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.
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.
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.
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.
You 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.
I 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’
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.
You 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.
As 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.
I 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
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.
His 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.
The 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.
Hitler’s 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
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.
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.
last 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.
situation arose through the fact that other people and states, because of German race laws, felt themselves attacked and defamed.
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 ...”
Towards the end of the
war, the HQ of the Reichsführer SS published the views of Dr Ludwig Eckstein:
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 ...”
By 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”.
Copyright European Socialist Action No 58