Nietzsche and the Origins of Christianity

[Cosmotheist]

Will wrote:

In deprogramming the White Christian from his superstitions and Jewish spookcraft don't attack him, show him something better suited to the character of his racial kinsmen and in tune with the natural world.

Surely we have something in Cosmotheism that is better for our people than worshipping the Jew's tribal god Yahweh.

Were Mr. Nietzsche around today, he'd probably like Cosmotheism. Mr. Hitler probably would, too.

Daniel, Hitler's dim view of Christianity came out in his later writings, as in Secret Conversations, or Table Talk: http://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-Table-Tal ... 944-Roper/

"Deprogramming" the White Christian from his or her false Jewish "superstitions" and "delusions" is not any
easy task because there is an "emotional investment" in such that are immune from any "rational discourse".
Therefore, any attempts to use "reason and logic" against any such irrational and fundamentalist blind faith
is futile. You can't reason someone out of something that someone didn't reason themselves into in the first
place. And people that "identify themselves" with their "irrational beliefs" will always view attacks upon those,
quite irrationally, as just being attacks upon their own person. The same is quite true of all "fundamentalists",
like a "cultural marxist liberal" or a "hard anti-spiritual atheist", as well.

Of course, we do have something better suited to the character of his racial kinsmen
and in tune with the natural world and is better for our people than worshipping
the Jew's tribal god Yahweh and that is Cosmotheism. However, Cosmotheism is a
religion and philosophy that requires actual Personal Integrity, which means both moral
courage and intellectual honesty, or high strength of character. Arete' and self-respect.
These traits are lacking in the vast majority of our people or are latent within most of
them. We can lead horses to water but we can't make them drink if these are not even
"aware" of their own thirst!

Men like Nietzsche and Hitler were such "aware" men but our Cosmotheism itself was
not yet "fully-developed" in their time. Today, our modern sciences are now "proving"
the Whole Truths of Reality that Cosmotheism had "intimations" of for centuries. It
is being "rediscovered" by those of actual Personal Integrity now working today in all
of them.

Best regards,
Cosmotheist

[Will Williams]

I'm not sure about "Secret Conversations" but "Table Talk" wasn't written by Hitler, it was a collection of transcripts of Hiter's private conversations by third party sources. There is some controversy about "Table Talk" because some say that certain lines were added or taken away by the translators. There are a couple of threads about "table talk" and "Zweites buch" on Stormfront regarding whether those two books are authentic or not. There seems to be a mixed opinion about it. So there is somewhat of a controversy. I haven't personally read it but I might in the future, but regardless, those two books were published many years later after Hitler was dead, so there is no way to say for sure whether he would have approved of those books or not. However regardless of what Hitler personally may have thought about Christianity, I think he intened to allow the religion to be adapted to National Socialism or possibly phase it out of existance gradually,

I've had a copy of Hitler's Secret Conversations since around 1990. If Mr. Hitler didn't say those awful things about Christianity in that book, whoever wrote them down for the book sure was right. I like to think what's attributed to AH in HSC came from his mouth and transcribed. Compare the 5-star reviews here with the 1-star ones and you'll get an idea of the controversy surrounding the authenticity of the book: http://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-Table-Tal ... p_asin_lnk I recommend the book as a real eye-opener, even if Martin Bormann wrote every word.

Anyway what Hitler did during his life doesn't necessarily have to be an exact prototype for how things should be done in the future. I just happen to think it might be difficult to get rid of Christianity and replace it with Cosmotheism. I'm not defending either of them I just think new religions seem to take a while to get off the ground and running, or it might take a while to get people to stop following Christianity and start following Cosmotheism.

"Might be difficult?" That's a good one, Daniel.

This topic is about Nietzsche and Christianity, not Hitler, who was certainly influenced by Nietzsche on the subject. Nietzsche said (paraphrasing) that before a new belief system can supplant the old one, the ground must first be cleared of the old one.

Eurocentric Cosmotheism is a most superior belief system for Aryan man than is alien Christianity. Some responsible, independent-minded few will do their level best to spread the noble Cosmotheist message, and demonstrate it's superiority -- though it might be difficult -- because it's necessary to do and is the right thing to do. "Christianity is simply not grounded in reality," Dr. Pierce would say. Who can argue with that statement with a straight face?


Two Men Contemplating the Moon, by Caspar David Friedrich

[Will Williams]

Will wrote:

In deprogramming the White Christian from his superstitions and Jewish spookcraft don't attack him, show him something better suited to the character of his racial kinsmen and in tune with the natural world.

Surely we have something in Cosmotheism that is better for our people than worshipping the Jew's tribal god Yahweh.

Were Mr. Nietzsche around today, he'd probably like Cosmotheism. Mr. Hitler probably would, too.

Daniel, Hitler's dim view of Christianity came out in his later writings, as in Secret Conversations, or Table Talk: http://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-Table-Tal ... 944-Roper/

"Deprogramming" the White Christian from his or her false Jewish "superstitions" and "delusions" is not any
easy task because there is an "emotional investment" in such that are immune from any "rational discourse".
Therefore, any attempts to use "reason and logic" against any such irrational and fundamentalist blind faith
is futile. You can't reason someone out of something that someone didn't reason themselves into in the first
place. And people that "identify themselves" with their "irrational beliefs" will always view attacks upon those,
quite irrationally, as just being attacks upon their own person. The same is quite true of all "fundamentalists",
like a "cultural marxist liberal" or a "hard anti-spiritual atheist", as well.

Of course, we do have something better suited to the character of his racial kinsmen
and in tune with the natural world and is better for our people than worshipping
the Jew's tribal god Yahweh and that is Cosmotheism. However, Cosmotheism is a
religion and philosophy that requires actual Personal Integrity, which means both moral
courage and intellectual honesty, or high strength of character. Arete' and self-respect.
These traits are lacking in the vast majority of our people or are latent within most of
them. We can lead horses to water but we can't make them drink if these are not even
"aware" of their own thirst!

Men like Nietzsche and Hitler were such "aware" men but our Cosmotheism itself was
not yet "fully-developed" in their time. Today, our modern sciences are now "proving"
the Whole Truths of Reality that Cosmotheism had "intimations" of for centuries. It
is being "rediscovered" by those of actual Personal Integrity now working today in all
of them.

Best regards,
Cosmotheist

Excellent points, Cosmotheist. You've hit on the reason we don't try to "convert" or even recruit Bible-believin' Christians. We will build as Dr. Pierce planned all along: with those who are attracted to our values, our truths as we state them, and not with those people who disagree with us and oppose us. There's nothing to be gained by debating scriptures with the superstitious and the gullible. They come our way, we don't go theirs.

[David York]

I've had a copy of Hitler's Secret Conversations since around 1990. If Mr. Hitler didn't say those awful things about Christianity in that book, whoever wrote them down for the book sure was right. I like to think what's attributed to AH in HSC came from his mouth and transcribed. Compare the 5-star reviews here with the 1-star ones and you'll get an idea of the controversy surrounding the authenticity of the book: http://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-Table-Tal ... p_asin_lnk I recommend the book as a real eye-opener, even if Martin Bormann wrote every word.

Well I'd like to believe what he said in those books were true too, but since they weren't written by him first hand we might never know.

"Might be difficult?" That's a good one, Daniel.

This topic is about Nietzsche and Christianity, not Hitler, who was certainly influenced by Nietzsche on the subject. Nietzsche said (paraphrasing) that before a new belief system can supplant the old one, the ground must first be cleared of the old one.

Eurocentric Cosmotheism is a most superior belief system for Aryan man than is alien Christianity. Some responsible, independent-minded few will do their level best to spread the noble Cosmotheist message, and demonstrate it's superiority -- though it might be difficult -- because it's necessary to do and is the right thing to do. "Christianity is simply not grounded in reality," Dr. Pierce would say. Who can argue with that statement with a straight face?


Two Men Contemplating the Moon, by Caspar David Friedrich

Good point , it wasn't about Hitler, but I pointed how Hitler approached the subject of religion in his day. He seems to be about as good a role model as any. But based on what Nietzsche said about Christianity in the article in the OP, I was just trying to argue that what Nietzche said could be summarized as some heavy speculation.

"Christianity is simply not grounded in reality," Dr. Pierce would say. Who can argue with that statement with a straight face?

Well I guess you can argue that nothing is really real. The theory of evolution is a faith based theory as much as Christianity is. I do think I understand the inward force of the creator which Cosmotheism seems to be about. I guess that's really the only thing that is real, our instincts.

[Cosmotheist]

Daniel wrote:

Well I guess you can argue that nothing is really real. The theory of evolution is a faith based theory
as much as Christianity is. I do think I understand the inward force of the creator which Cosmotheism
seems to be about. I guess that's really the only thing that is real, our instincts.

You could argue that "nothing is really real", but, it really wouldn't be very helpful or very useful would it?

The theory of evolution is a "rational faith" based theory unlike Christianity, of which is only a "blind faith"
based and "delusional" religion. The former is the "faith" that the sun will rise today and the latter is that
it won't rise today only because the "Jews" said it won't. That is a very big difference in "faith" is it not?

The "inward force of the Creator" is the "spiritual force" of the Cosmos, as a unified Whole, itself, that's
within everything and everything is within it. That is what Cosmotheism is about, and that this "force"
seeks its own self-realization in a Personal Godhood via upward and conscious evolution. The only thing
that is real is not just our "instincts". The only thing that is real is a non-thing, which is Consciousness,
itself. Both the Universal Consciousness, of which is the Creator, and your own personal consciousness
or the "divine spark", that is within your own self, is alone what is "real".

Best regards,
Cosmotheist

[Will Williams]

I'm not sure about "Secret Conversations" but "Table Talk" wasn't written by Hitler, it was a collection of transcripts of Hiter's private conversations by third party sources. There is some controversy about "Table Talk" because some say that certain lines were added or taken away by the translators. There are a couple of threads about "table talk" and "Zweites buch" on Stormfront regarding whether those two books are authentic or not. There seems to be a mixed opinion about it. So there is somewhat of a controversy. I haven't personally read it but I might in the future...

Like I said, it's worth reading. I don't care one way or the other who wrote it. It validates and enforces what I've come to learn. Large portions of HTT show Mr. Hitler to be Cosmotheistic in his thinking.

For those who are interested in Hitler's Table Talk Carolyn Yeager has been doing a series -- 30 parts so far -- picking apart the book, chapter by chapter, here: http://carolynyeager.net/category/hitle ... our?page=3


Here's what Joshua had to say about HTT:
---
Joshua
April 5, 2014 at 12:18 pm
I’ve read it and I detect no Jewish fingerprints on it. In fact the book is quite a damming indictment against the Jews.

In Mein Kampf Hitler’s take on Jews is more in a contemporary context over the last 300 years. Yet in Table Talk he connects them to their Biblical origins, ties it in with Christianity and illuminates certain revelations about the two I could have never figured out myself.

I have no reason to doubt its authenticity.
---

A couple of trusted friends who know about these things had this to say about Mr. Hitler's supposed Christian beliefs:
---

Robert Campbell:

we should look at what actually transpired in the Reich. Hitler had crosses removed from churches, and replaced them with Swastikas; He took the bible out of schools, and replaced it with Mein Kampf; He had Hitlerjugend meetings scheduled on Sunday, during church hours, and then made the HJ compulsory for all youth. This youth was returning to an authentic Germanic way of life rooted in the Blut und Boden mystique:

"... National Socialism is infinitely more than a mere political creed; the fact is that it is a way of life, a faith in the fullest sense of the word—one could say a religion, however different it may at first appear, from every existing system thus labeled in current speech. Religions are not as easy to uproot as mere political creeds." - Savitri Devi


Joe Pryce:

the answer is most definitely NO--read the table talks (they are definitely authentic). he used to force his christian sidekicks to read the anti-christian addresses of emperor julian apostate. he also states in the conversations that houston stewart chamberlain's claim that christ was an aryan was utterly ridiculous. he also said that bolshevism was christianity without the transcendental tinsel!

[David York]

You could argue that "nothing is really real", but, it really wouldn't be very helpful or very useful would it?

The theory of evolution is a "rational faith" based theory unlike Christianity, of which is only a "blind faith"
based and "delusional" religion. The former is the "faith" that the sun will rise today and the latter is that
it won't rise today only because the "Jews" said it won't. That is a very big difference in "faith" is it not?

The "inward force of the Creator" is the "spiritual force" of the Cosmos, as a unified Whole, itself, that's
within everything and everything is within it. That is what Cosmotheism is about, and that this "force"
seeks its own self-realization in a Personal Godhood via upward and conscious evolution. The only thing
that is real is not just our "instincts". The only thing that is real is a non-thing, which is Consciousness,
itself. Both the Universal Consciousness, of which is the Creator, and your own personal consciousness
or the "divine spark", that is within your own self, is alone what is "real".

Best regards,
Cosmotheist

Francis Yockey said that Darwinism was more easily refuted than proven. He called evolution "scientific mythology" which seeks to explain life's origins just like religious-mythology. Both are irrational. You can't prove evolution. Evolution says that species evolve over millions of years from lower forms of life to higher forms, yet in palaeontological fossil studies, you only find stable species fossils, no transitory fossils. You find sudden appearances of new species which would suggests maybe a genetic mutation theory for the origins of life. But he gives several other refutations of Darwinism and calls it a 19th century idea that life is the product of the environment. He says evolution is a 20th century idea of "ripening" or "fullfiling" of an organism or a species. But in either case the scientific or the religious explanation of the origins of life are both mythologies.

[David York]

Like I said, it's worth reading. I don't care one way or the other who wrote it. It validates and enforces what I've come to learn. Large portions of HTT show Mr. Hitler to be Cosmotheistic in his thinking.

For those who are interested in Hitler's Table Talk Carolyn Yeager has been doing a series -- 30 parts so far -- picking apart the book, chapter by chapter, here: http://carolynyeager.net/category/hitle ... our?page=3

It's not Mr. Hitler's thinking if he didn't write it or say it.

There are two different versions of the original German HTT, one was published by Henry Picker (the guy who transcribed Hitler's words) in 1951, and there was Martin Bormann's version, which was bought in 1948 by Francois Genoud and published in French by Genoud in 1952 and then Genoud's version was published in English in 1953 edited by Trevor-Roper. But the original German version of Bormann's notes weren't published until 1980, and both Picker and Bormann's German notes exclude the passages where Hitler supposedly said that Christianity was a lie and a disease etc.

It's quite possible that the Trevor-Roper version of Table talk is a translation of Francois Genoud himself and not Martin Bormann's original manuscript.

So Hitler may never had said those things about Christianity.

Also there are a couple of things about the Nazi party which would suggest that Hitler wouldn't have said those things.

First there is the 24th principle of the Nazi party from the Twenty Five Points:

24: We demand freedom of religion for all religious denominations within the state so long as they do not endanger its existence or oppose the moral senses of the Germanic race. The Party as such advocates the standpoint of a positive Christianity without binding itself confessionally to any one denomination. It combats the Jewish-materialistic spirit within and around us, and is convinced that a lasting recovery of our nation can only succeed from within on the framework: The good of the state before the good of the individual

And there was also the 1933 Nazi Concordat with the Catholic Church which more or less gave the Catholic church the right to exist within Nazi Germany, and also gave protection to the Catholic educational system. There were 34 terms you can find here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichskonkordat

On April 22, 1933 Hitler said in a meeting with a German Bishop:

I have been attacked because of my handling of the Jewish question. The Catholic Church considered the Jews pestilent for fifteen hundred years, put them in ghettos, etc., because it recognized the Jews for what they were. In the epoch of liberalism the danger was no longer recognized. I am moving back toward the time in which a fifteen-hundred-year-long tradition was implemented. I do not set race over religion, but I recognize the representatives of this race as pestilent for the state and for the Church, and perhaps I am thereby doing Christianity a great service by pushing them out of schools and public functions.

Besides all that Hitler talked about Christianity a lot in Mein Kampf. He was generally against atheists who were atheists soley for the sake of attacking civilization and aspiring for anarchy. He thought that most atheists were in line with the Bolsheviks who wanted to destroy Europe.

Also take a look at this Nazi belt buckle:


It says "God with us". That was the motto on the Nazi military belt buckle.

[Wade Hampton III]

I just happen to think it might be difficult to get rid of Christianity and replace it with Cosmotheism.

I can think of no better reason to get rid of the Christian running dogs than this:

what we have lost

science-hole.jpg (38.76 KiB) Viewed 10435 times

[Cosmotheist]

You could argue that "nothing is really real", but, it really wouldn't be very helpful or very useful would it?

The theory of evolution is a "rational faith" based theory unlike Christianity, of which is only a "blind faith"
based and "delusional" religion. The former is the "faith" that the sun will rise today and the latter is that
it won't rise today only because the "Jews" said it won't. That is a very big difference in "faith" is it not?

The "inward force of the Creator" is the "spiritual force" of the Cosmos, as a unified Whole, itself, that's
within everything and everything is within it. That is what Cosmotheism is about, and that this "force"
seeks its own self-realization in a Personal Godhood via upward and conscious evolution. The only thing
that is real is not just our "instincts". The only thing that is real is a non-thing, which is Consciousness,
itself. Both the Universal Consciousness, of which is the Creator, and your own personal consciousness
or the "divine spark", that is within your own self, is alone what is "real".

Best regards,
Cosmotheist

Francis Yockey said that Darwinism was more easily refuted than proven. He called evolution "scientific mythology" which seeks to explain life's origins just like religious-mythology. Both are irrational. You can't prove evolution. Evolution says that species evolve over millions of years from lower forms of life to higher forms, yet in palaeontological fossil studies, you only find stable species fossils, no transitory fossils. You find sudden appearances of new species which would suggests maybe a genetic mutation theory for the origins of life. But he gives several other refutations of Darwinism and calls it a 19th century idea that life is the product of the environment. He says evolution is a 20th century idea of "ripening" or "fullfiling" of an organism or a species. But in either case the scientific or the religious explanation of the origins of life are both mythologies.

If so, then Francis Yockey really didn't know all that much about "Darwinism nor evolution nor even mythology",
thereby.

A Review of Imperium by the GLF has this to say about Francis Yockey's criticism of Darwinism:

"There is much in Imperium which can be easily misinterpreted. There is something for everyone to agree with.
And there is something for everyone to disagree with. This is a distinguishing characteristic of every truly vital
and revolutionary departure.

Yockey's criticism of Darwinism is an example of the first possibility, and it should be borne in mind that he is speaking of journalistic Darwinism, not the theory of evolution. A related point is his usage of the word, race. It would have added to clarity if another word, such as nobility, was used to describe those who feel the Imperative of the Age, for the genetic interpretation of race is a necessary, useful and valid one if we are to see all of our problems clearly and accurately. Also, Yockey cites some tests of doubtful validity when he asserts that children of immigrants into America are quite different in anthropological measurements than their parents. There is no doubt some truth to this; there are bodily differences caused by food and climate, but such conclusions can be carried into the realm of Lysenkoism unless great caution is used. Troyfim Lysenko is the Russian communist quack and high priest who "proved" through his hocus-pocus that environment and not heredity creates the man. Such a theory is the basic fallacy upon which the entire communist theory of man rests, though few people realize this. But heredity is a matter of genes and genes never change except through mutation unless genes of one type (race) are mixed with genes of another type (race). One of the best books on the subject to appear recently is Dr. Conway Zirkle's Evolution, Marxian Biology and the Social Scene. Evolution, biology and genetic inheritance must be treated as matters of life-facts, and any theory for the future has to accept them."

Evolution is a proven scientific fact, based upon "rational-faith", and it is quite unlike the false and the delusional
and the "blind-faith based" religious mythologies, that Yockey so "falsely conflates". Darwinism alone can't explain
how evolution works, completely, but that is what any "scientific discovery" is all about and of which is very much
different than just "rationalizing backwards" from any "false premises" that are "blind-faith based" and solely upon
"unreliable Jewish sources".

Best regards,
Cosmotheism