National Socialism and Christianity are Incompatible

by Martin Bormann (1941)

NATIONAL SOCIALIST and Christian concepts are incompatible. The Christian churches build upon the ignorance of man and strive to keep large portions of the people in ignorance because only in this way can the Christian churches maintain their power. On the other hand, National Socialism is based on scientific foundations. Christianity’s immutable principles, which we laid down almost 2,000 years ago, have increasingly stiffened into life-alien dogmas. National Socialism, however, if it wants to fulfill its historic task, must always guide itself according to the newest data of scientific researches.

The Christian churches have long been aware that exact scientific knowledge poses a threat to their existence. Therefore, by means of such pseudo-sciences as theology, they take great pains to suppress or falsify scientific research. Our National Socialist worldview stands on a much higher level than the concepts of Christianity, which in their essentials have been taken over from Judaism. For this reason, too, we can do without Christianity.

No one would know about Christianity if pastors had not crammed it down his throat in his childhood. The so-called loving God by no means reveals his knowledge of his existence to young people, but amazingly enough, and despite his omnipotence, leaves this to the efforts of a pastor. When, in the future, our youth no longer hear anything about this Christianity, whose doctrines are far below our own, Christianity will automatically disappear.

It is also astonishing that prior to our own era nothing was known to mankind about this Christian God and even since then the great majority of the inhabitants of our Earth have known nothing about Christianity. Because of this, according to the arrogant Christian dogma, they are damned from the outset.

When we National Socialists speak about a belief in God [Gottglaeubigkeit = Non-Christian theism], we do not understand, as do the naïve Christians and their clerical beneficiaries, a manlike being who is sitting around in some corner of the spheres. Rather, we must open the eyes of mankind to the fact that in addition to our own 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 of these bodies in the Universe, in accordance with natural law, is what we call the Almighty or God. The assertion that this world-force can worry about the fate of every individual, of every bacillus on Earth, and that it can be influenced by so-called prayer or other astonishing things, is either based on a suitable dose of naïveté or on outright commercial effrontery.

In contrast, we National Socialists call upon ourselves to live as naturally as possible – that is in keeping with the laws of life. The more thoroughly we know and attend to the laws of nature and life, the more that we adhere to them, the more do we correspond to the will of the Almighty. The deeper our insight into the will of the Almighty, the greater will be our success.

* * *

Source: Martin Kerr

Previous post

July 4th: A Sham and a Lie

Next post

Israeli Baby-Killing Attack on Syrian Civilians Condemned by Russia, International Human Rights Committee


  1. Arvin N. Prebost
    6 July, 2019 at 10:21 am — Reply

    It is a strange phenomenon that the more one looks into the writings of the Bible, the less one is convinced that they are accurate.

    Robert M. Price and Bart Ehrman used to be dedicated believers. They thought that since they had found the truth, that they would plunge into it, entirely, dedicating their lives. What they found dismayed them.

    The one problem I have with the article is this statement: “In contrast, we National Socialists call upon ourselves to live as naturally as possible . . .” This brings to mind the migrants in Europe and America or even some of our own people . . . they appear to think it is perfectly according to nature to use a woman for their own purposes. Their societies seem to have evolved on this principle.

    There is a wonderful story in the Bible about King David taking Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah, to be his wife, after either raping her or having an affair with her (whatever the case). The prophet Nathan condemned David for this, even though it seems to have been a common practice for kings to do whatever they wanted.

    Is this not also according to nature for the strong to have his way with the weak? For a rich and powerful man to take the wife of a man not so powerful or well-to-do? Or even for women to “marry up,” progressively?

    It also seems, throughout history, perfectly natural for the rich to oppress the poor.

    • 6 July, 2019 at 1:58 pm — Reply

      ARVIN N. PREBOST: The one problem I have with the article is this statement: “In contrast, we National Socialists call upon ourselves to live as naturally as possible . . .”

      Rather than putting the ellipsis in that sentence that is problematic for you, the part you omit — “that is in keeping with the laws of life” — explains why compatibility of European man’s living by laws of Nature is superior to living by the Jew’s “pseudo-scientific” biblical law. Surely Mother Nature would approve of how National Socialist men and women regard and treat one another and would reject the Jew’s profane Bible stories.

      Thank you for this piece by Bormann, Mr. Kerr. My favorite line: “No one would know about Christianity if pastors had not crammed it down his throat in his childhood.” This meets the definition of child abuse.

      • Arvin N. Prebost
        6 July, 2019 at 11:03 pm — Reply

        “In contrast, we National Socialists call upon ourselves to live as naturally as possible – that is in keeping with the laws of life.”

        WWW, I don’t know what this means.

        Are some of us to be like a male lion, and have a harem of six or so women? After all, nature designed human males to go about impregnating and spreading their genes, it seems.

        Are we to go about stealing horses or women, or whatever, from other people, just because we can? That is what I understand the ancient Aryans to have done, especially in Persia. Other people have acted in this manner also.

        Are we to be like the Vikings, and go a-viking? That was not so good for England and France.

        I really don’t understand what that phrase means—“. . . live as naturally as possible–that is in keeping with the laws of life.”

        Of course it could also be given a “hippy” interpretation.

        • Travon Martinberg
          7 July, 2019 at 3:03 am — Reply

          It is living in a way that is best for family and race, rather than to fit the civic nation’s fads and norms. This means not supporting a son’s decision to join the military, now that it is wrapped up in politically correct missions or pointless mid-east conflicts (although you can support the weapons-training and networking with other whites there). It means not supporting a daughter’s decision to date a non-white, even if he is a fine person and it pains to see the hurt such rejection creates. It means giving up a career whose bylaws expected integration of diversity and inclusion of those who are clearly alien to whites, for a life as self-sufficient as possible without sacrificing well-being, explained further. It means home-schooling or group-schooling so children receive a proper STEM education without PC versions of history and literature, with only respectful and like-minded, white peers. It means having a larger family than considered in youth, so while enjoying fewer pricey toys, earning priceless experiences from raising more white children. It means acquiring land, preferably arable and adjacent to national forests and fresh water waterways, to offer a degree of self-sufficiency during a “national crisis”, and in more northern climes as climate change dictates. The communities of the Amish, Hutterrites, and Mennonites are interesting in how whites can be part of the land in communal and semi-communal ways. But there shouldn’t be a semitic-based religion as the mission, due to its alien origins, or rejection of modern technology, an Amish policy.

          • Arvin N. Prebost
            7 July, 2019 at 11:38 am

            I agree with all that you have said. Life is messy, and the picadillos of certain individuals (whether in Christianity or National Socialism) are best left to the individuals involved.

        • Clarence Spangle
          10 July, 2019 at 8:37 am — Reply

          Are some of us to be like a male lion, and have a harem of six or so women?

          “The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects

          the aristocratic principle of Nature

          and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength with the mass of numbers and their dead weight. Thus it denies personal worth, contests the significance of folk and race, and thereby withdraws from mankind premise for its existence and culture.”—Mein Kampf
          Aryan men have a divine right to breed . . . much more so than others . . .“the aristocratic principle of Nature.”
          Heil Hitler!

      • Arvin N. Prebost
        7 July, 2019 at 8:20 pm — Reply

        Who can say what NS would have become in Germany if Hitler had won the war; if it became not merely defensive against communism but actually became the supreme assertive philosophy? Can we compare Hitler to the authoritarian Christian fascist leader, Herbert W. Armstrong?

        After Armstrong’s death, the Worldwide Church or God cult splintered into about 300 hostile (to each other) offshoots. The authoritarian Armstrong did not groom, or pick, a good successor to his claims of being “God’s End-time Apostle” who was the shepherd/prophet/final authority of “God’s True Church.”

        Is it possible that NS would have gone the same way, after the death of the Fuehrer?

        There would have been libertine groups, family-oriented groups, ritual groups, occult groups, Catholic groups—all claiming to be the true successors of what the Fuehrer actually believed, and doing what he would have done, if confronted with the new situations.

        Much like the diversity of the Gnostics, who were greatly influenced by the life of Jesus.

        My father, Dr. Maurice Prebost, once paraphrased a Bible verse: “I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep will not know what to think or how to act.” This speaks to the problem of even having a Fuehrer. No one is able to think for themselves.

    • Clarence Spangle
      8 July, 2019 at 9:13 pm — Reply

      Monogamy is a hackneyed tenet of religion, an unnatural order created by zionist churchmen to attach vicarious liabilities in the secular law, to control monarchial successions, as well as to establish ecclesiastic control over female procreativity and individual male posterity… All men are born of a woman, married or not.
      Why not polyandry or polygyny ???
      Nothing is more misogynistic than a male homosexual, not even Islam . . . The Islamists want to control female procreativity just as much as the Christians and Jews, the homosexuals, Marxists, and feminists want to destroy it, especially for Caucasians.
      We can’t afford healthcare for white American children because we need to be bombing somebody else’s for the love of Jesus and Israel.
      “The Germanic inhabitant of the American continent, who has remained racially pure and unmixed, rose to become master of the same; he will remain master as long as he does not fall victim to defilement of the blood.”–Mein Kampf

      • Arvin N. Prebost
        9 July, 2019 at 6:55 pm — Reply

        Clarence, according to the book, “The Naked Ape,” the evolution of monogamy had nothing to do with religion. The author says it had to do with men going hunting. The young men would go hunting for weeks at a time; the older men would stay behind with the women. In order for this to happen, and for the young men to trust the older men with their wives, monogamy had to evolve, or else the tribe would starve because none of the young men would care to leave his wife behind with a pack of Bill Clinton-type lechers.

        • Clarence Spangle
          10 July, 2019 at 8:25 am — Reply

          Lebensborn . . . one word that proves the Jewish lie of monogamy wrong . . .
          “The highest aim of human existence is not preservation of a state, let alone a government, but the preservation of the race.”—Mein Kampf
          Animals do not get married . . . All men are born of a woman, monogamy is a Jewish lie codified into the secular law.

          • Herr Soundso
            15 August, 2019 at 6:35 am

            You seem to believe in the Jewish fables about Lebensborn. Lebensborn were NOT breeding facilities for Aryan Superman, but, originally, facilities situated outside of cities where young women who became pregnant unwanted could carry the child to term and which also arranged the adoption of the child. Later during the war these facilities became popular among the wives of SS-men because they were relatively safe from the allied bombing terror since they were hidden in forests.

            Besides, monogamy does not require one to get married, but to be loyal to one another. And it is definitely not a Jewish lie, since monogamy was already common in Europe long before Jews entered the scene, as, for example, Tacitus tells us in his work “Germania”. Monogamy is the highest form of sexual relationships and all higher civilizations or races, respectively, strictly adhere to it. Only the lesser races are promiscuous or polygamous.

        • Clarence Spangle
          10 July, 2019 at 8:35 am — Reply

          “The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength with the mass of numbers and their dead weight. Thus it denies personal worth, contests the significance of folk and race, and thereby withdraws from mankind premise for its existence and culture.”—Mein Kampf
          Aryan men like me have a divine right to breed . . . it is “the aristocratic principle of Nature.”

  2. Douglas E. Heeren
    6 July, 2019 at 11:48 am — Reply

    AS a practicing Odinist, I can tell you that any religion that doesn’t reflect the ethnicity of it’s followers is false. Christianity is a Jew invented religion or creed meant to enslave the follower. The pagans had no concept of sin, only honor and dishonor. The National Socialist lives his life in an honorable way, not as a slave to rules made of stone by Jews. We Odinists walk with our gods, we do not bow to foreign peoples or their lies.

    • Chris L
      7 July, 2019 at 9:01 am — Reply

      Well said

  3. Holyphonic
    6 July, 2019 at 7:12 pm — Reply

    “…must always guide itself according to the newest data of scientific researches.”

    Yeah…no, sorry. Ironic, that the author is arguing in favor of scientism; a Jewish design that is one of their main weapons in getting us to the dire place we are now. “Science” is mostly infiltrated today by Jews, and the majority of the scientists in the past (like Isaac Newton) were devote Christians. Science today has simply replaced religion because of this idea that society “must” bend to the will of science.

    C.S. Lewis, during the second world war, noted a marked shift in education (thanks to science) that was destroying society. In “The Abolition of Man”, a series of 3 lectures, Lewis pointed out this worrying trend in modern education exemplified in a textbook he called “the green book”. In the green book, the authors reflect on Samuel Coleridge’s diary entry about how he was watching these waterfalls in Scotland. Two groups of tourists passed him. The first group, someone said “that waterfall is sublime!”; the second group, someone said “that waterfall is pretty!” The second group offended Coleridge because he said that the waterfall was BETTER than just “pretty”. But what the authors of the green book argued was that the waterfall is actually MEANINGLESS. It’s just an act of nature, and it has no meaning besides that which you choose to impart on it.

    C.S. Lewis was disturbed by this because in previous times, wisdom and knowledge were considered to be the possession of morally-good behaviors and values. What Lewis argued was that modern education was solely focused on “value-free facts”. This is bad because, in previous times, the question of man was “In this world full of divine purpose and meaning, where do I belong?”, but now it had become “How do I manipulate this meaningless world into accordance with my subjective feelings?”

    For example, what’s more important? What should you go running for if a white baby and a tuna sandwich are falling from the sky at the same time? If you want the “value-free” fact of science, they would tell you that neither is actually objectively more important and that it’s all about what more important to YOU.

    Does that sound like the outlook on that situation a National Socialist should have? No? Well that’s what you get if you “always guide yourself according to the newest data of scientific researches.”

    The Jew has capitalized on this to no end. This is how they’ve so easily encouraged transgenderism, feminism and other such nonsense. It’s how they’ve got so many on board with the “climate change” insanity; after all, “the science is settled”, so it must be true!

    The ACTUAL reasons why Christianity is incompatible with NatSoc are the same reasons Christianity is largely incompatible with all types of ethno-nationalism — it is universally-inclusive and demands greater devotion to the church or idols than to one’s race.

    • 6 July, 2019 at 10:32 pm — Reply

      HOLYPHONIC: [delete sermon] The ACTUAL reasons why Christianity is incompatible with NatSoc are the same reasons Christianity is largely incompatible with all types of ethno-nationalism — it is universally-inclusive and demands greater devotion to the church or idols than to one’s race.

      OK. I can stipulate to that much, and to the inverse.

  4. ElectroMechanicalBear
    8 July, 2019 at 1:07 am — Reply

    I’m not a sophisticated man, and I came to the idea of National Socialism after already having done serious study in the areas of theology/spirituality and coming to a conclusion in my own life. Rather than missing the forest for the trees, I see a richer, truer, and fuller Christianity through the lens of National Socialism than I ever did before, as Christianity taught me to seek the Good, the True, and the Beautiful; and National Socialism elucidates the will to survive, the instinct for health and strength, and the desire for beauty in my own life. Mainstream modern “Christianity” to me seems more a Sunday book club, rather than a lifestyle. Apart from any intellectual reasons I may have for clinging to Christianity, I also have insurmountable emotional barriers to ever rejecting it, as it is my only hope of a reunion with those who were and still are most dear to me.

    • Arvin N. Prebost
      8 July, 2019 at 9:27 am — Reply

      Asatru had a concept of life after death, although they did not dwell on it as much as Christianity because they wanted the focus on this life.

      From what I know of Cosmotheism, and it is not much, it makes no such assurances.

      I think that a convincing amount of psychic research supports the concept, without any religious framework.

      • 8 July, 2019 at 9:31 pm — Reply

        ARVIN N. PREBOST: …From what I know of Cosmotheism, and it is not much, it makes no such assurances [of an afterlife].

        You’ve come to the right place to enlighten yourself about Cosmotheism, Arvin. Write ‘cosmotheism’ in the search block at the upper right corner of this page and a hundred articles will come up that will help you to better understand this reality-grounded belief system. I just did that and on the 11th page of articles about cosmotheism is this one by William Pierce, written for his National Alliance members in 1982:

        Our lives after we die — our “afterlife” — continue on through our people. Only if our people are here to continue on, that is. Our struggle is to see that they do.

        • Arvin N. Prebost
          9 July, 2019 at 11:04 am — Reply

          Thanks, Will. I took a cursory glance, but unfortunately, when I try to scroll down the list, the list disappears!

          I will figure it out when I return from another day working out in the hot sun.

          • 9 July, 2019 at 7:22 pm

            That sux. Not the working in the hot sun part — some heliotherapy, in moderation, is good for us melaninly-challenged palefaces — but that all of those articles about Cosmotheism would disappear like that.

            I was listening the other day to Dr. Pierce’s talk from 42 years ago: “Cosmotheism, Wave of the Future.”

            Amazing stuff. Where did I see someone here a day or so ago equating Cosmotheism with atheism, claiming that both lacked the necessary “spirituality” that Christianity offers? What a crock! Atheists don’t believe in much at all, especially in the other fellows’ spooks.

            Cosmotheists, on the other hand, hold strong beliefs, very strong beliefs, spiritual beliefs — but we’re not talking belief in spooky “spirits,” like imaginary ghosts and angels and devils, but highly intellectual and philosophical beliefs that harmonize with Nature’s eternal laws and comport with scientific observation, common sense, logic and lessons from our people’s history.

            I like this excerpt that shows that Cosmotheist thought among our people is really nothing all that new:

            …Many others are involved because Cosmotheism is an idea whose time has come. I told you before in earlier meetings that we can find partial expressions of Cosmotheism among the writings of the ancients, 25 centuries ago. A great many of the Greek and Roman philosophers understood parts of our truth. The same was true of the pagan philosophers of northern Europe – and also of certain outstanding Christian thinkers in the Middle Ages, despite the fundamental contradictions of Cosmotheism with the teachings of the Church.

            Then in the 18th and 19th centuries there was an enormous outpouring of Cosmotheist feeling. Cosmotheism, or at least one aspect of Cosmotheism, was the underlying idea of the entire Romantic movement in art and literature, from Alexander Pope to Joseph Turner and William Wordsworth. And Cosmotheism is the underlying idea of 20th century science. Today, more and more thinkers, scientific thinkers in particular, are coming to understand that fact and also to give explicit expression to that understanding.

            I pointed out to you in earlier meetings some of the specifically Cosmotheist statements of some of the medieval thinkers and also some of the more modern philosphers: Hegel, Fichte, and others. The more one looks into the matter, the clearer becomes this Cosmotheist thread running through the spiritual and intellectual history of our race.

            Every week I run across more and more examples. Just last Thursday someone sent me this statement by the novelist D.H. Lawrence – and I quote just a part of a longer statement by Lawrence: “We and the cosmos are one. The cosmos is a vast living body, of which we are still parts. The sun is a great heart whose tremors run through our smallest veins. The moon is a great gleaming nerve-center from which we quiver forever… Now all this is literally true, as men knew in the great past, and as they will know again.”

            Hundreds of other Cosmotheist expressions by prominent men during just the last few decades can be found. There can be no doubt that our people down through the ages have been groping for the Cosmotheist truth – and today, more than ever, they are finding it. Tomorrow, it will be the dominant idea in the world.

        • Arvin N. Prebost
          9 July, 2019 at 9:05 pm — Reply

          But, Mr. Williams, does this not mean that Adolf Hitler was a failure since he did not pass on his genes to any offspring?

          Why would this exemplar of Aryan excellence (as indeed he did strive to be, no doubt!) not pass on his genes to someone who could continue his work?

          I am only being forthright in asking this question—the light of truth does not allow cowards to hide in the shadows or under rocks, among the cockroaches!

          • 10 July, 2019 at 7:45 pm

            I’ll defer to an expert in cowardice and cockroaches, or whatever, to answer your question, Arvin. Whether Mr. Hitler fathered children or not, I do not know. The truth is that he was married to a cause and fathered a movement that bought our race some time, lives on today and will live on for centuries to come. A failure? I think not.

            I don’t see what your question has to do with the incompatibility of Christianity with NS, or the compatibility of NS with Cosmotheism.

          • Arvin N. Prebost
            11 July, 2019 at 9:37 am

            I asked the question about Hitler passing on his genetics because of the great loss involved if he did not.

            Is not that what Cosmotheism says that it is ultimately all about?

            As important as this one physical life is, and as important as passing on one’s genes continues to be, I think that Cosmotheism will be a bird that flies with only one wing if it leaves out any possibility of personal survival after death.

            In this materialist aspect of Cosmotheism, it makes a break with the beliefs of our European Ancestors, both Germanic and Celtic. I am talking about our ancestors even before any Christian influences.

          • Herr Soundso
            15 August, 2019 at 7:12 am

            We live on through our children and/or our works. Hitler, as many other great men, apparently did not father any children of his own, but he still lives on through his work. Us talking about him is proof of that!

    • 8 July, 2019 at 11:26 am — Reply

      Good luck reuniting with your dearly departed up in the sky when you die, ELECTROMECHANICALBEAR.

      In your own spiritual journey you may enjoy reading William Gayley Simpson’s struggle from devoted Christian to realist, and Dr. Oliver’s review of Simpson’s magnum opus, here:

    • Torekka
      14 July, 2019 at 6:39 pm — Reply

      To me, Christianity was just believing what was in the Bible. And believing what was in the bible was just like believing in the contents of a history or science book. Once I began to believe in evolution and the big bang, I’m almost not a Christian anymore. I only cling just barely on because it was the only one faith that all Europeans have a connection to.

  5. 8 July, 2019 at 11:08 am — Reply

    When and where is Bormann supposed to have said this?

    It is very impolitic.

    Hitler certainly would not have made a public statement like this. He might have said something like it privately.

  6. dave westerlund
    8 July, 2019 at 4:10 pm — Reply

    So true about NS and religion……

  7. Clarence Spangle
    8 July, 2019 at 8:41 pm — Reply

    “Morality” and any associated ideal is rooted entirely in a presupposition that some higher power defines what is correct for human behavior…
    Progressives, Libertardians, and Cuckservatives all want a theocracy with its own “epistemology,” from either London Jew Karl Marx or from Russian Jew Ayn Rand, both were progenitors of the godless open borders multiculturalism plaguing the West today.
    Mammonism and Bolshevism are Jewish stepsisters.

  8. Arvin N. Prebost
    8 July, 2019 at 9:42 pm — Reply

    How can a godless universe, for lack of a better term, produce a scientist who can then look back on that universe and explain it? If his mind is just the result of atoms blindly colliding with each other, over billions of years? How is he able to, as it were, rise above the universe which produced him, and say, “This is how it happened, this is how I came into being”? How is that kind of consciousness produced, that can then turn around and explain the forces that produced that consciousness? How are atoms going it blindly and without purpose or causation, then able to produce a mind able to see and explain purpose or causation, even to the extent of saying that there is no purpose or causation?

    How can an artist be produced by the same universe, who can point people beyond the evolutionary forces of mere survival, brute competition, and natural sexual indulgence to the higher spiritual values, such as romance and chivalry? How can he use the principles of art to take these brute facts of existence, and then turn them into a sublime and promising higher reality? And why should we even have a concept of a higher reality, if our minds are the result of atoms blindly colliding with each other, over billions or even trillions of years?

    How can that which is produced by blind, random forces then turn back and examine those same blind, random forces and explain them, or make art out of them? How is it that the mote of dust that is blown about, blindly and randomly, by the tornado, can then turn about and look at the tornado, explain it, or make it into art?

    To me, this is where National Socialism (which seems to be, at core, atheistic) and perhaps Cosmotheism fail. They both take no account of spirit, soul, the immaterial part of man.

    The materialists say, this is your late grandfather, this jar of dirt. That is really all he ever was, in essence. The spiritual people say, No, my grandfather simply used that dirt to express himself. He himself is not that dirt. He himself is quite well, at this moment.

    • Clarence Spangle
      9 July, 2019 at 7:28 am — Reply

      Søren Kierkegaard’s Sickness Unto Death can be especially helpful here . . .
      Religion and fantasy are mediums of infinitization essential to scientific discovery… it is how we theorize and extrapolate, it stimulates our imaginations so we can dream.
      I am a Buddhist… Everything is Zen to me… the Hindus say everything is Shunykranti (शून्य क्रांति), nothing to power, or zero revolution… 卐
      For example . . . If the Israelis are “God’s chosen people,” as they say, then God will protect them and doesn’t need the United States to… but, their Golden Calf has Grown up to be a hollow Bronze Bull… It was the Jews who gave the communists their first atomic bomb, so any rational solution to Islam would include a final solution to the Jewish question as well… If the Iranians nuke Israel, the Palestinian filth also dies in the fallout… peace at last… karma is a bitch… 卐
      You see, these people (i.e., the desert cults of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) all believe the same thing… they all believe their weenies come from heaven and that this gives them some sanctified right to be a divine prick playing god over the lives of others (whereas the chief attribute of the atheist is also their own personal desire to play god over the lives of others, same hypocritical Judaic presuppositions wrapped in anti-white secularist dogma).
      Nature is pure war with every man against another, fear of death is the only way to keep the peace, so man is civilized by the threat of violence against him for transgressions upon his neighbor. Nature does not need human permission. Nature does not care. Nature kills everything… There is no ‘world without end’ or eternal earth as the desert cults and green Marxists would have us believe, there is simply nothing to save.

      • Arvin N. Prebost
        9 July, 2019 at 6:59 pm — Reply

        But if there are no distinctions, is it a distinction to make distinctions?

        If only as a token to survival in the material world?

        • Clarence Spangle
          10 July, 2019 at 8:44 am — Reply

          Everything dies.

          • Arvin N. Prebost
            10 July, 2019 at 10:45 am

            That sounds like nihilism. As I read the Dhammapada I do not get the impression at all that Buddha was a nihilist. Do you think so?

        • Clarence Spangle
          12 July, 2019 at 2:14 pm — Reply

          The Dhammapada is irrelevant to me. I’m a Zen Buddhist who practices martial arts daily . . . Buddhism is defined by the user, like the Allfather defines himself.

          “It is not a good fancy,’ said the llama. ‘What profit to kill men?

          ‘Very little – as I know; but if evil men were not now and then slain it would not be a good world for weaponless dreamers.”― Rudyard Kipling, Kim

          • Arvin N. Prebost
            13 July, 2019 at 9:42 am

            The teachers have said that once you realize the Buddha within, you do not need to read the Dhammapada and follow the actual Buddha, because you also are a Buddha.

            But I must say, Buddha Spangle-san, you are the first polygamous buddha that I have encountered.

            Is this the start of a new, modern trend in Buddhism? Has the Dalai Lama weighed in on this innovation?

  9. Martin Kerr
    11 July, 2019 at 4:16 pm — Reply

    Hadding: This short essay was sent by Martin Bormann, as head of the NSDAP chancellery, to the party’s gauleiters in June 1941, as a confidential memorandum. Presumably, it was intended as advance justification for anti-church measures which Bormann had in mind. Somebody in one of the gau offices sent the memo to the churches, who then forwarded it to contacts abroad, where it was published and caused a minor stir in the media.

    Hitler was displeased, and instructed Bormann to rescind the memo, which he did, although without disavowing its contents. On July 31, 1941 – also on Hitler’s command – Bormann issued another circular to the gauleiters telling them that Christian churches were not to be bothered or harassed.

    The contents of Bormann’s essay reflect the views on Christianity which Hitler expressed in his private conversations. (See especially the Table Talk entry for October 14, 1941, midday.) However, one aspect of Hitler’s thought which Bormann overlooked was the Fuehrer’s explicit desire that there was to be no showdown with the churches until after the War was won. As David Irving comments, Bormann thought that he was acting in accordance with Hitler’s wishes, but that he had “jumped the gun.”

    The text of the above post was taken from *Nazi Culture: Intellectual, Cultural and Social Life in the Third* by Jewish academician George Mosse (The Universal Library/Grosset and Dunlap, NY, 1968), pages 244-247. Mosse gives his source as *Kirkliches Jahrbuch fuer die evangelische Kirche in Deutschland, 1933-1934,* pages 470-472.

  10. Maxx
    11 July, 2019 at 8:33 pm — Reply

    Not even Hitler met the condemnation of the Jews that Jesus did.

    Maybe im wrong, but Herr Adolf didnt call jews “liars, murderers and Satans children” its the greatest condemnation in the whole of the bible. There are many angles and contexts to read the bible, in short the bible is a condemnation of the jews. Every body misses this.
    The catholic church is a jewish machination that changes scripture. All warned about in the bible. You are tested in the bible to see if you are paying attention. Fact is ultimately the science of NS failed Germany. The medical science of AH’s jewish doctor, destroyed Hitler and Germany.

    • Clarence Spangle
      13 July, 2019 at 6:45 am — Reply

      Part IV. Of the Kingdom of Darkness
      Chap. xlvii. Of the Benefit that proceedeth from such Darkness, and to Whom it Accrueth
      [1] CICERO maketh honourable mention of one of the Cassii, a severe judge amongst the Romans, for a custom he had in criminal causes, when the testimony of the witnesses was not sufficient, to ask the accusers, cui bono; that is to say, what profit, honour, or other contentment the accused obtained or expected by the fact. For amongst presumptions, there is none that so evidently declareth the author as doth the benefit of the action. By the same rule I intend in this place to examine who they may be that have possessed the people so long in this part of Christendom with these doctrines contrary to the peaceable societies of mankind.
      [2] And first, to this error that the present Church, now militant on earth, is the kingdom of God (that is, the kingdom of glory, or the land of promise; not the kingdom of grace, which is but a promise of the land), are annexed these worldly benefits: first, that the pastors and teachers of the Church are entitled thereby, as God’s public ministers, to a right of governing the Church; and consequently, because the Church and Commonwealth are the same persons, to be rectors and governors of the Commonwealth. By this title it is that the Pope prevailed with the subjects of all Christian princes to believe that to disobey him was to disobey Christ himself; and in all differences between him and other princes (charmed with the word power spiritual) to abandon their lawful sovereigns; which is in effect a universal monarchy over all Christendom. For though they were first invested in the right of being supreme teachers of Christian doctrine, by and under Christian emperors within the limits of the Roman Empire (as is acknowledged by themselves), by the title of Pontifex Maximus, who was an officer subject to the civil state; yet after the Empire was divided and dissolved, it was not hard to obtrude upon the people already subject to them, another title, namely, the right of St. Peter; not only to save entire their pretended power, but also to extend the same over the same Christian provinces, though no more united in the Empire of Rome. This benefit of a universal monarchy, considering the desire of men to bear rule, is a sufficient presumption that the Popes that pretended to it, and for a long time enjoyed it, were the authors of the doctrine by which it was obtained; namely, that the Church now on earth is the kingdom of Christ. For that granted, it must be understood that Christ hath some lieutenant amongst us by whom we are to be told what are his commandments.
      [3] After that certain Churches had renounced this universal power of the Pope, one would expect, in reason, that the civil sovereigns in all those Churches should have recovered so much of it as (before they had unadvisedly let it go) was their own right and in their own hands. And in England it was so in effect; saving that they by whom the kings administered the government of religion, by maintaining their employment to be in God’s right, seemed to usurp, if not a supremacy, yet an independency on the civil power: and they but seemed to usurp it, inasmuch as they acknowledged a right in the king to deprive them of the exercise of their functions at his pleasure.
      [4] But in those places where the presbytery took that office, though many other doctrines of the Church of Rome were forbidden to be taught; yet this doctrine, that the kingdom of Christ is already come, and that it began at the resurrection of our Saviour, was still retained. But cui bono? What profit did they expect from it? The same which the popes expected: to have a sovereign power over the people. For what is it for men to excommunicate their lawful king, but to keep him from all places of God’s public service in his own kingdom; and with force to resist him when he with force endeavoureth to correct them? Or what is it, without authority from the civil sovereign, to excommunicate any person, but to take from him his lawful liberty, that is, to usurp an unlawful power over their brethren? The authors therefore of this darkness in religion are the Roman and the Presbyterian clergy.
      [5] To this head, I refer also all those doctrines that serve them to keep the possession of this spiritual sovereignty after it is gotten. As first, that the Pope, in his public capacity, cannot err. For who is there that, believing this to be true, will not readily obey him in whatsoever he commands?
      [6] Secondly, that all other bishops, in what Commonwealth soever, have not their right, neither immediately from God, nor mediately from their civil sovereigns, but from the Pope, is a doctrine by which there comes to be in every Christian Commonwealth many potent men (for so are Bishops) that have their dependence on the Pope, owe obedience to him, though he be a foreign prince; by which means he is able, as he hath done many times, to raise a civil war against the state that submits not itself to be governed according to his pleasure and interest.
      [7] Thirdly, the exemption of these and of all other priests, and of all monks and friars, from the power of the civil laws. For by this means, there is a great part of every Commonwealth that enjoy the benefit of the laws and are protected by the power of the civil state, which nevertheless pay no part of the public expense; nor are liable to the penalties, as other subjects, due to their crimes; and, consequently, stand not in fear of any man, but the Pope; and adhere to him only, to uphold his universal monarchy.
      [8] Fourthly, the giving to their priests (which is no more in the New Testament but presbyters, that is, elders) the name of sacerdotes, that is, sacrificers, which was the title of the civil sovereign, and his public ministers, amongst the Jews, whilst God was their king. Also, the making the Lord’s Supper a sacrifice serveth to make the people believe the Pope hath the same power over all Christians that Moses and Aaron had over the Jews; that is to say, all power, both civil and ecclesiastical, as the high priest then had.
      [9] Fifthly, the teaching that matrimony is a sacrament giveth to the clergy the judging of the lawfulness of marriages; and thereby, of what children are legitimate; and consequently, of the right of succession to hereditary kingdoms.
      [10] Sixthly, the denial of marriage to priests serveth to assure this power of the Pope over kings. For if a king be a priest, he cannot marry and transmit his kingdom to his posterity; if he be not a priest, then the Pope pretendeth this authority ecclesiastical over him, and over his people.
      [11] Seventhly, from auricular confession they obtain, for the assurance of their power, better intelligence of the designs of princes and great persons in the civil state than these can have of the designs of the state ecclesiastical.
      [12] Eighthly, by the canonization of saints, and declaring who are martyrs, they assure their power in that they induce simple men into an obstinacy against the laws and commands of their civil sovereigns, even to death, if by the Pope’s excommunication they be declared heretics or enemies to the Church; that is, as they interpret it, to the Pope.
      [13] Ninthly, they assure the same, by the power they ascribe to every priest of making Christ; and by the power of ordaining penance, and of remitting and retaining of sins.
      [14] Tenthly, by the doctrine of purgatory, of justification by external works, and of indulgences, the clergy is enriched.
      [15] Eleventhly, by their demonology, and the use of exorcism, and other things appertaining thereto, they keep, or think they keep, the people more in awe of their power.
      [16] Lastly, the metaphysics, ethics, and politics of Aristotle, the frivolous distinctions, barbarous terms, and obscure language of the Schoolmen, taught in the universities (which have been all erected and regulated by the Pope’s authority), serve them to keep these errors from being detected, and to make men mistake the ignis fatuus of vain philosophy for the light of the Gospel.
      [17] To these, if they sufficed not, might be added other of their dark doctrines, the profit whereof redoundeth manifestly to the setting up of an unlawful power over the lawful sovereigns of Christian people; or for the sustaining of the same when it is set up; or to the worldly riches, honour, and authority of those that sustain it. And therefore by the aforesaid rule of cui bono, we may justly pronounce for the authors of all this spiritual darkness, the Pope, and Roman clergy, and all those besides that endeavour to settle in the minds of men this erroneous doctrine, that the Church now on earth is that kingdom of God mentioned in the Old and New Testament.
      [18] But the emperors, and other Christian sovereigns, under whose government these errors and the like encroachments of ecclesiastics upon their office at first crept in, to the disturbance of their possessions and of the tranquillity of their subjects, though they suffered the same for want of foresight of the sequel, and of insight into the designs of their teachers, may nevertheless be esteemed accessaries to their own and the public damage. For without their authority there could at first no seditious doctrine have been publicly preached. I say they might have hindered the same in the beginning: but when the people were once possessed by those spiritual men, there was no human remedy to be applied that any man could invent. And for the remedies that God should provide, who never faileth in His good time to destroy all the machinations of men against the truth, we are to attend His good pleasure that suffereth many times the prosperity of His enemies, together with their ambition, to grow to such a height as the violence thereof openeth the eyes, which the wariness of their predecessors had before sealed up, and makes men by too much grasping let go all, as Peter’s net was broken by the struggling of too great a multitude of fishes; whereas the impatience of those that strive to resist such encroachment, before their subjects’ eyes were opened, did but increase the power they resisted. I do not therefore blame the Emperor Frederick for holding the stirrup to our countryman Pope Adrian; for such was the disposition of his subjects then, as if he had not done it, he was not likely to have succeeded in the empire. But I blame those that, in the beginning, when their power was entire, by suffering such doctrines to be forged in the universities of their own dominions, have held the stirrup to all the succeeding popes, whilst they mounted into the thrones of all Christian sovereigns, to ride and tire both them and their people, at their pleasure.
      [19] But as the inventions of men are woven, so also are they ravelled out; the way is the same, but the order is inverted. The web begins at the first elements of power, which are wisdom, humility, sincerity, and other virtues of the Apostles, whom the people, converted, obeyed out of reverence, not by obligation. Their consciences were free, and their words and actions subject to none but the civil power. Afterwards the presbyters, as the flocks of Christ increased, assembling to consider what they should teach, and thereby obliging themselves to teach nothing against the decrees of their assemblies, made it to be thought the people were thereby obliged to follow their doctrine, and, when they refused, refused to keep them company (that was then called excommunication), not as being infidels, but as being disobedient: and this was the first knot upon their liberty. And the number of presbyters increasing, the presbyters of the chief city or province got themselves an authority over the parochial presbyters, and appropriated to themselves the names of bishops: and this was a second knot on Christian liberty. Lastly, the bishop of Rome, in regard of the Imperial City, took upon him an authority (partly by the wills of the emperors themselves, and by the title of Pontifex Maximus, and at last when the emperors were grown weak, by the privileges of St. Peter) over all other bishops of the Empire: which was the third and last knot, and the whole synthesis and construction of the pontifical power.
      [20] And therefore the analysis or resolution is by the same way, but beginneth with the knot that was last tied; as we may see in the dissolution of the preterpolitical Church government in England. First, the power of the popes was dissolved totally by Queen Elizabeth; and the bishops, who before exercised their functions in right of the Pope, did afterwards exercise the same in right of the Queen and her successors; though by retaining the phrase of jure divino they were thought to demand it by immediate right from God: and so was untied the first knot. After this, the Presbyterians lately in England obtained the putting down of Episcopacy: and so was the second knot dissolved. And almost at the same time, the power was taken also from the Presbyterians: and so we are reduced to the independency of the primitive Christians to follow Paul, or Cephas, or Apollos, every man as he liketh best: which if it be without contention, and without measuring the doctrine of Christ by our affection to the person of his minister (the fault which the Apostle reprehended in the Corinthians), is perhaps the best: first, because there ought to be no power over the consciences of men, but of the word itself, working faith in every one, not always according to the purpose of them that plant and water, but of God Himself, that giveth the increase. And secondly, because it is unreasonable in them, who teach there is such danger in every little error, to require of a man endued with reason of his own to follow the reason of any other man, or of the most voices of many other men, which is little better than to venture his salvation at cross and pile. Nor ought those teachers to be displeased with this loss of their ancient authority: for there is none should know better than they that power is preserved by the same virtues by which it is acquired; that is to say, by wisdom, humility, clearness of doctrine, and sincerity of conversation; and not by suppression of the natural sciences, and of the morality of natural reason; nor by obscure language; nor by arrogating to themselves more knowledge than they make appear; nor by pious frauds; nor by such other faults as in the pastors of God’s Church are not only faults, but also scandals, apt to make men stumble one time or other upon the suppression of their authority.
      [21] But after this doctrine, that the Church now militant is the kingdom of God spoken of in the Old and New Testament, was received in the world, the ambition and canvassing for the offices that belong thereunto, and especially for that great office of being Christ’s lieutenant, and the pomp of them that obtained therein the principal public charges, became by degrees so evident that they lost the inward reverence due to the pastoral function: insomuch as the wisest men of them that had any power in the civil state needed nothing but the authority of their princes to deny them any further obedience. For, from the time that the Bishop of Rome had gotten to be acknowledged for bishop universal, by pretence of succession to St. Peter, their whole hierarchy, or kingdom of darkness, may be compared not unfitly to the kingdom of fairies; that is, to the old wives’ fables in England concerning ghosts and spirits, and the feats they play in the night. And if a man consider the original of this great ecclesiastical dominion, he will easily perceive that the papacy is no other than the ghost of the deceased Roman Empire, sitting crowned upon the grave thereof: for so did the papacy start up on a sudden out of the ruins of that heathen power.
      [22] The language also which they use, both in the churches and in their public acts, being Latin, which is not commonly used by any nation now in the world, what is it but the ghost of the old Roman language?
      [23] The fairies in what nation soever they converse have but one universal king, which some poets of ours call King Oberon; but the Scripture calls Beelzebub, prince of demons. The ecclesiastics likewise, in whose dominions soever they be found, acknowledge but one universal king, the Pope.
      [24] The ecclesiastics are spiritual men and ghostly fathers. The fairies are spirits and ghosts. Fairies and ghosts inhabit darkness, solitudes, and graves. The ecclesiastics walk in obscurity of doctrine, in monasteries, churches, and churchyards.
      [25] The ecclesiastics have their cathedral churches, which, in what town soever they be erected, by virtue of holy water, and certain charms called exorcisms, have the power to make those towns, cities, that is to say, seats of empire. The fairies also have their enchanted castles, and certain gigantic ghosts, that domineer over the regions round about them.
      [26] The fairies are not to be seized on, and brought to answer for the hurt they do. So also the ecclesiastics vanish away from the tribunals of civil justice.
      [27] The ecclesiastics take from young men the use of reason, by certain charms compounded of metaphysics, and miracles, and traditions, and abused Scripture, whereby they are good for nothing else but to execute what they command them. The fairies likewise are said to take young children out of their cradles, and to change them into natural fools, which common people do therefore call elves, and are apt to mischief.
      [28] In what shop or operatory the fairies make their enchantment, the old wives have not determined. But the operatories of the clergy are well enough known to be the universities, that received their discipline from authority pontifical.
      [29] When the fairies are displeased with anybody, they are said to send their elves to pinch them. The ecclesiastics, when they are displeased with any civil state, make also their elves, that is, superstitious, enchanted subjects, to pinch their princes, by preaching sedition; or one prince, enchanted with promises, to pinch another.
      [30] The fairies marry not; but there be amongst them incubi that have copulation with flesh and blood. The priests also marry not.
      [31] The ecclesiastics take the cream of the land, by donations of ignorant men that stand in awe of them, and by tithes: so also it is in the fable of fairies, that they enter into the dairies, and feast upon the cream, which they skim from the milk.
      [32] What kind of money is current in the kingdom of fairies is not recorded in the story. But the ecclesiastics in their receipts accept of the same money that we do; though when they are to make any payment, it is in canonizations, indulgences, and masses.
      [33] To this and such like resemblances between the papacy and the kingdom of fairies may be added this, that as the fairies have no existence but in the fancies of ignorant people, rising from the traditions of old wives or old poets: so the spiritual power of the Pope (without the bounds of his own civil dominion) consisteth only in the fear that seduced people stand in of their excommunications, upon hearing of false miracles, false traditions, and false interpretations of the Scripture.
      [34] It was not therefore a very difficult matter for Henry the Eighth by his exorcism; nor for Queen Elizabeth by hers, to cast them out. But who knows that this spirit of Rome, now gone out, and walking by missions through the dry places of China, Japan, and the Indies, that yield him little fruit, may not return; or rather, an assembly of spirits worse than he enter and inhabit this clean-swept house, and make the end thereof worse than the beginning? For it is not the Roman clergy only that pretends the kingdom of God to be of this world, and thereby to have a power therein, distinct from that of the civil state. And this is all I had a design to say, concerning the doctrine of the POLITICS. Which, when I have reviewed, I shall willingly expose it to the censure of my country.
      Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan: with selected variants from the Latin edition of 1668. Ed. Edwin Curley. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1994.

  11. ElectroMechanicalBear
    12 July, 2019 at 2:27 am — Reply

    I like the comments in reply to mine so far, and after having read them and looked more into cosmotheism, I wonder how it fares against a Kalam Cosmological Argument:

    P1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. – Virtually irrefutable

    P2. The Universe began to exist. – Hard to refute. It’s opponent must show that the Universe is eternal and infinite in the past, directly contradicting everything we know about the conservation of energy, an impending heat-death of the Universe, the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Way too high for me to be able to defeat.

    C. Therefore the Universe has a cause. – Because the Universe had a cause, and the because the Universe contains both time and space, whatever created the Universe must exist outside both time and space. The only thing that could exist outside time and space are abstract objects like the number 7. Not the written representation, not a quantified amount of anything, just the idea. Or, an un-embodied mind.

    I also am fond of the modal ontological argument made by Alvin Plantinga. I liked the reference to Kierkegaard also, The Sickness Unto Death is probably the only book of his I can understand, barely.

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Slander, crude language, incivility, off-topic drift, or remarks that might harm National Vanguard or its users may be edited or deleted, even if unintentional. Comments may be edited for clarity or usage.