NATURE AND GOD
Thank you for publishing my correspondence in the
latest ESA, also for a fair if slightly inaccurate account of my religious stance on the front page.
I have no fundamental quarrel with atheism except to say I'm personally more inclined to agnosticism and
pantheism. In other words my outlook isn't based so much on a hostility to God but rather a feeling that he is beyond our
If he did exist it would be arrogant for us as individuals
to claim knowledge of him and thereby use that knowledge to tell others how to lead their lives. This is where I differ from
Islam and Christianity.
Whilst I have an affection for our Christian cultural
inheritance and a respect for Islamic culture, I can't see that either religion is any more than a form of social control.
I believe that a religion is only as good as those who adhere to it and the
higher the racial type the better the religion.
For example, the 'happy clappy',
Negro has found his metier in a type of evangelism. The Middle Easterner on the other hand needs to keep order with the more
authoritarian, 'off with their heads' approach of Islam. That's why you were quite right in saying that I don't think Islam,
for all its finer points (in the Sufi religion for example), is quite suited to White/Aryan religiosity.
Our approach is to find enlightenment through Nature and thus through Science. Because Nature is a vast system
of checks and balances I see it as a wholeness and to this extent might describe myself as a pantheist.
It's through our sense of humility when listening to great music or contemplating the stars on a clear night
that we transcend our miserable little egos and understand our place in the greater reality of evolution.
Well to come down from the stars for a moment, I'm thinking of writing an article for 'Western Spring' over
the next couple of weeks and wondered, if the occasion should arise, whether we might use your cartoon of the Cenotaph Armistice
parade to make much the same political point?
[The Editor replies: Many thanks for this, Michael. Always a pleasure to receive your
opinion in your inimitable style. Permit me to respond politely.
Let us begin on the
subject of God and your opinion that God is “beyond our comprehension”. You use this to question any belief in
the very existence of God but others use it to affirm the true nature of God. The latter is the view of both Muslims and Christians
but more so with Muslims because they disdain any pictorial representations. I recall the line of a hymn sung at school morning
assemblies: “Immortal, invisible, God only wise”. An all-powerful supernatural entity, greater than all of us,
is beyond our grasp in terms of knowing Him in the way we understand our fellow humans. We should not even attempt to understand
God’s existence but simply have faith. It is often a mistake on the part of some Christians that human attributes are
accorded to Him. The Church, over the centuries, is largely responsible for this error and it continues to be the case. To
the true mystic, He can never be pinned down and analysed in order to see how He works as if he were a car’s engine
and then put back together again. You either feel He exists or you do not. That is why He is beyond your comprehension, Michael.
You do not feel God.
You are without God, Michael, as your scepticism proves. You are therefore
an atheist by the simplest definition ... without God. Agnosticism is a half-way house for those who do not wish to be known
as atheists but the fact remains that you are either with God or you are without God. There is no sitting on a fence dithering.
There are no alternatives to non-belief.
With all due respects, your affection for “our
Christian cultural inheritance” is sadly misplaced because Christianity is a religion with all the supernatural experience
associated with it. It is much more than an identity based on culture, as is the same with Islam. Organisations like Christian
Identity bear little resemblance to the teachings of Christ but are far more concerned with claiming to be the true Israelites,
regarding Muslims as cousins and the rest of the dark races being “mud people”. Violently anti-Jewish and white
supremacist. It used to be called British Israelitism but was hi-jacked by the Americans and then sent back here as Christian
Identity with a strong whiff of armed white militias.
Some people have told me they are “cultural
Christians”, which is to say they don’t believe in the religious doctrines nor even God. They identify as Christians
for the purpose of opposing Islam and other religions they don’t like. In other words, they are using nominal religion
for purely political purposes. This is further disguised by being ’cultural’. Cultural Christians exist in the
far right Islamophobic movements. Godless and hate-filled.
You say you can not see religion
being anything other than social control. This means you totally miss the point of religiosity and its meaning to the individual
believer. I am a believer but I am probably one of the most rebellious when it comes to the state and all the machinery of
social control. My definition of the state differs very little to that of Karl Marx, for example. It is the organisation of
a ruling class for the purposes of the suppression of all other classes. Oh, yes, I believe in class because our society is
still riddled with it and is therefore something from which you can not escape or wish away. I am of the working class and
my deep knowledge of English social history affirms my class consciousness.
are claiming that the worth or value of a religion is directly correlated to what you consider to be a ‘higher
racial type’. In the last issue of this publication I published an article demonstrating that Islam offers a higher
moral challenge to the West’s secular liberalism and its system of debt slavery. It is not biological but entirely moral.
You don’t describe the perfect religion for your ‘higher racial type’, which I presume is a tall blond beast
with blue eyes ... your Nordic superman. The logical conclusion would be an interpretation of pagan Odinism.
do not believe your Nordic is a higher type. I do not believe the worth of a people is determined by their physical appearance.
you are really a National Socialist, behind your cover as a racial socialist, and an admirer of Third Reich racial theories,
it is entirely appropriate to remind you of a speech that Hitler made at the 1933 Nuremberg Parteitag. He said, “ We
do not conclude from a man’s physical type his ability but rather from his achievements his race”. The thing to
consider here is, he never described the physical type of an ‘Aryan’ and he never talked of Nordics. He disapproved
of Hans Günther for a start. The term Aryan was used by them to draw a distinction between the Gentile Germans
and the Jews. That’s all. Other than that, it really, truly, alludes to the Indo-Europeans and their languages.
the rest of the plethora of literature on the subject of ‘Aryan’ biological supremacism is exaggerated charlatanism.
Germans with a Jew in their ancestry or had one parent who was Jewish were described as Mischling. They were tainted, as such,
according to the Nuremberg Laws. But what does it mean in terms of worth? They were no lower or inferior to those deluded
people who think of themselves as racially pure. When you start regarding people the way you regard thoroughbred horses then
mankind is de-humanised and man sacrificed on the altar of biological madness.
When a Jew sheds
his Jewishness, as with Israel Shamir and Gilad Atzmon, he ceases to be a Jew because it is entirely a mindset. The apostate
Jew then rejoins humanity, at last. He no longer believes it is the destiny of Gentiles here on Earth to serve the morally
superior Jew, as Judaism preaches. They then become the severest critics of the tradition in which they were born. The
racial thing does not apply then.
When you say “The Middle Easterner on the
other hand needs to keep order with the more authoritarian, 'off with their heads' approach of Islam”, you display an
ignorance of the essence of the Holy Qur’an. You’ve never read it, obviously, but prefer to make a sweeping generalisation
based on urban myths, populist ideas and the ignorance of the bigot. There is nothing in the Qur’an regarding cutting
off heads but there is a lot of mercy exercised in regard to the harsher punishments. They are to be used reluctantly and
sparingly, if not at all, and not in the manner of blood-thirsty Saudi princes and their Wahhabist perversion
of Islam. Don’t ever think they represent true Islam.
to the Anthropology Department of the British Museum, most Arabs (I take it that is who you refer to as ‘Middle Easterner’)
are Caucasians of the Mediterranean Proper sub-race, similar to the Portuguese, Greeks and Italians. The term Semitic is a
purely linguistic category. There is no Semitic race.
Thousands of years ago there was much
migration and mixtures were formed then. For example, the Persians and Afghans have facial dimensions similar to the Nordics.
The Kurds of Iraq, Iran and Turkey, who include a blond minority, may be a mixture of Irano-Afghan and ancestral Nordics.
None of them are ‘inferior’ races.
Your stereotypical ‘happy-clappy Negro’ is a deceptive
piece of imagery, of course. Much of Africa is Muslim and Sharia law is often preferred as a matter of choice. In the United
States the blacks are often Baptist evangelical or Methodist evangelical. My parents were Welsh Methodists. A lot of White
Americans in the Deep South and elsewhere are Protestant evangelicals. We are all free to worship in our method of choice.
seem to live in a bye-gone age when the Dark Continent was being discovered, expeditions to the source of the Nile, India
of “It Ain’t ‘Arf Hot, Mum”, pith helmets, swagger sticks and Bombay bloomers, Rudyard Kipling, the
Empire upon which the sun never sets ... and, of course, lesser breeds with the white man supreme. The upper classes, that
is. The lower classes were there as cannon fodder. Not all white men retired for tiffin with the memsahibs on the veranda.
They were regarded as ‘inferior’, as much as the natives. Class snobbery is not amenable to ideas of racial solidarity.
with most Americans today, we could not see beyond our own culture and Empire. As with Americans today, we have no idea regarding
the history and achievements of many other peoples around the world who you would regard as inferior to the Nordic Europeans.
You should read Arnold Toynbee’s A Study of History and you will realise a wider perspective. It will do you good.
is not a religion, Michael. For a start, there is obviously nothing of the supernatural about it. Pantheism involves God.
It means God is everything and everything is God. But, then, you say God is beyond your comprehension. Science, on the other
hand, is a branch of knowledge based mainly on observation, experiment and dealing with material phenomena. None of this has
any bearing on religiosity.
Nature is a physical power, whereas religion is on a higher
spiritual plane, above and beyond the merely physical. This physical power is responsible for the phenomena of the material
world. Religion reaches out far further to God.
I agree when you describe seeing the stars on a clear night
and transcending your self. I look out to the vast sea and listen to the waves crashing on the shore. There is a kind of heavenly
music in that. The thing you get from these experiences is the unavoidable truth that there is something greater than all
of us. If you open yourself to all possibilities, you might feel God’s presence as a result.
know you feel the end of the Third Reich was the greatest of all tragedies but it fell as a result of mistakes. The biggest
mistake was a racial doctrine based on the innate inferiority of other peoples, principally the Jews and the Slavic peoples
to the East. The Russians were to be permanent slave labour in the service of ‘colonising Aryan’ Germans. Do you
realise how bad that sounds now?
In Hitler’s Last Will and Testament in 1945,
he goes on about how the German people failed him and they now deserved to perish. He believed in the survival of the fittest
in the harshest terms. It is this ideological point of view that led him to treat entire races with total indifference regarding
their fate in wartime. With the Russians, he considered them inferior barbarians to be liquidated and replaced with
German peasant colonisers in his declared policy of Lebensraum in the East.
attack during Operation Barbarossa was entirely ill-conceived and as winter approached the Wehrmacht was eventually out-manoeuvred
by the Russians, encircled and doomed. It was simply unprepared for a winter campaign.
biggest error was to treat the Russians with utter cruelty. This cruelty came from this doctrine of the Herrenvolk
and the superiority of the German over all others. Hitler told the German people that they were going to rule the world
and that they must be merciless in that goal.
Russian prisoners of war were not treated
according to the Geneva conventions and millions died in captivity. They were used as slave labour until they dropped. Eye
witnesses saw columns of these sad wretches on the way back to labour camps, half-starved and exhausted.
Siege of Leningrad lasted for 872 says and was the longest and most destructive in the history of mankind. The suffering
of the people was unbelievable and not enough attention is given to this episode in what Russians call The Great Patriotic
War. In all, the Russians lost more in that war than any other nation and that includes European Jewry. Hitler wanted his
Hitler Youth to be as hard as Krupp steel but the Russian was harder and tougher.
When the tide
of the war turned in Russia’s favour, their only thought was revenge. They were no longer the inferior Slav or the primitive-minded
Bolshevik beast of Nazi propaganda. They went through East Prussia, Silesia and Pomerania like battle-hardened veterans seeking
vengeance on the Germans whose government previously wanted them all annihilated in a racial war.
misbegotten racial ideas caused the savage deaths of millions of Germans in the East. It was Hell on Earth. The Russians believed
they got what they deserved but that is the nature of war.
So, Michael, when you talk of ‘higher
racial types’ and sneer at the religion of other people, you must consider the inevitable consequences and the lessons
of history. It is too late for the German people of East Prussia, Silesia and Pomerania, settled there for many hundreds of
years. All that is gone and can never return.
The Russians today are a fine people and their leader
Vladimir Putin a remarkable statesman. The lesson of history says we should be allied to Russia and never go to war. Hitler
had his chance then but threw it all away. In The European (The Journal of Opposition) of July 1958, the academic A. James
Gregor wrote an article titled National Socialism and Race. The European was printed by Oswald Mosley’s publishing arm.
The theory of race is the element that made National Socialism what it was and James Gregor tackled the subject of how their
race theory developed and changed.
There were three periods. The first consisted of Hitler’s
own writings and his use of the term ‘Aryan’ as his preferred race. He is vague about it and seems to include
all Europeans with non-Europeans being inferior.
The second period involved the Nordicist cranks, including
Hans Günther with all the nonsense about cephalic indices, “pure” Nordics, inferior races and physical type.
At that time, Karl Weinländer took the ‘Nordic Race’ thing too far. He wrote, “Nordic blood when
transfused into the sick will promote rapid improvement while a transfusion of blood from the lower races (particularly Jewish
blood) will dispatch the patient”. It was published with the endorsement of the NS Teachers’ Bund. The madness
permeated throughout German society as this nonsense became increasingly popular.
phase was a rejection of Hans Günther and his cronies. Nordicism was consigned to the dustbin of the Third Reich and
the ‘Aryan’ was restored as the favoured word. Aryan was not as specific as Nordic and was without a recognisable
type. This suited the National Socialist state in its dealings with other people who were potential allies.
1939, in the last phase, Dr Walter Gross of the Rassenpolitische Amt defined official policy.
“A serious situation arose through the fact that other people and states, because of German race laws,
felt themselves attacked and defamed.
For example, the whole world of the
Far East remained for a long time under the impression that the Germans had designated them as non-Aryan and as non-Aryans
inferior rabble, that the Germans had designated them unworthy, second class humanity and that the Germans imagined themselves
as the sole bearers of culture.
What could we say to those who saw in German racism a fundamental
defamation of men of other races?
We could do nothing other than, with patience and conviction,
repeat that German racism does not evaluate or deprecate other racial groups. It only recognises, scientifically, that differences
exist. We have often been disturbed by the indiscretion or even stupidity in our own land when, just after we had carefully
made clear to some people that we respected and honoured their racial qualities some wild fool manufactured his own ideas
about race and declared these same people were racially inferior ...”
the end of the war, the HQ of the Reichsführer SS published the views of Dr Ludwig Eckstein:
“While supporting our own race and, if necessary, fighting against other races to protect its right
to exist, we should not overlook the fact that almost all races display something in themselves that is sound and biologically
resolved and therefore beautiful, natural and valuable, Each race carries first of all the measure of worth in itself. When
once we understand this then we do not foster feelings of inferiority in others ...”
then it was too late. Mad Nordicists like Hans Günther had done the damage in the second phase of National Socialist
race theory. The work of the third and final stage was largely lost and scattered. The talk then was of races in formation
rather than “fixed and immutable”.
European Socialist Action No 58