Hitler's
Bible: How Taylor
Swift is a Secret Nazi
Atheists
are dumbfucks who can't understand that their whole sense of morals
is completely grounded in the Bible and Christ. If anything, what
Hitler did was trying to bring the natural hierarchy and supremacy of
the genes back, but atheists and secular people reject it as if he
was wrong in the scientific sense with no basis on facts whatsoever,
but Hitler was ultimately right if you take science as the real
truth.
Secular
morals are as irrational as the New testament itself.
The
Nazi emphasis on the unity of the human and the natural had more in
common with the paganism of the ancient Greeks and Romans, than with
the modern, Biblically influenced separation of the human realm and
the natural realm. The contrast between Biblical and Greek views was
illustrated by the medieval Jewish philosopher Maimonides in a
commentary on Aristotle:
"According
to him, there is no difference between the fall of the leaf and the
fall of the stone, on the one hand, or the drowning of the excellent
and superior men that were on board the ship, on the other.
Similarly, he does not differentiate between an ox that defecates
upon a host of ants so that they die, or a building whose foundation
are shaken upon all the people at their prayers who are found in it
so that they die. And there is no difference, according to him,
between a cat coming across a mouse and devouring it or a spider
devouring a fly, on the one hand, or a ravenous lion meeting a
prophet and devouring him, on the other."
The
idea that humans are privileged above nature underlies the modern
premise of human rights. It is the idea that each human life should
be valued as a political constant, and not as a political variable.
It is undergirded by the assumption that conscience should put breaks
on a complete abandonment of human beings to the vicissitudes of the
natural world, i.e. natural selection. The original idea of human
rights was built upon an assumption of mind/body dualism; a double
standard between “humanity” and the larger natural or physical
world.
The
Biblically inspired, modern rule of so-called “equality” is the
actually the assertion of certain kind of superiority. The “rule of
law” is actually an assertion of being above the law.
Egalitarianism assumes human superiority over biological nature and
the “rule of law” assumes rule over and above sociobiological
“law”. These modern ideas are analogous to, and inspired by,
generalized Biblical principles of God’s law reigning over and
above man’s law.
The
fundamental alternative to the rational subordination of
biology-based naturalism is embodied in political movements such as
Nazism. Sombart ultimately embraced this alternative in joining the
Nazi party. Judaism is an attempt to lead Jews to an ideal of
civilization over Kultur that culminates in the ideal of the total
rational overcoming of the genes: God. The Nazis, by contrast,
followed Nietzsche in rejecting the Biblical roots of the
Enlightenment’s own project of pacifying, harnessing, and
rationalizing the most powerful raw energies of the human animal.
Hitler’s
morality was not based on traditional Judeo-Christian ethics nor
Kant’s categorical imperative, but was rather a complete
repudiation of them. Instead, Hitler embraced an evolutionary ethic
that made Darwinian fitness and health the only criteria for moral
standards. The Darwinian struggle for existence, especially the
struggle between different races, became the sole arbiter for
morality.
The
Biblical account of creation appears to be utterly false as science.
While Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection may
demonstrate what man is, it is not a specific prescription for what
man ought to be. The Bible represents the exact opposite first
principles.
The
Biblical account of creation, false as science, is actually a
gargantuan assertion of the primacy of the ought over the is.
Creation asserts the valuation of the ought over the is as the
Bible’s first principle. The distinctive emphasis on ethics in
Biblical monotheism is not separate, but rather, a coherent corollary
of the assertion that God ought to be. God, in the strictest
empirical view is not, at the moment that I write this, but the
monotheism is built on an original belief that God should be. If
humans are slaves to what is, then humans are slaves to the genes.
If, however, the ought is our first principle, we take a step towards
overcoming our genes, which is identical to a step towards the mind
of God.
The
creation story is a gargantuan assertion of the ought over the is
that makes the ought the first principle of a godly way of life. This
is how the empirical question of God’s existence is related to the
ethical dictates characteristic of the Bible: by rejecting the is of
instinctive impulses in favor of the ought of God-like ethics, one is
taking a step towards the ultimate ought; that God should exist. By
valuing the higher ought rather than what is, one is affecting the
world in ways that may help bring God into existence. The science
fiction of the Bible is, in part, the story of what God and man ought
to do to create a world in which God’s presence is.
On
a superficial level, the conflict between Biblical creationism and
the Darwin’s theory of evolution can be looked at as a purely
empirical question; a question of what is rather than what ought to
be. On closer examination, however, the conflict is much deeper than
a clash of two happenstance theories of human origins because the
Bible is, in part, an instruction manual for weaning humans away from
the supremacy of the genes. Biblical creation represents the
Neolithic invention of civilization and the Bible itself is the
beginning of the rule of a form of civilization over the instinctual,
biological nature of humans.
The
Neolithic revolution was an agricultural revolution. It marked a
transition from hunting and gathering to agricultural settlements
through the domestication of plants and animals, the rise of
settlements into villages and towns, and finally, early urbanization.
The Biblical story of Cain (representing farming) and Abel
(representing the domestication of animals) does not correspond to
two fundamentally different stages of civilizacional evolution. Cain
and Abel are brothers; brothers of the Neolithic Revolution.
Abel
can be seen a representative of the Neolithic revolution for whom the
domestication of nonhuman animal nature was also accompanied by the
domestication of his own animal nature. Cain, however, moved one step
towards the progress of civilization as a farmer and then one step
backwards towards a more ancient biological method of evolutionary
progress. Cain’s murder of Abel could be viewed as the embodiment
of the primary mechanism of evolutionary progress by biological
selection. From a Darwinian perspective, survival is success. If
killers such as Cain kill all non-killers such as Abel, then
Darwinian selection will favor the killer in the sense that only the
killers will to survive to pass on their genes. The biological form
of evolution thus tends to breed warriors and soldiers as its peak
ideal warriors and soldiers are killers.
The
story of Romulus and Remus, the traditional mythological founders of
ancient Rome, illustrate a kind of morality tale that is precisely
the opposite of Cain and Abel. In this pagan foundation myth, Romulus
kills Remus. With that bloody act, he became the conquering hero who
created the Roman empire: a model for all future Romans to aspire. In
the difference between Rome’s veneration of Romulus’s slaying of
Remus, and God’s horror at Cain’s murder of Abel, one can see the
root of the ultimate incompatibility of Caesar and Christ.
Cain
is favored by evolution by natural selection in the sense that he, as
the survivor, is in a position to breed more of his own kind. If Cain
represents a human with a genetic inclination for homicidal behavior,
then a world where Cain kills Abel is a world populated with the
genetic mark of Cain. It is a world in which the four billion year
old methods of biological evolution through natural selection win out
until killers such as Cain and Romulus form the world’s highest
Caesarian ideals.
In
Cain’s metaphorical killing of Abel, one can discern a foundational
Biblical pattern. There are two competing kinds of evolutionary
progress implicit here and God, in effect, renders judgment on the
side of the evolutionary future. God, more specifically, tends to
take the side of behaviors that ultimate devalue biological evolution
while looking favorably on behaviors that ultimately cultivate
civilizational (technological) evolution. Ultimate progress towards
civilizational evolution is measured by the extent to which man
himself has mastered his own nature.
Doesn't
matter what he said, but what he did, so none of these nullify the
ideological Weltanschauung he built and of course he was paradoxal,
everyone is paradoxal at a certain level. Life is a paradox.
If
the Nazis, for example, were to consistently live their apparent
philosophy that only the strong should be allowed to survive, then
along with their euthanasia programs that killed or sterilized the
handicapped and mentally retarded members of their own race, they
should also have killed all Aryan children who failed to pass a
certain threshold of mental or physical capacity. Newborn babies,
being the weakest, would be first in line for extermination. To do so
consistently would lead to the extinction of their race. In
consequence, the Nazis could not fully realize the principle that
only the strong should survive without advocating a program of racial
self-destruction.
A
Nazi, therefore, must refrain from eugenic pruning in the case of
babies. Nazis must preserve weak and vulnerable Aryan children to be
Nazis. An exception of “compassion” must be made so that these
weaklings are actively strengthened. If a Nazi does not love his
children, then the whole kinship chain is broken.
This
is the Hamilton's green beard theory of selfish altruism, the nazis
saw the Jews as something outside of their race, why would the German
genes favor the Semitic genes of the Jews even if they were superior?
The genes are programmed to favor the genes that are their copies.
People with green beard will want to favor others with green beards
over other people because this is a phenotypic manifestation of the
genes, doesn't matter who is superior or not. The race trying to
protect itself will always claim some sort of superiority for the
memes to align with the will of the genes.
He
cared about fitness, but the fitness of Germans OVER Jews, of green
bearded OVER black-bearded, of blonde haired blue eyes OVER others.
It wasn't because they were superior, but because they would make
themselves superior through killing and the elimination of Jews.
Darwinism doesn't see superiors, it only see the SURVIVORS and the
SURVIVORS are the ultimate superiors in NATURAL terms, that's what
the Germans WANTED to achieve. Superiority is when the LAST is
standing.
All
what truly matters in biology and proved by Hamilton is that one must
defend one's genes and that is what truly matters, so scientifically
speaking, one must defend their children, siblings, relatives and
tribe OVER others because they share your genes and that is what
Hitler did, he expelled the outsider genes "stealing" and
"plundering" the genes of HIS tribe and that's what drove
Hitler mad. Germany's land and resources belonged to Germans and not
aliens like the jews or other races and to finish the threat, he
would need to eliminate any future opposition or any ideologies that
took germans out of their natural path to spread their genes.
His
doings (not his sayings) proved to be destructive to the Germans. He
cared about Aryans (whatever they may be, we dont' know). If Hitler
had just been a German nationalist who wanted to rule over Germans—if
he was just an authoritarian who wanted to have a strong state—the
Holocaust could not have happened. The Holocaust could happen because
he was neither of those things. He wasn’t really a nationalist. He
was a kind of racial anarchist who thought that the only good in the
world was for races to compete, and so he thought that the Germans
would probably win in a racial competition, but he wasn’t sure. And
as far as he was concerned, if the Germans lost, that was also
alright. He thought the Aryan traits are the work of nature and by
allowing the "free market of race struggle", the result
would be victory of the Aryan race. And that’s just not a view that
a nationalist can hold. I think a nationalist cannot sacrifice his
entire people on the altar of the idea that there has to be racial
competition, which is what Hitler did, and that’s what made him
different from a Romanian nationalist, or a Hungarian nationalist, or
what have you. At the end of the war, Hitler said, ‘Well the
Germans lost, that just shows the Russians are stronger. So be it.
That’s the verdict of nature.’
No.
It is not. And you mention St. Augustine, one of the guys responsible
for finally closing the discussion on which books are canonical.
Ironic. The Bible is the only canonical book of Christianity for both
Catholics and Protestants alike. You're confusing authoritative with
canonical. The City of God is not a canonical work, it's an
authoritative work. It's not a book divinely inspired (only the Bible
is divinely inspired, hence the only canonical one), it's a
theological work written by an Apostolic authority, in this case,
Augustine. What the Protestants reject is the Catholic idea of
Apostolic authority and Church's infallibility. It was never a
discussion if the stuff written by church doctors are canon, because
nobody was saying they're canon in the first place.
The
most important thing you can do for the white race is keep your own
life in order. Start with yourself. You must be competent, reliable,
hardworking, and, above all, happy. Do people in your life trust and
respect you? What does your family think of you? Are you capable of
raising children? Racial politics doesn't have to be the only factor
of your life. And if you can't achieve such things for your self,
then the chances are very high that you are not ready to be a
political activist, either online or in real life. Because how can
you make a difference for the race, for the lives of many, if you
can't even make anything of your own, individual life? How can you
make a real difference in society, when the greatest extent of your
capacity is to be out-organized by jews on social media?
Always
remember: we live in first world countries and have opportunity that
most people born on this planet do not. Things aren't as good for us
as they were for our parents. But billions of people in the third
world would still kill to have the opportunities that you do right
now. So take care of yourself! Work your ass off, every day, to build
a good life for you, and for your family. Clear your mind of self
destructive thoughts, and keep yourself focused on realistic goals.
Work hard, but also do fun and wholesome things with real people in
real life. That is very important. Nothing on the internet should
ever take away from your real life
Taylor
swift is a roastie Illuminati puppet whore!
