Tag Archives: Politics

Why did Himmler ban SS soldiers from attacking Christianity?

Posted on by

Heinrich Himmler, the head of the SS (Schutzstaffel), banned SS soldiers from openly attacking Christianity, despite his own personal disdain for the religion, for several strategic and political reasons:

1. Maintaining Public Support:

Christianity, particularly in its Catholic and Protestant forms, was deeply entrenched in German society during the NS era. Openly attacking Christianity would have alienated large portions of the population, many of whom were religious or had strong Christian cultural ties. Himmler and the NS leadership understood that the regime needed to avoid widespread discontent among Christians, who represented a significant part of the German populace. To maintain public support and avoid backlash, it was prudent not to make religion a public target.

2. Avoiding Conflict with the Churches:

While there was tension between the NS regime and the Christian churches, the National Socialists often sought to manage this tension carefully. Himmler understood that directly attacking Christianity would provoke stronger resistance from church leaders and institutions. The Catholic and Protestant churches were influential, with deep-rooted authority in their communities, and a direct confrontation could have created social and political instability.

3. Incremental Control over Religion:

Himmler and other leading National Socialists believed that, in the long run, Christianity would fade away as NS ideology and the SS’s pagan and occult-influenced beliefs took hold. However, they sought to implement this transition gradually. Himmler encouraged the spread of alternative belief systems within the SS, including paganism and Germanic mysticism, but he avoided outright attacks on Christianity to keep the process more subtle and less confrontational.

4. Hitler’s Influence:

Adolf Hitler himself had a complex relationship with Christianity. Although privately critical of the religion, Hitler recognized the political need to manage the relationship with Christian institutions. He understood the dangers of waging a direct, all-out attack on Christianity while trying to consolidate power. Himmler, being a loyal follower of Hitler’s directives, likely refrained from allowing the SS to attack Christianity as part of a broader NS strategy of maintaining public order and control.

5. Unity Among Soldiers:

The SS recruited men from a variety of backgrounds, many of whom came from Christian families. Openly attacking Christianity could have alienated some soldiers or caused division within the SS ranks. Himmler prioritized loyalty to the SS and its broader mission, and any ideological conflict over religion could have weakened this cohesion.

In summary, Himmler banned SS soldiers from attacking Christianity to avoid alienating the German public, maintain political stability, and ensure the loyalty and unity of the SS. While Himmler harbored anti-Christian sentiments and promoted pagan beliefs, he understood the importance of a more subtle, long-term approach to reducing Christianity’s influence in favor of NS ideology.

But were their concerns legitimate?

Were the Christians resisting the NS regime and ideology, and were they discontent?

  • Some Catholic leaders, including Pope Pius XI (in the 1937 encyclical Mit brennender Sorge), criticized the NS regime, particularly its racist ideology.
  • Bishop Clemens August von Galen delivered powerful sermons in 1941 condemning the NS euthanasia program, which led to a temporary suspension of the program.
  • Pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a prominent theologian, became an outspoken critic of the National Socialists. He was involved in the Confessing Church and later in a conspiracy to overthrow Hitler. He was arrested in 1943 and executed in 1945.
  • Many (about 5000) individual clergy members, both Catholic and Protestant, resisted NS ideology, particularly when it contradicted Christian teachings (and it did). Some provided sanctuary to Jews, while others criticized NS policies publicly, leading to their arrest, imprisonment, or execution.
  • The White Rose: This was a student-led resistance group in Munich that included devout Christians, such as siblings Sophie and Hans Scholl. They distributed anti-NS leaflets, advocating for passive resistance against the regime. They were arrested and executed in 1943.
  • Claus von Stauffenberg, a devout Catholic, was part of the July 20 Plot (1944) to assassinate Hitler. While his motivation was primarily military and political, his Christian faith informed his moral stance against Hitler’s regime.
  • Henning von Tresckow, another Christian officer involved in the July 20 Plot, viewed the overthrow of Hitler as a moral imperative to save Germany from destruction.

They also saw how the Norwegian Church (i. e. 800+ clergymen) had revolted against the NS regime in Norway, in 1942, because the NS ideology crashed with their Christian beliefs, and because the NS regime there tried to replace Christianity with NS ideology. The revolt had been rather effective too, and to a large degree crippled the NS regime in Norway, making it unable to work effectively. The Germans saw the same tendencies in the German Churches, and did not want the same to happen in Germany.

Therefore, they banned criticism of Christianity for some time, thinking it would calm the Christians down a bit, and then…

… they would root out Christianity, and remove it lock, stock, and barrel, after the war had been won.

However, as you know, they lost the war. Therefore that never happened.

Donkeys in a Stable identifying as Horses

Posted on by

In Europe today, we see “a certain group of people” propagate the idea that Afro-Asian immigrants “have always been here”, and that in fact “they built Europe”. To all people with some basic history understanding, this is of course just ludicrous, and sounds like nothing more than a joke. A bad joke. Yet, some immigrants believe in this, and adopt these ideas.

Likewise, we see the same group of people propagate the idea that “there are more than two genders”, and that what matters is what you identify as. If you identify as a woman, then you are a woman. If you identify as a man, then you are a man. Your biological sex is irrelevant, they claim. Again, those with a basic understanding of biology know that this is just nonsense. Yet, some people believe in this, and adopt these ideas.

They want you to believe in three things:

1. A donkey born in a stable is a horse

2. A donkey moving into a stable becomes a horse

3. A donkey identifying as a horse is a horse

Yes, you laugh because this is indeed ridiculous, but…

This is not the first time they have promoted ideas like this, and the vast majority in Europe accept that ridicules nonsense as a fact. Yes! Most Europeans already accept that donkeys born in a stable are horses, that donkeys moving into a stable are horses and that donkeys identifying as horses are horses!

You see. When I say: “Brown people are not White”, I am bombarded with arguments claiming otherwise. Why? Because they are “Spanish”, “Albanian”, “French”, “Italian”, “Greek”, “Serbian”, “Portuguese”, “Bosnians”, etc.

Let us use Spain as an example. In Classical Antiquity, it was conquered and occupied for a long time by North African Semites, the Carthaginians (who of course mixed with the native population). Then later on it was conquered by North African Moors and Arab Muslims, and occupied by them for 700 years. During these 700 years, the Muslim invaders intermarried the native Iberians, raped them and took their women as sex slaves, for their harems. And yes, the harem slaves too produced children. Of course.

Or do you actually believe, what many in effect claim, that Muslims controlled their country for 700 years but never during that time touched their women? Seriously!?

When the Christians ultimately triumphed on the Iberian peninsula, the population was naturally massively mixed. And yes, they did not exterminate the Muslims (or Jews) living there, or indeed their mixed descendants. They Christianized them. No, not all of them; many Muslims fled. But yes, they Christianized many of them. And the mixed people were often Christian already anyhow. From then on they all were forced to identified as “Spaniards”.

Yeah. The donkey that had moved into the stable was forced to identify and was accepted as a horse.

When I point out the obvious fact, that many, even most, of the Spaniards are not actually Europeans, but immigrants, I am attacked by the same people who agree with me that today´s Afro-Asian immigrants are not and will never be Europeans, no matter where they are born or what they identify as.

Strange, is it not? That they accept an immigrant who move to Spain and start identifying as a European, as a true European, but laugh at the idea that we shall accept other immigrants moving to Europe as Europeans. Even though the immigrant that moved to Spain hundreds of years ago is still brown.

Yeah. They are accepting that a donkey that moved to a stable, or was born in a stable, and who identify as a horse, is in fact a horse.

No, I am not talking about brown-eyed Europeans, or brown-haired Europeans. I am talking about brown people with European passports, who were born in Europe, whose parents where born in Europe, who identify as Europeans, but who are not Europeans. People like a majority in Spain and Portugal, Albania, Southern (!) Italy, Serbia, Greece, etc.

If you accept that these brown people are white, then you will also accept that the Afro-Asian immigrants moving into Europe today, will become Europeans in the future. Their descendants, that is. Your dumb descendants will make the same arguments, that you are making today, only in relation to the descendants of the Afro-Asians who come to or already live in Europe today.

Europeans are fair-skinned, and if completely unmixed also blue-eyed and blonde (from light to dark blonde). They have a “math bump” in the back of their heads, and shorter lower arms compared to the upper arms, and shorter lower legs than upper legs, than other races. If they have brown eyes and/or brown hair, but are otherwise perfectly European, they just have a little bit non-European admixture. Very little, in fact, and they are still overwhelmingly European. But the pure European is a classical Nordic man. And brown people, no matter where they are born or what passport they have, are not Europeans. Period.

I seek to protect and promote Europe, not the “donkey” version of Europe. And yes, I see all who oppose this as subversive agents of “that group”.

Dixi.

Understanding IQ in Europe

Posted on by

Quite often I use the argument that eye- and hair-color are good indicators of racial purity for Europeans. Those are recessive traits, and if your phenotype is recessive, then of course your genotype is too. If you look Nordic, you are Nordic! And yes: the Nordic look is the original European look: for all Europeans! Naturally, if you have some non-European traits, like dark brown or even black hair, and brown eyes, then you obviously have some non-European admixture. Not much, necessarily, but some, yes. If you are European though, you probably still are overwhelmingly Nordic, but those dominant non-European traits overshadow your “Nordic core”.

Now, the reaction when I say these things is often that “Vrag claims albino Africans with blonde hair and blue eyes are Europeans”, or something like that. This is obviously a strawman: I am talking about Europeans. And non-Europeans, i. e. individuals who clearly are not Europeans, who in spite of that have European features (fair skin, blue eyes or blonde hair) are obviously still not Europeans, but actually non-Europeans with some (!) European features. They clearly have European admixture though. And perhaps ironically, often more so than very dark individuals with European passports.

There are other features than the three mentioned above, that make you European. Skeletal shape, not least skull shape, is perhaps the most important. I only use those three as examples, because they are the most obvious, the most visible, and therefore very easy to measure.

The topic I wish to discuss here though, is one argument often made, when I talk about this. You see, many claim that I omit to talk about “what really matters”, and they list IQ as a determining factor for racial purity.

Really?

I could destroy their argument by simply stating an obvious fact: There are individuals with very high IQ in all races, so no, IQ in itself is not a determining factor for racial purity for Europeans. But I will say more…

Since the start of agriculture, in the late Stone Age, Europeans have developed from being a very homogeneous group (and yeah: I am also talking about IQ here) to splitting up into different… classes. Civilization naturally accelerated this dramatically. Instead of a race of nobles, our race developed into a race of nobles, middle class people and workers.

One group became lords (“distributers of bread) and ladies (“bread bakers”), another group assisted them, and a third group did all the manual labor. The need for high IQ was high in one group, not so high in the other, and low in the third.

When before the individuals with low or even just medium intelligence had perished, because life as a hunter-gatherer in Europe (!) demanded the ability to find quick and good solutions, plan ahead and make preparations for winter, and because the tradition of that time weeded them out (I will talk more about that another time), they now were able to survive. Even thrive, by doing manual labor for their lords. They not only survived; they multiplied, and made up an increasingly larger portion of the populations.

Note: in Europe they were (most places) all of the exact same race…

With time, the lords and ladies remained highly intelligent, because they still had to be, in order to manage the administration of society, and they could cherry pick when they married. The less desirable nobles would fall into the middle class. The more desirable middle class individuals would be adopted into the nobility. The less desirable middle class individuals would become workers. The more desirable workers would become middle class. The rest of them would remain workers. Quite simply. Quite logically.

And no: they did not have strict rules for inter-class marriage. This came later on, when the nobility became increasingly scarce, and the workers too numerous, and indeed when they started taking slaves (workers) from other races – which indeed happened in the border regions of Europe. And yes, this explains the non-European admixture in even ancient European peoples living on the edges of Europe (that I started talking about in this post).

The most extreme example of this is of course Ancient Egypt, where the royals only were of European descent, and the rest of the population was not. In the end, the royals even married their own siblings, in order to “keep” the high intelligence and race, but of course ended up horribly inbred. Ultimately they died out (or perhaps emigrated to Ireland), and Ancient Egypt as a civilization collapsed.

Today the average IQ in Europe is about 100, give or take a bit, depending on where in Europe we travel. This is the average though. The median value for working class Europeans is probably only around 80, for middle class people around 110 and for upper class people around 130. They are all perfectly European though. So no, you cannot use IQ as a determining factor, for racial purity. You can use eye-, hair- and skin-color for this though, when coupled with skeletal shape of course.

The average IQ is around 100 though, simply because the most of the time perfectly European low IQ workers are more numerous.

Yeah, all of this means that most Europeans have an IQ of less than 100!

And to make it perfectly clear: median values and averages like this, do not mean there are no exceptions, in each and every social class! But when this happens, they tend to move up or down on this class ladder. Stupid people sometimes have children smarter than themselves. Smart people some times have kids dumber than them. Nothing is fixed or perfectly predictable in this context. When this happens, the kid will move up, or move down, on the class ladder.

The problem today is the same as when agriculture was introduced: society stimulates the dumb to have more kids than the smart, and also enables them to survive regardless. So the trend continues: we see more and more stupid people in society, and fewer intelligent people. Agriculture and civilization leads to idiocracy, unless perhaps strict eugenic rules are implemented.

Note though, that more and more stupid people are produced by this type of society also because they are needed. In order to keep the wheels running, you need people stupid enough to tolerate doing boring tasks, over and over again, without losing their minds. The low IQ workers are incredibly useful! The more, the merrier, for those in power! These low IQ workers will do all the tedious tasks, and be happy if you only throw them a little entertainment at the end of the day. First of all football and TV, but other things too – games, shopping, vacations etc. etc. etc.

No! If you are highly intelligent, and placed in the shoes of a worker, a bus driver, a cashier, a factory worker, a taxi driver, or whatever, you will be miserable. You will probably end up killing yourself. Society needs people with low IQ to fill those roles!

This is perhaps a digression, but if you read “Hitler´s Tabletalks”, you will also see that Hitler too was fully aware of this, but he was massively pro-civilization, so he encouraged those low IQ Europeans to breed: the more the merrier. He even handed out medals to the working class women who produced many low IQ children! He wanted more stupid workers and more stupid soldiers! Of course: they are the pre-requisites for a civilization to function!

When I talk about blue eyes and blond hair being determining factors for race, I am not discussing intelligence or class-related issues at all. I am not talking about civilization either. Those are separate issues, and I am fully aware of the fact that we need more intelligent Europeans, first and foremost. But no: intelligence in itself is not a factor for determining racial purity.

It should be, and I hope it will be, again, but it is not.

The essential point I wish to make here is that before we focus on IQ, we need to determine what group of people are actually our own, to begin with. When we have, we can work to improve the IQ in our group. The swarthy features (dark brown hair, black hair, brown eyes etc.) in our own group are there because of non-European admixture, and yes, we should work to remove them, over time (with eugenics etc.). And yes, the low IQ in our group is there because of agriculture and civilization, and hybridization too, and we should of course work to raise the average IQ as well. The ideal is a purely Nordic race made up of only nobles with a high IQ.

Dixi.