Forderungen und die Maßstäbe aus bewußter nationaler und sozialer Verpflichtung.

[See Laurency L5e22.15 on Oswald Spengler]

Hitler, Memoirs of a Confidant, p.g. 168-169:
The new culture will bear the stamp of industrialization, although industrialization is in the deepest sense anticultural. The resolution of this dilemma holds the greatest secret of our National Socialist plans!

Hermann Giesler, Ein Anderer Hitler, p.g. 197:
One evening, Adolf Hitler spoke with me about Technik [In German and other European languages, a distinction exists between technik and technologie that is absent in English, which usually translates both terms as “technology.”] and industrial development and justified the [contemporary/modern/predominant] forms of the architecture. We lived in an industrial world with a downright stormy development of technology. Therefore, it is particularly important not to lose the roots of the soil. Without the connection with the organically grown, we would wither away.
Eines Abends sprach Adolf Hitler mit mir über Technik und industrielle Entwicklung und begründete die zeitentsprechenden Gestaltungsformen der Architektur. Wir lebten in einer industriellen Welt mit einer geradezu stürmischen Entwicklung der Technik. Deshalb gelte es im besonderen Maße, nicht die Verwurzelung mit dem Boden zu verlieren. Ohne die Verbindung mit dem organisch Gewachsenen würden wir verkümmern.

Memoirs of a Confidant, p.g. 77:
At this, the museum curator replied, “I believe, Herr Hitler, that several known factors make it unlikely. Language is the most obvious one. But it is of far-reaching significance. The English language has only a single term to translate ‘German’ [deutsch] and ‘Germanic’ [germanisch]–it is always ‘German.’ So, if we are to speak of a Germanic feeling of solidarity, the Englishman will translate it as ‘German.’

At the beginning, I was surprised at a number of English reviews of Spengler’s work, The Decline of the West. But when Oswald Spengler writes that the Moorish style was given to splendid monuments only where the Teutons had settled, the English translation has ‘where Germans settled.’ And yet, Spengler meant the Goths and the Vandals. It is not surprising, therefore, that Spengler is considered abroad as a typical arrogant German.”

Examining Errors

Laurency (L5e4):
31Finally one more quotation of Krishnamurti. He says: “truth is not attached to a person”. On the contrary, it is always attached to a person. All knowledge is a gift from above, is revelation, not least through inspiration. Such revelation is always mediated through a certain person. How could we have advanced at all in our view of life if the Buddha, Christos, and others had not revealed the laws of the higher life?
32Every human being represents the truth on his level. This is the true basis of tolerance. We meet all where they stand. We realize that they must conceive of life in their own ways. We need not fear becoming dependent on a certain person. When we have learnt whatever one may give us, then his authority drops by itself.

James 1:17 Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights,

Mein Kampf:
The greatest revolutions and the greatest achievements of this world, its greatest cultural works and the immortal creations of great statesmen, are inseparably bound up with one name which stands as a symbol for them in each respective case. The failure to pay tribute to one of those great spirits signifies a neglect of that enormous source of power which lies in the remembrance of all great men and women.
The Jew himself knows this best. He, whose great men have always been great only in their efforts to destroy mankind and its civilization, takes good care that they are worshipped as idols. But the Jew tries to degrade the honour in which nations hold their great men and women. He stigmatizes this honour as ‘the cult of personality’.
As soon as a nation has so far lost its courage as to submit to this impudent defamation on the part of the Jews it renounces the most important source of its own inner strength. This inner force cannot arise from a policy of pandering to the masses but only from the worship of men of genius, whose lives have uplifted and ennobled the nation itself.
When men’s hearts are breaking and their souls are plunged into the depths of despair, their great forebears turn their eyes towards them from the dim shadows of the past – those forebears who knew how to triumph over anxiety and affliction, mental servitude and physical bondage – and extend their eternal hands in a gesture of encouragement to despairing souls. Woe to the nation that is ashamed to clasp those hands.

Hitler, April 27, 1923 speech:
A people which is not prepared to protect itself is a people without character. We must recover for our people as one of its most elementary principles the recognition of the fact that a man is truly man only if he defends and protects himself, that a people deserves that name only if in case of necessity it is prepared as a people to enter the lists. That is not militarism, that is self-preservation.

Rudolf Hess, February 25, 1934:
Woe to the people that fails to honor it’s heroes! It will cease producing them, cease knowing them. Heroes spring from the essence of their people. A people without heart is a people without leaders, for only a heroic leader is a true leader able to withstand the challenge of difficult times. The rise or fall of a people can be determined by the presence or absence of a leader.

Hitler, November 12, 1944 speech:
In the past, I repeatedly pointed out that it is necessary for a nation to appreciate and honor its great men. Especially in grave times, a despairing nation can gather courage and strength for the present from its behavior in the past. How much more does this apply to a nation that behaves as boundlessly bravely as the German one! It will be able to learn the only correct lesson for the present from the struggle of its great men, namely, that Providence in the end helps only him who does not despair and takes up the struggle against the adversities of the time and, therefore, in the end decides his own destiny.

Mein Kampf:
I do not know what my attitude towards Jewry, Social Democracy, or rather Marxism, in general, to the social problem, etc., would be to-day if I had not acquired a stock of personal beliefs at such an early age, by dint of hard study and under the duress of Fate.
For, although the misfortunes of the Fatherland may have stimulated thousands to ponder over the inner causes of the collapse, that could not lead to such a thorough knowledge and deep insight as a man develops who has fought a hard struggle; for many years in order that he might be master of his own fate.

✡Franklin D. Roosevelt:
As for Germany, that tragic nation which has sown the wind and is now reaping the whirlwind—we and our Allies are entirely agreed that we shall not bargain with the Nazi conspirators, or leave them a shred of control—open or secret—of the instruments of government. [Leave it to FDR himself to debunk the preposterous claim that the “Nazis” survived by infiltrating the American government.] We shall not leave them a single element of military power—or of potential military power.
But I should be false to the very foundations of my religious and political convictions, if I should ever relinquish the hope—and even the faith—that in all people, without exception, there lives some instinct for truth, some attraction toward justice, and some passion for peace—buried as they may be in the German case under a brutal regime. [Such naivety to believe that all people who incarnate have an inkling of good in them. There are obviously people who have almost completely destroyed their instinct for life and beauty incarnating among us.]
We bring no charge against the German race, as such, for we cannot believe that God has eternally condemned any race of humanity. [So why are you playing god by condemning the German people to perpetual disarmament?] For we know in our own land how many good men and women of German ancestry have proved loyal, freedom-loving, peace-loving citizens. There is going to be stern punishment for all those in Germany directly responsible for this agony of mankind.
The German people are not going to be enslaved —because the United Nations do not traffic in human slavery. But it will be necessary for them to earn their way back into the fellowship of peace-loving and law-abiding nations. And, in their climb up that steep road, we shall certainly see to it that they are not encumbered by having to carry guns. They will be relieved of that burden—we hope, forever.—

Hermann Giesler, The Artist Within the Warlord, p.g. 226-227:
Translated by Wilhelm Kriessmann, Ph.D and Carolyn Yeager
They [the people at Yalta] talked about peace-loving nations, meaning only their own, chatted about the highest ideals for mankind and sacred duties, about a secured and lasting peace and a life free of worries and misery for all people and nations; everything will be good, peaceful and glorious as soon as Germany is shattered.

Laurency (kl1_9):
10They speak about democracy as if it were the same as freedom. That is a mistake. Democracy, such as it has hitherto appeared in all nations, has sufficiently demonstrated intolerance, and has done so to such an extent that one may very well say that there has never existed any true freedom. This holds good of democracy as well. It is so far from being realized that it rather stands out as a utopia, an ideal that is good enough to be used in propaganda and to throw dust in people’s eyes who allow themselves to be blinded by beautiful phrases and do not have judgement enough to see through the old trick of empty promises.
11The president of the United States, Woodrow Wilson, talked about “making the world safe for democracy”. That just witnessed to a self-produced blindness, an utterly helpless not to say grotesque naïveté in a former professor of history

Bolshevism: From Moses to Lenin
“Yes indeed,” he laughed bitterly, “now the people will seek to Dr. Cuno, and Dr. Schweyer, and Dr. Heim, and whatever other charmers and wizards they have. When asked why Germany has become a pigsty these gentlemen will answer reproachfully,

You yourselves are to blame. You have no more good breeding, no faith, only selfishness and conceit. Now you will try to put the blame on the Jews. It’s always been like that when you have needed a scapegoat. Then everyone has jumped on the Jews and persecuted them unmercifully. And just because they had the money, and because they were defenseless. Is it any wonder that a few individual Jews are behaving in a reprehensible manner now?
After all, one finds some black sheep in every group. As if there weren’t a good number of decent Jews! Look at their piety, their sense of family responsibility, their sober way of life, their readiness to make sacrifices, and, above all, their ability to stick together!
And you? At one another like dogs and cats: sheer insanity!’

Laurency (L4e4.18):
4The Church seeks to defend its misdeeds in the past alleging that these should not be blamed on Christianity but on people. Do they not understand that a doctrine which makes such insane interpretations possible is perverse? In other words: that the doctrine being preached is not the doctrine of wisdom and love. The doctrine preached by Paul is in agreement with Judaism, which is opposite to the teaching of Jeshu.

Bolshevism: From Moses to Lenin
Thus will the charmers and wizards prattle on and on, till one night the blood sign will appear on all the Jewish houses, and the infuriated masses, led by the Jews, will swarm forth to smite all the firstborn in the land again as in Egypt” (Exodus 12:7-13, 29-30).

[The attribution of these losses to supernatural means, the “angel of the Lord” makes a convenient veil for gruesome crimes perpetuated by men.]


Bolshevism: From Moses to Lenin
During this exodus they carried along as much stolen booty as they could manage, the Bible reports with satisfaction. It also reports, in no uncertain terms, that the Egyptians were glad to be rid of them (Exodus 12:35-36; Psalms 105:38).”
Exodus 12:35-38 LXX
And the children of Israel did as Moses commanded them, and they asked of the Egyptians articles of silver and gold and apparel. And the Lord gave his people favour in the sight of the Egyptians, and they lent to them; and they spoiled the Egyptians. And the children Israel departed from Ramesses to Socchoth, to the full number of six hundred thousand footmen, even men, besides the baggage. And a great mixed company went up with them, and sheep and oxen and very much cattle.
Psalms 105:38 LXX
Egypt rejoiced at their departing; for the fear of them fell upon them.

The next king, I was told, was a priest of Vulcan, called Sethos. This monarch despised and neglected the warrior class of the Egyptians, as though he did not need their services. Among other indignities which he offered them, he took from them the lands which they had possessed under all the previous kings, consisting of twelve acres of choice land for each warrior.
Afterwards, therefore, when Sanacharib, king of the Arabians and Assyrians, marched his vast army into Egypt, the warriors one and all refused to come to his aid. On this the monarch, greatly distressed, entered into the inner sanctuary, and, before the image of the god, bewailed the fate which impended over him. As he wept he fell asleep, and dreamed that the god came and stood at his side, bidding him be of good cheer, and go boldly forth to meet the Arabian host, which would do him no hurt, as he himself would send those who should help him.
Sethos, then, relying on the dream, collected such of the Egyptians as were willing to follow him, who were none of them warriors, but traders, artisans, and market people; and with these marched to Pelusium, which commands the entrance into Egypt, and there pitched his camp. As the two armies lay here opposite one another, there came in the night, a multitude of field-mice, which devoured all the quivers and bowstrings of the enemy, and ate the thongs by which they managed their shields. Next morning they commenced their fight, and great multitudes fell, as they had no arms with which to defend themselves. There stands to this day in the temple of Vulcan, a stone statue of Sethos, with a mouse in his hand, and an inscription to this effect – “Look on me, and learn to reverence the gods.”
2 Kings 19:35-36 LXX
And it came to pass at night that the angel of the Lord went forth, and smote in the camp of the Assyrians a hundred and eighty-five thousand: and they rose early in the morning, and, behold, these were all dead corpses. And Sennacherim king of the Assyrians departed, and went and returned, and dwelt in Nineve.
Judges 15:4-5 LXX
So [Samson] went out and caught three hundred foxes and tied them tail to tail in pairs. He then fastened a torch to every pair of tails, lit the torches and let the foxes loose in the standing grain of the Philistines. He burned up the shocks and standing grain, together with the vineyards and olive groves.



Alice A. Bailey:
There is no way of solving the racial problem by legislation, segregation, or by the effort to produce national blocs, as in the case in Germany today when she proclaims Germany as the super-race. Such efforts will only produce insuperable barriers. With very few exceptions, there are no pure races. Germany in particular, by its place at the crossroads of Europe, is definitely the fusion of many strains. Tides of emigration, marching armies throughout the centuries, and modern travel have inextricably mixed and fused all the races. It may therefore be assumed that any attempt to isolate a race or to enforce so-called “racial purity” is foredoomed to failure. The only solution of this problem is the basic recognition that all men are brothers; that one blood pours through human veins; that we are all the children of the one Father and that our failure to recognize this fact is simply an indication of man’s stupidity.

Laurency (L5e7):
On Alice A. Bailey’s book The Reappearance of the Christ
2Everywhere the former Christian missionary shines through who could never divest her mind from old Christian fictions and who makes this colour her presentation. This does not inspire confidence in her knowledge, judgement, and exactitude. A.A.B. uses the term “god” in such a way and in such connections as to suggest to the reader familiar with Christian theology that the Christian conception of god is intended.
75On page 81 A.A.B. talks about the “Jewish dispensation” and says that Christos came to bring it to an end. Here we have Christian missionary again, who is still living in the illusory epoch of the Old Testament. There never was a particular Jewish religious epoch. Everything that the foremost representatives of the Jewish people correctly conceived of religion they received through their education in Mesopotamian temples. They never formed a religion of their own, unless by religion you mean the additions they made out of spurious wisdom, presumption, and hatred towards all other nations.

Hitler, Table Talk, October 21, 1941 (Cameron & Stevens):
It’s since St. Paul’s time that the Jews have manifested themselves as a religious community, for until then they were only a racial community. St. Paul was the first man to take account of the possible advantages of using a religion as a means of propaganda.

[Did Bailey understand “you are all brothers” or “children of the Father” to mean what Jesus taught: you are all gods in exile, divinity is an innate quality, etc.? Not exactly. Also, her example of Germany is erroneous. That was mainly a crossroad for Europeans. Her description would have been more suited for Palestine.]

Robert Ley:
Pestilential Miasma of the World
The Jew was earlier concentrated in the Middle East. Since there were still no railroads, steamships, or airplanes, it was the natural center of world commerce, situated between Europe, Asia, and Africa. It was the place where the white man from the cites of the North Sea and the Baltic Sea went to trade with Negroes from Africa and the inhabitants of Asia. Inevitably, a racial swamp developed, formed from the three major and entirely different parts of humanity.
The laws of genetics teach us that nature does not want those of mixed race, tolerating them only if some parts atrophy or become strained. Mestizoes and Mulattos are infertile, and only under exceptional circumstances can cretins bear offspring. The racial swamp that Palestine became had a central position in world finance and commerce. It was the place where Asia, Africa, and Europe met. As a result, the worst type of mixed race developed. Over the course of millennia, Caucasian mountain tribes drove the racial trash into the desert, as Jewish history records, and there sealed them off hermetically. Through biological processes, the mixed race from three continents developed, through incest, into parasites of the first order. There is no doubt that, according to botanic and zoological laws, the Jew is a true and genuine parasite.

Hitler, Memoirs of a Confidant, p.g. 166:
A Volk in the current political sense has ceased to be a racial unit, a racially pure community. The great migrations of world history, the military expeditions, the times of enemy occupation, and also, of course, the admixture that became ever more frequent as the result of international trade relations, have seen to it that all sorts of races and racial mixtures live side by side within the borders of any state.

A general lassitude inclined the minds of all toward the quietude of that amalgamation of doctrines for which the expeditions of Alexander and the more peaceful occurrences that followed, with the establishment in Asia and Africa of many Grecian dynasties and a great number of Grecian colonies, had prepared the way. After the intermingling of different nations, which resulted from the wars of Alexander in three-quarters of the globe, the doctrines of Greece, of Egypt, of Persia, and of India, met and intermingled everywhere. All the barriers that had formerly kept the nations apart, were thrown down; and while the People of the West readily connected their faith with those of the East, those of the Orient hastened to learn the traditions of Rome and the legends of Athens. While the Philosophers of Greece, all (except the disciples of Epicurus) more or less Platonists, seized eagerly upon the beliefs and doctrines of the East,–the Jews and Egyptians, before then the most exclusive of all peoples, yielded to that eclecticism which prevailed among their masters, the Greeks and Romans.

The Egyptians are averse to adopt Greek customs, or, in a word, those of any other nation. This feeling is almost universal among them.

Style, customs, language, are the manifestation of different souls and peoples; and just as these cannot be mixed without a resultant deterioration of their purity, so men, as their embodiment, and to whom they belong organically and spiritually, cannot intermingle.

Acts 17:26
From one blood he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands.


Nikola Tesla:
I have exprest myself in this regard fourteen years ago, when a combination of a few leading governments – a sort of Holy Alliance – was advocated by the late Andrew Carnegie, who may be fairly considered as the father of this idea, having given to it more publicity and impetus than anybody else prior to the efforts of the President. While it can not be denied that such a pact might be of material advantage to some less fortunate peoples, it can not attain the chief object sought. Peace can only come as a natural consequence of universal enlightenment and merging of races, and we are still far from this blissful realization, because few indeed, will admit the reality that God made man in His image in which case all earth men are alike. There is in fact but one race, of many colors. Christ is but one person, yet he is of all people, so why do some people think themselves better than some other people?

Farewell Sermon (alleged)
All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over black nor a black has any superiority over white except by piety and good action. Learn that every Muslim is a brother to every Muslim and that the Muslims constitute one brotherhood. Nothing shall be legitimate to a Muslim which belongs to a fellow Muslim unless it was given freely and willingly. Do not, therefore, do injustice to yourselves.


So the spiritual Master Race of the Jews suffer from training as slaves of people who have impressed on him his historical development: today Jewish leaders and personalities wear the attitudes and gestures of an unfree, oppressed people. In their gestures debased aristocrats often appear more noble than excellent Jews. These shortcomings of Jewry, due to their historical environment will disappear as they undergo development again. The rustic style of Judaism (a main objective of Zionism) is the result of the ghetto, Judaism can be freed of this through a sporting education. That this is possible is shown by the development of American Jewry. Judaism has won actual freedom and power and is gaining consciousness of the same, gradually the consciousness, posture and gesture of a free, powerful people will follow.

Almost all European ethics are rooted in Judaism. All champions of religious or irreligious Christian morality, from Augustine to Rousseau, Kant and Tolstoy, were Jews by choice [Wahljuden] in the spiritual sense; Nietzsche is the only non-Jewish, the only pagan ethicist in Europe.

The Track of the Jew
There has hardly been a more tolerant man, hardly one who was so inclined to blur and deny the individual differences in the character of peoples, than Tolstoy. With endless repetitions he preached (that is, in his letters) the similarity of thought in China, India, Judaea, Europe.
But after he left his airy castle built on the dogma of the equality of men, and observed more closely the works of man, the great man came however to other results. In the study of the New Testament, he reports, he felt like a pearl-fisher who throws his net for precious mussels but draws with them at the same time slime and dirt fr om which he had to first release the former. “And so I found next to a pure Christian spirit an alien dirty Jewish spirit”.

[Thus far, Jewish development has always been obtained at the expense of non-Jews. The Jews can never be corrected through education.]

Laurency (kl1_2):
1The Babylonian “captivity”: The Jews were a tribe of around 40,000 people, the majority being shepherds and robbers who plundered the caravans going between Asia and Africa. To put an end to this intolerable condition, the Babylonians decided to deport them in order to culture them. The Jewish children were brought up in temple schools.
2There was no Jewish nation before the second century B.C.
3Historians do not yet know that the Old Testament is a rehash of what the Jewish youth, educated in Babylonian temples, learnt from the temple archives, duly distorted to the glorification of the Jews. The object was to “create a national culture”, and all means were fair.

Laurency (kl1_2):
1Before the Babylonian Captivity the Jewish people were a group of shepherds and robbers (caravan plunderers). To put an end to the constant assaults, the Babylonian government decided to make a general sweep over the whole country and to carry away the entire people (some ten thousand) to Babylonia in order to civilize them, if possible.
Talented Jewish youths were put into temples to learn, were given access to the archives and permission to make excerpts from the symbolical writings they found there. After their return to Palestine, they reworked the symbols and the symbolic tales into the Old Testament we know. That book is, in other works, a falsification on a gigantic scale.
There is undeniably irony in the fact that this nation, the most physicalistically oriented one, to whom there is nothing superphysical, should appear to posterity as the most religious, thanks to skilful compilations of esoteric writings.

✡Albert Pike:
The religion taught by Moses, which, like the laws of Egypt, enunciated the principle of exclusion, borrowed, at every period of its existence, from all the creeds with which it came in contact. While, by the studies of the learned and wise, it enriched itself with the most admirable principles of the religions of Egypt and Asia,

Bolshevism: From Moses to Lenin
“On the other hand, many passages of apparently lofty stamp have quite a different purpose: namely, they serve as a protective cover. He later recognized this Jewish tactic, but only in the living Hebrews, not in their Bible. ‘The Jews desire to make all their affairs ambiguous, so that nothing about them is really certain,’ he said. If one belabors them for an especially low-minded passage, they can indignantly point at one which is dripping with loving kindness.

Laurency (ps3):
8A few words on the origin of the “Old Testament” to begin with. The Jews were an uncivilized pastoral nation, living to a certain extent by robbery. They had a tribal god, Yahweh, who demanded bloody sacrifices, jealously watching to see that no other gods were also given sacrifices.

The God concept with which Israel began was basically polytheistic (Exodus 20:3). God was limited in power (Exodus 4:24) and local in character (Exodus 18:5; 33:3; 14-16). The most that could be claimed for yahweh was that as a national god he protected his people from neighboring peoples and their gods.

✡Samuel Roth:
The conception of God in the first eleven chapters of Genesis is singularly lofty. After that, it becomes the portrait of an ordinary tribal god; except that in none of the chronicles of tribal gods that have come within my reading range, have I encountered a tribal god as cruel, jealous, lustful, mean, lying, cheating and treacherous as that great little guinea pig the God of Israel.

Yehovah, to the mass of the people, was like the gods of the nations around them, except that he was the peculiar God, first of the family of Abraham, of that of Isaac, and of that of Jacob, and afterward the National God; and, as they believed, more powerful than the other gods of the same nature worshipped by their neighbors–“Who among the Baalim is like unto thee, O Yehovah?”–expressed their whole creed.

Laurency (ps3):
The “captivity” in Babylon was the Jews’ first contact with a more rational world view and with culture. Upon returning to their country they concocted their canonical books. They had learnt that canonical documents were necessary to religious authority. Yahweh was given other attributes, qualities with a cosmic touch.

“The Eternal,” says the Bereshith Rabba to Genesis, “called forth Abraham and his posterity out of the dominion of the stars; by nature, the Israelite was a servant to the stars, and born under their influence, as are the heathen; but by virtue of the law given on Mount Sinai, he became liberated from this degrading servitude.” The Arabs had a similar legend.
The Prophet Amos explicitly asserts that the Israelites, in the desert, worshipped, not Jehovah, but Moloch, or a Star-God, equivalent to Saturn.


Jehovah, or Yahveh, was originally derived from the heaven-god, which, under the title of Moloch, or Baal, was one of the most popular of the Oriental deities (the Sethof or Typhon of the Egyptians, and the Saturn or Cronos of the Greeks).

Laurency (ps3):
By means of historical facts acquired and, partly, their own oral traditions, they constructed a history of the Jews. The writings of their prophets were their own adaptations of what they had picked up from various sources during their captivity. A by no means insignificant portion of it was of remarkable antiquity, excerpts from Atlantean records.

Bolshevism: From Moses to Lenin
“’God’s chosen people’ want to have their own ‘God’s country’ again. Catch that: ‘again’! God’s people and God’s country, neither of which, in reality, ever existed! Every portrayal ridicules for its depravity that general state of affairs which existed for some six hundred years in Palestine, till the Assyrians put an end to the mischief. Can you call that a country? Can’t one accept the Old Testament as the authority on the matter? First we read of the uninterrupted murders and plunderings of the other peoples of Palestine, which, naturally, took many years. Then right up to the last, with the most abominable vileness, one state of anarchy followed another. The pinnacle, the flowering, the glory of Jewish statesmanship, namely, King David, was such a rascal that even the unprecedented villainy of the letter condemning Uriah was not enough for him; on his deathbed he urged his son to murder his old war comrade, Joab. When Cyrus gave the Jews permission to return to Palestine (from their Babylonian ‘captivity’) the overwhelming majority ignored Zion and remained in immeasurably rich Babylonia. Completely content there, they continued their financial speculations and other activities.”

Laurency (ps3):
3For individuals with a repulsive basic tendency of their individual characters it is necessary to have egoistic interests to neutralize their instinctively inflammable hatred, and to have stronger motives the stronger this tendency is.

The Track of the Jew
It is good to differentiate, in the case of the cold intellect of the Jewish personality, between two factors: between rational motivations and those of a more sentimental nature. To the former belong the clear pursuit of personal as well as national interests and the evaluation of these in the entry into the politics of states; to the latter the passion of hatred against other nations that often burns through these calculations.

Hitler, Memoirs of a Confidant, p.g. 83:
We tend to believe too readily that our repugnance to the Jews is one-sided. In nature such things are never one-sided. The Jew has just as little liking for Nordics as is the case in reverse. Except that, as long as he does not have the power, the Jew is smart enough not to let his feelings show. But once he holds power, he no longer makes a secret of his aversion, and his aversion can easily be intensified to the point of fanatical hatred and acts of sadism. At that point his attitude becomes evident to those who were not aware of it before.

The Track of the Jew
Not always was the Jew, as soon as he acquired influence, the cool businessman and politician; often some insatiability thrust him into immoderation and had for himself the most bitter consequences. Less eagerly conducted exploitation and usury, a less emphasised religious and national arrogance would have fully spared him many sorrows; but the Jewish principle of the exploitation of all peoples, as Dostoyevsky, Fichte, Goethe and other greats recognised it, born of the deep aversion to everything non-Jewish, finally made of the apparently cold Jew a passionate hater. This hatred is as old as Judaism itself, and is manifested everywhere according to the direction that is open to it.

The Jew has emancipated himself in a Jewish manner, not only because he has acquired financial power, but also because, through him and also apart from him, money has become a world power and the practical Jewish spirit has become the practical spirit of the Christian nations. The Jews have emancipated themselves insofar as the Christians have become Jews.

Christianity, ethically of Jewish Essenes (John), mentally of Jewish Alexandrians (Philo), was regenerated Judaism. As far as Europe is Christian, it is (in the ethical-spiritual sense) Jewish; as far as Europe is moral, it is Jewish. Almost the whole European ethics is rooted in Judaism.

On the Basis of Morality
It is expressly declared in the Metaphysische Anfanggründe der Tugendlehre, § 16: “A man can have no duties towards any being, except towards his fellowmen;” and then, § 17, we read: “To treat animals cruelly runs counter to the duty of man towards himself; because it deadens the feeling of sympathy for them in their sufferings, and thus weakens a natural tendency which is very serviceable to morality in relation to other men.”
So one is only to have compassion on animals for the sake of practice, and they are as it were the pathological phantom on which to train one’s sympathy with men!
In common with the whole of Asia that is not tainted by Islâm (which is tantamount to Judaism), I regard such tenets as odious and revolting.
Here, once again, we see withal how entirely this philosophical morality, which is, as explained above, only a theological one in disguise, depends in reality on the biblical Ethics. Thus, because Christian morals leave animals out of consideration (of which more later on); therefore in philosophical morals they are of course at once outlawed; they are merely “things,” simply means to ends of any sort; and so they are good for vivisection, for deerstalking, bull-fights, horse-races, etc., and they may be whipped to death as they struggle along with heavy quarry carts.
Shame on such a morality which is worthy of Pariahs, Chandalas and Mlechchas; which fails to recognise the Eternal Reality immanent in everything that has life, and shining forth with inscrutable significance from all eyes that see the sun! This is a morality which knows and values only the precious species that gave it birth; whose characteristic—reason—it makes the condition under which a being may be an object of moral regard.

Philosophical Dictionary: Animals
What a pitiful, what a sorry thing to have said that animals are machines bereft of understanding and feeling, which perform their operations always in the same way, which learn nothing, perfect nothing, etc.! What! that bird which makes its nest in a semi-circle when it is attaching it to a wall, which builds it in a quarter circle when it is in an angle, and in a circle upon a tree; that bird acts always in the same way? That hunting-dog which you have disciplined for three months, does it not know more at the end of this time than it knew before your lessons? Does the canary to which you teach a tune repeat it at once? do you not spend a considerable time in teaching it? have you not seen that it has made a mistake and that it corrects itself? Is it because I speak to you, that you judge that I have feeling, memory, ideas?

Or, to speak more accurately, the average European “atheist” or “materialist,” sub-consciously soaked in Judeo-Christian morals, loves any repulsive human weakling (or human devil) more than he does the most majestic dumb animals of the earth; more than he does the most loveable and beautiful cat or dog or horse, and all the trees of all the forests.. Like the average Christian, he believes that Nature is there for man to exploit to his utmost advantage. And the most abominable forms of that ever intensified exploitation — vivisection; circuses; the fur industry, etc., — do not trouble his moral conscience; at least have never yet troubled it enough for him to cause their suppression.


Laurency (L3e3):
6According to the planetary hierarchy, there is only one way of solving the Jewish problem: The Jews must sacrifice their Jehovah, renounce their separative tendency, and merge in the nations that have opened their arms to receive them.

Laurency (wm1.69):
3The Jews want to return to the country they first conquered and then abandoned. Their “historical mission” is to be assimilated into the nations that have received them, the result being the dissolution of a religion that is abortive because it cannot be ennobled.

Laurency (L3e3):
6An example of karma: The Jewish racial instinct is in direct opposition to the Law. The Jews have chosen to collect all the gold of the earth. They succeed in this. And every time it will be taken from them until they have learnt their lesson.

Mein Kampf:
In Russian Bolshevism we must recognise the kind of attempt which is being made by the Jew in the twentieth century to secure dominion over the world. In other epochs he worked towards the same goal, but with different, though fundamentally similar, means.
The ambition of the Jew is part and parcel of his very nature. Just as no other people would voluntarily check the instinct to increase in numbers or in power, unless forced to do so by external circumstances or senile decay, so the Jew will never, of his own accord, repress his eternal urge and abandon his struggle for world dictatorship. Only external forces can thwart him, or his instinct for world domination will die out with his race.
If nations become impotent or extinct through senility it is because they have failed to preserve their racial purity. The Jews preserve the purity of their blood better than any other people on earth. Thus the Jew pursues his fateful course until he meets another and superior force and after a desperate struggle he who would have stormed the heavens is hurled back once more to the regions of Lucifer.

Goebbels, April 20, 1945:
Once more the armies of the enemy powers storm against our defensive fronts. Behind them is the slavering force of International Jewry that wants no peace until it has reached its satanic goal of world destruction. But its hopes are in vain! As he has done so often before, god will throw Lucifer back into the abyss even as he stands before the gates of power over all the peoples. A man of truly timeless greatness, of unique courage, of a steadfastness that elevates the hearts of some and shakes those of others, will be his tool.

Goebbels, June 5, 1943:
People are increasingly recognizing the work of the Jews around the world. It does them no good to use parliaments and courts to protect their parasitic existence. It will not be long before the whole world cries out against those guilty of causing this terrible drama between nations. We want to be sure that the questions are answered.
In the Fifteenth Protocol of the Elders of Zion it is written: “When the king of the Jews receives the crown upon his holy head that Europe will offer him, he will become the patriarch of the entire world.” The Jews have often been near that triumph, just as they believe they are today. But always before they fell from the heights to the depths. This time too Lucifer will fall. Our Europe will offer them not a crown, but the mailed fist. The Jew will not be the patriarch of the world, rather the leper, the scum, the victim of his own criminal desires, who will break against our strength and our knowledge.

Robert Ley:
The methods and means of the Jew are superstition, starvation, assassination, terror, and the rule of usury, his goal is world domination, and beyond world domination, as Adolf Hitler said, the destruction of the world. We Germans learned enough about starvation as a result of the blockade during the last war.

Hitler’s Letters and Notes, pg. 237-241:

Hunger in peacetime
(Price increases.) through
Stock Exchange and Speculation?
whom does it benefit?
The Jew (Social democracy and misery in peacetime)

Eradication of all nationalist
Racial suicide
Prepared by
mass madness
which can be manufactured
through mass misery – hunger.

Starvation as a weapon
starvation in the service of the Jews.

Destroys physical strength and health
and addles the brain

Systematic starvation of the nation
through inflation.

Bolshevism From Moses to Lenin
The truth is, indeed, as you once wrote: one can only understand the Jew when one knows what his ultimate goal is. And that goal is, beyond world domination, the annihilation of the world. He must wear down all the rest of mankind, he persuades himself, in order to prepare a paradise on earth. He has made himself believe that only he is capable of this great task, and, considering his ideas of paradise, that is certainly so. But one sees, if only in the means which he employs, that he is secretly driven to something else. While he pretends to himself to be elevating mankind, he torments men to despair, to madness, to ruin. If a halt is not ordered, he will destroy all men. His nature compels him to that goal, even though he dimly realizes that he must thereby destroy himself. There is no other way for him; he must act thus. This realization of the unconditional dependence of his own existence upon that of his victims appears to me to be the main cause for his hatred. To be obliged to try and annihilate us with all his might, but at the same time to suspect that that must lead inevitably to his own ruin – therein lies, if you will, the tragedy of Lucifer.

Robert Ley:
Who is the Jew? The Jew is also a product of his drives, and obeys his natural law. The Führer calls this “Lucifer’s tragedy”! That is so! We call destructive elements in nature parasites. They are creatures who can no longer survive on their own, due to the atrophy of their vital organs, such as their lungs, digestive system, reproductive organs, or that cannot move. They are no longer able to secure their own food and digest it, and are therefore dependent on other living plants or animals. They devour their hosts. They fall like locusts on them, suck their life away, destroy them. Their tragedy is that, in doing so, they destroy themselves in the end. Nature always helps. When parasites gain the upper hand, they devour each other. The Jew is such a parasite!


Hitler, Table Talk, August 2, 1941 (Cameron & Stevens):
It’s important that we should shape Germany in such a way that whoever comes to visit us may be cured of his prejudices concerning us. I don’t want to force National Socialism on anybody. If I’m told that some countries want to remain democrats—very well, they must remain democrats at all costs!

Hitler, Table Talk, May 20, 1942 (Cameron & Stevens):
I am firmly opposed to any attempt to export National Socialism. If other countries are determined to preserve their democratic systems and thus rush to their ruin, so much the better for us.

Megabyzus spoke next, and advised the setting up of an oligarchy:- “Let the enemies of the Persians be ruled by democracies; but let us choose out from the citizens a certain number of the worthiest, and put the government into their hands. For thus both we ourselves shall be among the governors, and power being entrusted to the best men, it is likely that the best counsels will prevail in the state.”

What I want to do is re-supply National Socialism with a rescuiated esoteric (made comprehensible) component which I feel has largely fallen into neglect with the untimely demise of it’s leader. This system I propose is not mysticism and does not represent a subversion.

[See the end of section Change on the mysticism subject.]

Hitler, September 6, 1938:
Hence the National Socialist Movement will not tolerate subversion by occult mystics in search of an afterlife. They are not National Socialists but something different, and in any event, they represent something that has nothing to do with us.

Hitler, Table Talk (Cameron & Stevens), November 11, 1941:
I know nothing of the Other World, and I have the honesty to admit it. Other people know more about it than I do, and I’m incapable of proving that they’re mistaken.

Hitler, November 8, 1941:
In the Soviet paradise, the most miserable type of slavery exists that the world has ever seen: millions of frightened, oppressed, neglected people, half-starved! Above them, there is the regime of commissars, ninety percent of whom are of Jewish descent, who control this whole slave state. It will be a great relief for Europe not only if this danger disappears, but also if the fertility of this soil benefits all of Europe. This is a gigantic task posed to us. However, I am so much a materialist that I regard it as far more important than worrying about what religions are predominant in what countries.

Mein Kampf:
As regards the future of the world, it does not matter which of the two triumphs, the Catholic or the Protestant faith, but it does matter whether Aryan humanity survives or perishes. Yet the two Christian denominations are not contending against the destroyer of Aryan humanity, but are trying to destroy one another.

Goebbels (Is It Pagan? speech):
We’re very earthly-minded. It’s not our duty to worry about the afterlife, but rather about this world. We therefore want to clearly distinguish these two spheres from one another. We’re a political party, so we provide a better existence on earth, while the church sees to it that our people go to heaven.

At present, there are a handful of post-WW2 “esoteric” interpretations of National Socialism, such as: Savitri Devi (Hinduism), Miguel Serrano (Gnosticism), Matt Koehl (New Order), pagan sects, etc.

Savitri was undoubtedly the most devoted, yet she mingled National Socialism with Hindu fatalistic expectations (i.e. Kali Yuga, Kalki). Also, oriental conceptions are unsuitable for an Western audience. Unfortunately, she, despite being a Greek, allowed herself to be influenced by the emotionality and mysticism of the Hindus. Savitri was also influenced by Nietzsche and subscribed to his concept of Eternal Return, which is erroneous.

Never mind how bloody the final crash may be! Never mind what old treasures may perish for ever in the redeeming conflagration! The sooner it comes, the better. We are waiting for it — and for the following glory — confident in the divinely established cyclic Law that governs all manifestations of existence in Time: the law of Eternal Return.

Laurency (kr2):
8Herakleitos tried to hint at the eternal uniqueness of everything when he said that you can never descend twice into exactly the same river. This demolishes Nietzsche’s fantasies about the “eternal return” to exactly the same. It is impossible, because everything is unique.

[I make an exception for George Lincoln Rockwell, who was an agnostic. In any case, these systems are generally lacking a firm foundation.]

Laurency (L4e7.11.1):
1To the esoterician it is obvious that Kant also was a dogmaticist and a skeptic (least of all a critic), for he denied knowledge of the “thing in itself” (the matter aspect). His religion within the limits of human knowledge is a manifestation of traditional religiousness as a “substitute” for the lost knowledge of “god”, a psychological need. His analyses are an irremediable confusion which no one has managed to disentangle.

Laurency (L5e1):
The much-vaunted Kant, Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel were no initiates. Kant was the most acute and profound of them.

Hitler, Table Talk (Cameron & Stevens), May 19, 1944:
In the Great Hall of the Linz Library are the busts of Kant, Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, the greatest of our thinkers, in comparison with whom the British, the French and the Americans have nothing to offer. His complete refutation of the teachings which were a heritage from the Middle Ages, and of the dogmatic philosophy of the Church, is the greatest of the services which Kant has rendered to us. It is on the foundation of Kant’s theory of knowledge that Schopenhauer built the edifice of his philosophy, and it is Schopenhauer who annihilated the pragmatism of Hegel. I carried Schopenhauer’s works with me throughout the whole of the first World War. From him I learned a great deal. Schopenhauer’s pessimism, which springs partly, I think, from his own line of philosophical thought and partly from subjective feeling and the experiences of his own personal life, has been far surpassed by Nietzsche.

But this degenerate, barbarous state of philosophy which, in the present day, emboldens every tyro to hold forth at random upon subjects that have puzzled the greatest minds, is precisely a consequence still remaining of the impunity with which thanks to the connivance of our professors of philosophy that audacious scribbler, Hegel, has been allowed to flood the market with his monstrous vagaries and so to pass for the greatest of all philosophers for the last thirty years in Germany. Every one of course now thinks himself entitled to serve up confidently any thing that may happen to come into his sparrow’s brain.
Therefore, as I have said, the gentlemen of the philosophical trade are anxious before all things to obliterate Kant’s philosophy, in order to be able to return to the muddy canal of the old dogmatism and to talk at random to their hearts content upon the favourite subjects which are specially recommended to them: just as if nothing had happened and neither a Kant nor a Critical Philosophy had ever come into the world.1

1. For Kant has disclosed the dreadful truth, that philosophy must be quite a different thing from Jewish mythology. [Add to 3rd ed.]

The Wonders of Life
I agree entirely with the excellent criticism of Kant which Albert Lange gives in his History of Materialism (vol. ii.); but I am unable to follow him when he transfers his idealism from practical to theoretical questions, and urges the erroneous theory of knowledge derived from it in opposition to monism and realism. It is true that, as Lange says:

Kant did not lack the sense for the conception of this intelligible world (as an imaginative world); but his whole education and the period in which his mental life developed prevented him from indulging it. As he was denied the liberty of giving a noble form, free from all medieval distortion, to the vast structure of his ideas, his positive philosophy was never fully developed.

[Kant’s one merit was the attack on the medieval Christian dogma and the shifting of philosophy away from Judeocentrism.]

Laurency (L5e1):
But what is the good of the greatest mental genius without esoteric facts? [Kant] produced nothing but fictions. Fichte was an acute subjectivist who went totally astray. Schelling and Hegel were eclectics who lived on mishmash of the ideas of other men and beyond that produced illusions and fictions.

The great infirmity of the Kantian system at this point – early demonstrated, as I have stated – is confirmation of the beautiful Indian proverb “No lotus without a stem.” The fallacious derivation of the thing in itself is the stem here, yet indeed only the mode of derivation, not the recognition of a thing in itself with respect to the given phenomenon. It was in the latter manner that Fichte misunderstood the issue. He could only do this because it was not a matter of truth for him, but of attention, for the promotion of his personal goals. Accordingly, he was sufficiently bold and thoughtless to deny the thing in itself entirely and to set forth a system in which not merely the formal element in presentation, as with Kant, but also the material element, the whole of its content, was supposedly derived from a priori from the subject.

The Wonders of Life
The great regard which the critical philosophy of Immanuel Kant obtained during the nineteenth century has recently been increased in the various schools of philosophy.
As is known, Kant aflfirmed that only a part of our knowledge is empirical, or a posteriori—that is, derived from experience; and that the rest of our knowledge (as, for instance, mathematical axioms) is a priori—that is to say, reached by the deductions of pure reason, independently of experience. This error led to the further statement that the foundations of science are metaphysical, and that, though man can attain a certain knowledge of phenomena by the innate forms of space and time, he cannot grasp the “thing in itself” that lies behind them. The purely speculative metaphysics which was built up on Kant’s apriorism, and which found its extreme representative in Hegel, came at length to reject the empirical method altogether, and insisted that all knowledge is obtained by pure reason, independently of experience.
Kant’s chief error, which proved so injurious to the whole of subsequent philosophy, lay in the absence of any physiological and phylogenetic base to his theory of knowledge; this was only provided sixty years after his death by Darwin’s reform of the science of evolution, and by the discoveries of cerebral physiologists.

The Riddle of the Universe
We must even grant that this essence of substance becomes more mysterious and enigmatic the deeper we penetrate into the knowledge of its attributes, matter and energy, and the more thoroughly we study its countless phenomenal forms and their evolution. We do not know the “thing in itself” that lies behind these knowable phenomena. But why trouble about this enigmatic “thing in itself” when we have no means of investigating it, when we do not even clearly know whether it exists or not? Let us, then, leave the fruitless brooding over this ideal phantom to the “pure metaphysician,” and let us instead, as “real physicists,” rejoice in the immense progress which has been actually made by our monistic philosophy of nature.

[Of course, Kant, Hegel, and Fichte are not completely without merit… as astute anti-Semitic Germans, they were conscious of the Jewish menace.]

At the high point of philosophical problem solving, we find the Upanishads, Platon and Kant who, in spite of profound differences of approach, arrive at identical answers concerning the ideality of space, time and causality.

Laurency (L4e7.11.1):
2It is often seen that people untutored in philosophy place Kant on the same footing as Platon. In so doing they demonstrate that they have understood neither Platon nor Kant. Platon is an esoterician also when writing exoterically. Kant is a physicalist, which many people seem to have difficulty in realizing. Kant was totally unable to understand Platon. An irremediable lack of clarity about these things still seems to be prevalent among philosophers.

Laurency ():
5To understand Platon, especially his doctrine of ideas and remembrance anew, one must know the Pythagorean world view on which his authorship was based.

Laurency ():
2It is undeniably an art to be able, like Platon, to give the uninitiated even a faint vision of existence using such inadequate material and by hints to show the instinct of life in which direction to search for the truth.
5What Platon wanted was to give people a hint about higher worlds, reincarnation, and consciousness development, without betraying anything of esoterics. Hence the difficulties with which he had to wrestle.
1By consistently putting his views into Sokrates’ mouth Platon avoided the risk of attracting too much attention to himself. The democratic equality complex and envy would not tolerate anyone living raising himself above the crowd. (“If anyone is great among us, let him be great somewhere else.”)
18Writers have the advantage that they can put their words of wisdom into the mouth of another and moreover make somebody duly deride it, so that the sting is taken out which otherwise the moralist always senses to be aimed at himself.

Rosenberg’s assessment of Plato isn’t actually shabby. He does full justice in his tribute to Plato (in Der Mythus, he depicts him as a fighter against decay, it’s unusually compatible with Laurency’s description of Plato), but his assessment of Kant leaves much room to be desired. His assessment of Pythagoras and Herakleitos’ apparent criticism is also very much erroneous:

This near eastern African underworld is revealed most vividly in the historically attested figure of Pythagoras. He is said to have travelled throughout Babylonia and to India. He himself is described as a Pelasgian, and he did in fact practice his mysteries in Asia Minor, joined by ecstatic mystical women. He was unable to gain credence in Greece proper. Aristoteles and Heraclitos referred to him derogatorily, and were plainly resentful of his mathematical cabalism. Aristoteles said that Pythagoras’ fame was based on his appropriation of alien spiritual values. This was also the opinion of Heraclitos, who said that Pythagoras had woven together a false art and charlatanry from various writings. A pretence at universal knowledge, said the Hellenic sage, does not instruct the spirit. So Pythagoras moved to the west, to southern Italy, where, like some ancient blend of Rudolf Steiner and Annie Besant, he set up his school of mysteries complete with priestesses.

[To a superficial gauger of history, even someone enlightened to the Jewish menace, this is how it appeared. It’s worth noting that Hitler did not approve of Rosenberg’s work. Albert Speer’s memoirs, albeit not wholly reliable testimony, confirms this. It’s also worth pointing out that Kant’s condemnation of hylozoism in Metaphysical Foundations is the best proof of his disorientation and Judaization.]

Hitler, Table Talk, April 11, 1942 (Cameron & Stevens):
I must insist that Rosenberg’s “The Myth of the Twentieth Century” is not to be regarded as an expression of the official doctrine of the Party. The moment the book appeared, I deliberately refrained from recognising it as any such thing. In the first place, its title gives a completely false impression. There is, indeed, no question of confronting the conceptions of the nineteenth century with the so-called myth of the twentieth. A National Socialist should affirm that to the myth of the nineteenth century he opposes the faith and science of our times. … It gives me considerable pleasure to realise that the book has been closely studied only by our opponents. Like most of the Gauleiters, I have myself merely glanced cursorily at it. It is in any case written in much too abstruse a style, in my opinion.

[Anyhow, Laurency explained this phenomenon as an attempt to furnish the Greek people with a view of the world and life which was best suited to them.]

Laurency (kl2_1.1):
1In the history of philosophy it is said of Pythagoras that he studied in Egypt and several other countries and acquired his knowledge there. It is quite natural that also 46-selves travel about and visit places where there are esoteric teachers. Interchange is always fruitful. However, such journeys are not undertaken in order to acquire knowledge like the learned do who copy each other and earlier presentations. Pythagoras wanted to examine the various knowledge systems in relation to the respective national characters in order to find the method best suited to Greek mentality. The formulation he gave to esoterics was quite different from earlier presentations.

Laurency (L4e7.6):
1Pythagoras was the first one to formulate a mental system corresponding to the first self’s capacity for right conception of reality, and he realized that the Greeks were particularly suited for this. He was the founder of the Western view of existence starting from the matter aspect as the condition of scientific research.

Laurency (kr1.4):
8Pythagoras realized that the Greeks had the prerequisites for comprehending objective reality, for scientific method, and for systematic thinking. Cultivating the consciousness aspect, as the Orientals do, before the foundation for understanding material reality has been laid, results in subjectivism and in a life of unbridled imagination. It is to Pythagoras we owe most of our fundamental reality concepts, which today’s conceptual analysts (being ignorant of reality) are so busy trying to discard, thereby making a comprehension of reality definitively impossible.
Pythagoras, with his doctrine of monads, and Demokritos, with his exoteric atomic theory, can be considered the first two scientists in the Western sense. They realized that the matter aspect is the necessary basis of a scientific approach. Without this basis there will be no accuracy in exploring the nature of things and their relationships. There are no controllable limits to individual consciousness, but it has a tendency to drown in the ocean of consciousness.

Unsorted (temporary)

Bolshevism: From Moses to Lenin
“My God,” he immediately resumed, “one cannot blame [Luther]. A lot has happened in the last four hundred years. But there is one thing to remember: popular instinct was more alert then than nowadays. All along the line mistrust of the Jews was quite firm. Luther was a man of the people, the son of simple folk. His predilection of many years toward the Jews is a bit misleading; one must take into account a certain naivete, a lack of worldliness, the result of his stay in the cloister. The same rule seems to have applied here as elsewhere: too much studying ruined his vision.

Otto Wagener, Memoirs of a Confidant, p.g. 126:
No doubt this point was one of Hitler’s great weaknesses. He did not see through any scheming–not Göring’s and not others’. He had grown up in too small a world, he had spent too long with people like himself, and he had used his time too exclusively for learning and reading in the scientific and specialized literature to even begin to suspect in life its malevolence, its weaknesses, its falseness, and its devilry. He remained naive about people.

[I think it’d be more accurate to say Hitler remained so completely devoted to the Germanic peoples, that he could not have expected them to act contrary to his wishes. The word ‘naive’, which is defined as a lack of experience/wisdom, doesn’t quite cut it. Hitler was rich in experiences, possessing incredible analytical ability (as seen in his assessment of peoples in Mein Kampf and in his specialty as an orator). Also, his understanding of the Jewish question is almost unsurpassed.]

Hitler, January 27, 1934:
Interview for the writer Hanns Johst on the concept of the ‘Bürger’ (bourgeoisie) published in the “Frankfurter Volksblatt”
National Socialism takes for itself the pure idea from each of these two camps. From the camp of bourgeois tradition, it takes national resolve, and from the materialism of the Marxist dogma living, creative Socialism.
Volksgemeinschaft: that means a community of all productive labor, that means the oneness of all vital interests, that means overcoming bourgeois privatism and the unionized, mechanically organized masses, that means unconditionally equating the individual fate and the nation, the individual and the Volk.

Laurency ():
4If in a nation there are poor people, sick untreated people, abandoned people, then that nation is not a cultural nation. If the people of a nation are ruled by hatred (fear, wrath, contempt), then that nation is not a cultural nation. If a man is valued according to his power, glory, wealth, then there is no national culture.

Hitler, January 18, 1927 speech:
I cannot measure a person’s worth in terms of his wealth or his birth, or things like that. All that means nothing, is not a measure of worth. If today I were to remove a good-for-nothing who is born wealthy I would do the nation no harm, but I would if I removed a craftsman or an intellectual who conscientiously does his duty. The value of a person depends on the value which his labour creates. It is not by his own volition that a person becomes a thinker, musician, great inventor etc. This is not the result of his individual will but rather a higher nature endows him with this disposition at birth. A person may be praised because he is a genius; his abilities are, however, of no importance if he cannot make them serve everyone. He can just as well be a brilliant criminal, good-for-nothing, or as we say in Bavaria, a”Schwabinger”.

We should judge people according to the abilities with which nature has endowed them and which they use for the benefit of the community. This criterion excludes the accidental factor of high or low birth and gives a person the freedom to forge his own reputation. Even the most insignificant person, if he honestly carries out the work he is given so as to serve the national community (Volksgemeinschaft), can be replaced by another, but the community needs his services.

The second criterion of value: People should be measured firstly by the work which
they perform for their nation and secondly by their general character. It is not shouting hurrah but the willingness to subordinate their personal interest to those of the community, to those of the state, to subordinate their ego to the interest of all others which demonstrate their character.

Hitler, Memoirs of a Confidant, p.g. 26:
We National Socialists wish precisely to attract all socialists, even the Communists; we wish to win them over from their international camp to the national one.

Hitler, January 16, 1935 speech:
Sixteen years ago, I began my struggle for Germany with six men; that means my struggle for the German Volk. The number of my followers, to wit, the followers of the National Socialist Movement of the new State, has risen to nearly thirty-nine million since then. Do you think that all these people did not belong to some other party before? No, at one time they were all part of some movement or another. They have been won over to the National Socialist idea with labor and with time. And we will not give up this struggle for the soul of our Volk now.
Therefore, we never ask what an individual was in the past, but what he wants to be today. This is how we have succeeded in dissolving the feuding German parties and formed a true Volksgemeinschaft in which former Communists and adherents of the Center coexist, joined in their mutual struggle for the National Socialist State, the new Reich.

Hitler, May 1, 1937 speech:
It is a miraculous thing that, here in our country, an unknown man was able to step forth from the army of millions of German people, German workers and soldiers, to stand at the fore of the Reich and the nation! Next to me stand German people from every class of life who today are part of the nation’s leadership: former agricultural workers who are now Reichsstatthalters; former metalworkers who are today Gauleiters, etc. Though, mind you, former members of the bourgeoisie and former aristocrats also have their place in this Movement. To us it makes no difference where they come from; what counts is that they are able to work for the benefit of our Volk. That is what matters.

Hitler, October 8, 1935 speech:
Hence we are once more appealing to the Germans. And we are not miserly regarding the outcome of this project. We do not exclude anyone! We are fighting with the Communists here, and we will beat them into the ground if necessary. But should they say, “I’m hungry”- fine, then let them have something to eat. We are not fighting them in order to kill them, but in order to preserve our Volk from madness. But if they come to their senses and return to their Volk, they shall be welcomed with open arms. We rejoice in every person who has found the way to his community. We are just as resolved to defend this community as we are generous in winning over members for this community.

Hitler, November 12, 1944 speech:
The day after the seizure of power, National Socialism, which was the victim of bloody persecution before, treated its political opponents not only in a conciliatory manner, but generously. Countless men who once persecuted me received pensions from me in this state, or were appointed to new and higher offices: the justice minister of a land where I spent thirteen months locked up in a fortress was nonetheless appointed German Reich minister of justice by me. Prussian ministers and Reich ministers who earlier were our cruelest persecutors received from me high pensions of charity although I was not obliged to do so. I felt that it was beneath me to subject Social Democrats to hardship, just because they had opposed me as ministers. Judges who had sentenced us were not hindered in their careers because of this and often were even promoted.

There are two ways to make a revolution. One can fire at the opponent with machine guns until he recognizes the superiority of those who have the machine guns. That is the simplest way. One can also transform a nation through a revolution of the spirit, not destroying the opponent, but winning him over. We National Socialists have gone the second way, and will continue on it. Our first task in this ministry will be to win the whole people for the new state. We want to replace liberal thinking with a sense of community that includes the whole people. Our revolution will never stop.

Hitler, Table Talk, February 20, 1942 (Cameron & Stevens):
A revolution has three main objectives. First of all, it’s a matter of breaking down the partitions between classes, so as to enable every man to rise. Secondly, it’s a matter of creating a standard of living such that the poorest will be assured of a decent existence. Finally, it’s a matter of acting in such a way that the benefits of civilisation become common property.

Memoirs of a Confidant, p.g. 216-218:
We drove to Weimar and there attended a truly first-rate performance of Rienzi. Afterward, as we were sitting in the Elephanten, where Frick and Sauckel had joined us, Hitler said:
“We must strengthen the party even more, we must secure it internally and immunize it, not only against the international forces of destructive communism, but also against reactionary nationalism from the right. This nationalism, which has nothing in common with National Socialism, brings false leaders, false advisers, and false ideas to the surface. And the distance between these false ideas and reactionary subversion is no greater than from the communist ways of thinking to the Bolshevik Revolution. Reactionary overthrow would mean and would have as a precondition a betrayal of us, of our understanding, of our objectives, and thus also of the German Volk. I really am glad to have heard Rienzi again. Because you talked about it yesterday, I paid special attention.”

Hitler, Memoirs of a Confidant, p.g. 319:
The National Socialist movement is the harbinger of the return to the will and mission of nature and the upholder of the socialist idea, and it rejects all Jewish leadership. The reactionaries and the Jews are the enemies of the movement, and thus of the Volk. They think only of winning back–that is, salvaging–their power, of securing their control over capital, and the suppression of the broad masses, keeping them poor and at forced labor. And both enjoy the complacent protection and support of the Christian churches, who see the ultimate success of their mass murders after Christ’s crucifixion and at the time of the Inquisition and the Thirty Years’ War threatened by the definite victory of socialism, which calls for freedom of conscience! Woe if the forces of reaction should succeed in becoming our masters!

The Bormann Letters:

M.B. to G.B.
Fuehrer’s Headquarters


My beloved Mummy-Girl,

The fact that the saying ‘When the need is greatest, God’s help is nearest’ has become a proverb shows how frequently such times of need occur in human existence. But I don’t want to lecture like a schoolmaster. Only one thing more in this connection: we–who are called godless and unbelievers by our reactionary adversaries–we believe in the Fuehrer, we believe that we master Destiny by doing our duty, devotedly, loyally and unshaken in our faith. And the others–Witzleben, Gördeler and accomplices [i.e., the conspirators of 20th July.]–are the unbelievers, the Christians are those weak in faith, those who despair!

The Riddle of the Universe
The discoveries of the nineteenth century in the inorganic world are no less important. Physics has made astounding progress in every section of its province—in optics and acoustics, in magnetism and electricity, in mechanics and thermo-dynamics; and, what is still more important, it has proved the unity of the forces of the entire universe. The mechanical theory of heat has shown how intimately they are connected, and how each can, in certain conditions, transform itself directly into another. Spectral analysis has taught us that the same matter which enters into the composition of all bodies on earth, including its living inhabitants, builds up the rest of the planets, the sun, and the most distant stars. Astro-physics has considerably enlarged our cosmic perspective in revealing to us, in the immeasurable depths of space, millions of circling spheres larger than our earth, and, like it, in endless transformation, in an eternal rhythm of life and death.

Goebbels (Diaries), April 8, 1941:
He admires the Greeks’ courage. Regrets having to fight against them.

Goebbels (Diaries), April 8, 1941:

The Führer is a man totally attuned to antiquity. He hates Christianity, because it has crippled all that is noble in humanity. According to Schopenhauer, Christianity and syphilis have made humanity unhappy and unfree. What a difference between the benevolent, smiling Zeus and the pain-wracked, crucified Christ. The ancient peoples’ view of God was also much nobler and more humane than the Christians’. What a difference between a gloomy cathedral and a light, airy ancient temple. He describes life in ancient Rome: clarity, greatness, monumentality. The most wonderful republic in history. We would feel no disappointment, he believes, if we were now suddenly transported to this old, eternal city. The Führer cannot relate to the Gothic mind. He hates gloom and brooding mysticism. He wants clarity, light, beauty. And these are the ideals of life in our time. In this respect, the Führer is a totally modern man.

Goebbels (Diaries), May 12, 1943:

The Fuehrer spoke very derogatorily about the arrogance of the higher and lower clergy. The insanity of the Christian doctrine of redemption really doesn’t fit at all into our time. Nevertheless there are learned, educated men, occupying high positions in public life, who cling to it with the faith of a child. It is simply incomprehensible how anybody can consider the Christian doctrine of redemption as a guide for the difficult life of today. The Fuehrer cited a number of exceptionally drastic and in part even grotesque examples. The opinionated “sky pilots” of course know exactly how the world is constituted.
Whereas the most learned and wisest scientists struggle for a whole lifetime to study but one of the mysterious laws of nature, a little country priest from Bavaria is in a position to decide this matter on the basis of his religious knowledge. One can regard such a disgusting performance only with disdain. A church that does not keep step with modern scientific knowledge is doomed. It may take quite a while, but it is bound finally to happen. Anybody who is firmly rooted in daily life, and who can only faintly imagine the mystic secrets of nature, will naturally be extremely modest about the universe. The clerics, however, who have not caught a breath of such modesty, evidence a sovereign opinionated attitude toward questions of the universe. . . .

Rosenberg (Diaries), April 9, 1941:

Ich war jetzt jeden Tag zum Mittag b. Führer. Am 7. kamen erste Meldungen von der Süd-Ost-Front: heftige Kämpfe. Der Führer sagt, dass es ihm leid tut, mit den Griechen kämpfen zu müssen, es schwebe doch eine Erinnerung an das alte Hellenentum bei ihm mit. Nie eine Bombe auf Athen! Im Zusammenhang mit der Beurteilung der grandiosen augusteischen Ausstellung in Rom sprach der Führer bewundernd von diesem alten Rom. Wir seien doch bis auf wenige mit Stahl u. Eisen zusammenhängende Dinge nicht viel weiter gekommen. Hygienisch sei Rom weit voraus gewesen. Selbst im Verfall war es noch grossartig u. man kann verstehen, dass die jungen Germanen bei s. Anblick überwältigt waren. Und schliesslich, jedes Zeitalter präge sich seinen Gott seinem Wesen gemäss. Wenn man den hoheitsvollen Kopf von Zeus-Jupiter sehe u. dann den zerquälten Christus, dann ermesse man erst den ganzen Unterschied. Wie frei u. heiter wirkt die Antike gegenüber der Inquisition, den Hexen- u. Ketzerverbrennungen. Erst seit 200 Jahren atme man wieder etwas auf. Es sei schon (nach Schopenhauer?) richtig, die Antike habe zwei Übel nicht gekannt: das Christentum und die Syphylis Siphylis [sic]. – Ich wies darauf hin, dass einige als liberal geltende, aber doch freie Historiker manches doch richtig gesehen hätten: so Burckhardt in s. „Zeit Konstantin des Grossen“, der das Aufkommen der Christen in Rom mutig dargestellt hat.
Der Führer sprach noch des längeren darüber und hoffte auf eine neue freie Zeit grosser Kultur.
Nach d. Essen übergab ich ihm meine Denkschrift N2 über die Ostfragen. Diese war ziemlich umfangreich u. begriff auch schon personelle Vorschläge für den Eventualfall in sich.

Goebbels (Diaries),  (verify)
And the Serbs, like the Greeks, are brave fighters. Worthy of the greatest respect. The Greeks especially are exploiting the ideal defensive terrain well. The captured dugouts are filled with nothing but corpses… London is publicly admitting her long prepared infiltration of Greece. A very good starting point for our propaganda. …The Fuhrer admires the courage of the Greeks in particular. Perhaps there is a streak of the old Hellenic strain in them… Piraeus has been mined. The Fuhrer forbids the bombing of Athens. This is right and noble of him. Rome and Athens are his Meccas. He greatly regrets having to fight the Greeks. If the English had not established themselves there, he would never have gone to the Italians’ aid. It was their affair, and they should have been able to settle it alone.

Rosenberg (Diaries), Jan 19, 1940:

visuellen Schock 1911 im Kloster Ettal, wo unter der Zentralkuppe die Skelette der Heiligen in Glasvitrinen lagen mit goldenen Ringen an den Knochen u. gold. Kronen auf den Schädeln. Das war ein Aschanti-Religions-Eindruck. Das russische Kirchenwesen hätte ich als unverpflichtendes orientalisches Brauchtum m. schönen Gesängen betrachtet. In D. aber diesen Fetischismus glauben zu müssen, sei furchtbar.
Der Führer sprach in ähnlichem Sinne. – Ich meinte, nach 20 Jahren würden manche Ansätze noch deutlicher werden. Der Führer meinte: in 200 Jahren. Ich glaubte, bei absteigender Kurve ginge die Entwicklung oft unerwartet schnell. Probleme, die heute noch 40- u. 50-jährige beschäftigen, machten unserer Jugend keine Sorgen mehr. Deren Kinder werden noch unabhängiger sein. Sicher aber werde einmal ein Mann eine Reformation durchführen. – Nicht aber Hans [sic] Kerrl. Was ein allg. Lächeln hervorrief.
Der Führer sagte, es sei natürlich auch ein harter machtpolitischer Eingriff denkbar; aber nur dann, wenn D. aussenpolitisch vollkommen unabhängig sei. Sonst könnte die doch entbrennende innerpol. Auseinandersetzung uns die Existenz kosten.

Hitler, Table Talk, February 25-26, 1942 (Jochmann):
If we look at the Greeks, who were also Teutons, we find a beauty that is beyond what we have today.

Sehen wir auf die Griechen, die auch Germanen waren, so finden wir eine Schönheit, die doch über dem liegt, was wir heute aufzuweisen haben.

Hitler, December 11, 1941 speech:
There was a time when Europe was that Greek island into which Nordic tribes penetrated in order to light the flame for the first time that has since slowly but steadily begun the invasion of the Persian conquerors, they were not only defending their own homeland, which was Greece, but also that idea that today is called Europe.

Hitler, August 1, 1936 speech:
Address to the members of the International Olympic Committee
The basic principles which are once more evidenced to the world in the Olympic Games are ones of very ancient origin. They have been passed down from that old place of worship where the Games were celebrated for more than a thousand years as an expression of religious sentiment and a demonstration of the competitive spirit of the Greek people.

Hitler, July 10, 1938 speech:
Above all, may the artists appreciate how great the sight and the artistic ability of this Greek named Myron must have been as it reveals itself to our eyes today. How marvelous an achievement of that Greek who created a statue two and a half millenniums ago, a statue the Roman copy of which still elicits stunned admiration on our part.

Hitler, May 4, 1941 speech:
Even today, I believe that I owe it to historical truth to differentiate between the Greek people and their narrow, corrupt class of leaders. Inspired by a king enslaved to England, it had its eye not on fulfilling the tasks of the Greek government, but on appropriating the goals of the British war policy. I sincerely regretted this. For me, as a German whose education as a youth as well as in later life was imbued with a profound admiration for the civilization and art of the country from which the first light of human beauty and dignity emerged, it was very hard and bitter to watch this development without being able to do anything against it.

Hitler, May 4, 1941 speech:
To do justice to history, I am obliged to state that, of the enemies confronting us, the Greek soldier fought with death-defying valor. He surrendered only after further resistance had become impossible and senseless.

Hitler, May 4, 1941 speech:
The figure for the Greek prisoners (eight thousand officers, two hundred ten thousand men) cannot be compared with those or taken at face value because, as far as the Greek army of Macedonia and Epirus is concerned, they were surrounded and forced to surrender in the course of common German and Italian operations. In view of the generally valiant behavior of the Greek soldiers, these prisoners were and are being released immediately.

Hitler, May 4, 1941 speech:
We feel sincere sympathy for the defeated, unfortunate people of Greece. It has become the victim of its king and of a small, blinded group of leaders. However, it has fought so valiantly that its enemies cannot deny it the proper respect.