In the course of this summer, I have been working on an article exploring the relationship between the Nordic/Norse/Germanic Pagan movement Asatru and the German Nazi regime. Because certain members of the Nazi party like Alfred Rosenberg and Heinrich Himmler made use of old Germanic folklore, myths and symbols to promote Nazi ideas of racial and cultural superiority, it has often been assumed that all those who express a serious spiritual interest in Nordic or Germanic mythology and pre-Christian traditions "must" also be Nazis or fascists. My original inspiration to undertake this project was my acquaintance with many modern-day Norse Pagans (also called Heathens) who completely reject and deeply resent the idea that their beautiful spiritual tradition from ancient Europe has anything to do with the completely modern form of militarized political insanity that was Nazism. I expected to write a quick study exposing the superficiality of the Nazis' appropriation of Germanic Paganism and the absurdity of associating modern-day Norse/Germanic Pagans with Nazism, but my research took some unexpected turns that I find quite troubling and worth sharing.
My exploration of the Nazi period essentially confirmed my earlier view that Nazi usage of Pagan myths, symbols and traditions tended to be quite superficial, mainly oriented toward "proving" the greatness of the Aryan-Germanic race, as was the main thrust of Nazi culture and propaganda. What was surprising was discovering how very Christian many Nazis were, whether we talk about leading figures like Hitler and Goebbels or the rank and file. Though the Nazis did end up persecuting many Christians who refused to cooperate with them, this should not be taken as a sign that the Nazi were "anti-Christian" or rejected Christianity. Not at all! Most Nazis, including Hitler and Goebbels, saw their horrific regime as the logical extension of pro-German-nationalist forms of German Protestantism and the long-running anti-Semitism within both Catholicism and Protestantism. And, while the Nazi attempt to take over and reformulate Christianity in an ultra-German, anti-Semitic manner may be seen as a perversion of Christianity, it must be acknowledged that this perversion was well-rooted in certain forms of Christianity long before Adolf came along. Two books I would strongly recommend in this regard are "The Holy Reich" by Richard Steigmann-gall, and "A History of Catholic Antisemitism" by Robert Michael.
My other surprise was finding out that there are indeed a certain number of modern-day Norse Pagan/Asatru/Heathen groups that embrace ideas of racial superiority that are somewhat Nazi-like. Some of these are openly neo-Nazi, and the question then arises as to whether these are really "Pagans" at all or just Nazis posing as Pagans and manipulating Pagan symbolism, mythology and traditions much as the original Nazis did. I think the truth is that today, while many, and probably the majority of modern-day Norse Pagans completely reject Nazism and its attendant racism and anti-Semitism, there is a certain minority of Norse Pagans who inhabit a belief system that either slightly echoes, or even openly endorses, Nazi attitudes and ideas about race and related issues. My Asatru friends who completely reject all such racism and fascism will have to be vigilant in rejecting and refuting this line of thinking, as it has not gone away, it is still out there.
Returning to the theme of Nazified Christianity, I feel there are very disturbing parallels with modern American politics. Just as Nazi Christians had an unshakable conviction that Germany was a chosen nation especially beloved by God and Jesus, and that Germans had a natural right, if not an obligation, to conquer Europe in the name of Reich and God, I see some conservative Christians in the USA as centering their view of the world around a similar blend of nationalism, militarism, racism and religious conviction. The fear and hatred that is shown to Muslims, to immigrants, to foreigners, all the while saluting the flag and praising Jesus, is something that I think is very frightening. Substitute "America #1" for "Aryan Master Race," and anti-Hispanic, anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant attitudes for the Nazis' anti-Semitism, though anti-Semitism is not entirely lacking here either, and you will see that there is a extremely noxious brew cooking here.
As a supporter of modern Paganism, I am concerned that this ugly mood could also end up being turned against Pagans, for being "un-American," un-Christian," etc. I call on all my Pagan friends to be alert in the months ahead.
On the less disturbing and more inspiring side, my research also exposed how the Nazis really could not find much in the ancient sources of Germanic myth and folklore to support their views of racism and anti-Semitism. When one goes back to the sources, the evidence is very clear: Norse Paganism is not a race-based form of spirituality. The old texts speak of tribal affiliations and upholding personal honor, but there is nothing about race. The gods themselves are known to consort with others such as giants! So, those who want to use Germanic Paganism, Asatru or Heathenry to make a case for racial hatred do not have firm ground to stand on. This is a good thing to note and be proud of.
25 comments:
I am glad to read that someone is looking seriously into the question of whether Asatru is associated with Nazism today. A few months ago I had the experience of seeing the Wild Hunt flooded with posts from people of this bent. I have seen this on a list or two as well. It starts with a criticism of Israel. I am not opposed to criticizing Israel; on the contrary, I think it should be criticized for its military actions. But when posters concentrate on attacking it when their perspective is supposed to be Pagan, when they refuse to capitalize the word "Jew" (as is the style in White Identity movements), when they conflate American Jews and Israel or the ancient Hebrews and modern-day Jews, then I have to conclude that they are indeed lapping up antisemitism with their Norse Paganism. I have gotten to the point where I no longer believe anyone who says they are Asatru and that they are not antisemitic. Inevitably, they start yammering about Israel and then about how American Jews support it and then about how we are convincing our government to do this and that until you can tell they are wishing they could talk about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. I do not by any means see antisemitism everywhere, but in these times, when the economy is shaky and people are frightened, hate of all kinds comes forward. I personally am sick of it and sick of the excuses about it.
Good luck with your new blog. I too am in upstate NY.
Some of the most disturbing modern material I have encountered regarding NeoNaziism in the U.S. came from the West Coast. Seeing the open communication and cross pollination between NeoNazi-Pagans/Heathens and Christian Identity was sobering. I have also been on Yahoo Chat Groups that were supposedly Pagan, and the racist ranting on there with every kind of racial epithet you hope your kids never learn being screamed over the internet and typed in on every line. When I brought this up with other Pagans in the mainstream they didn't seem too concerned and felt that these were glitches or anomolous. There is a difference between letting sleeping dogs lie, as opposed to using that elephant in the living room as a coffee table.
Harold makes an excellent point: When people speak of Israel, they are often unable to distinguish the difference between the Modern country of Israel, as opposed to the Cultural and Religious identity of Modern Jews and people of Jewish descent. This is a disturbing disconnect. It is as much a product of Anti-Semitism, as it is, in the downward slope of American public education. I too can be critical of the State of Israel, that being said, Israel does not represent all Jewish people everywhere. But then the survival and evolution of British Israeli-ism in this country is both impressive and frightening, in that the tentacles that lead back to that mindset on American shores lead back to the same source of European Anti-Semitism that was imported to these shores via this questionable branch of theology
I must say I am quite disappointed that the first substantive post on the blog deals with such an overblown issue.
When you say:
I think the truth is that today, while many, and probably the majority of modern-day Norse Pagans completely reject Nazism and its attendant racism and anti-Semitism, there is a certain minority of Norse Pagans who inhabit a belief system that either slightly echoes, or even openly endorses, Nazi attitudes and ideas about race and related issues.
...you completely overstate the case. If 1/10 of 1% of all Heathens (and in this I include Asatruar, Odinists, Irminists, Theodsmen, and Forn Sed) actually held Nazi political beliefs I would be greatly surprised. They are loud, and vociferous, and one or two such rabble-rousers can certainly disrupt a forum or a blog with their nonsense.
But to even give them the opening of "probably the majority" reject such things is to play into both their hands and the hands of those who would use such fringe-of-a-fringe-of-a-fringe individuals to bash Heathenry in general and Paganism into the bargain. There's no "probably" about it. The vast, overwhelming majority of Heathens completely disavow and actively drum out such people when they come up in our fora.
I would also point out that the phenomenon is no less centered on Germanic paganism than it is on others. There are Greek racialists who tie National Socialist ideology to their own homeland, and the same goes for Russian pagans (even more overtly, and to my knowledge more accepted) and pan-Slavic nationalism, not to mention the racial supremacy theories of La Raza and those who would see a revival of Aztec paganism amongst Hispanics.
Are these to be held up as examples? Are they even worth mentioning as footnotes? I doubt it. So why do the Germanic pagans get saddled with their fringe-fringe-fringers? One might just as well mention the Ku Klux Klan and Identity Christianity whenever Protestantism is mentioned.
I can only speak from an Australian Pagan point of view, but the level of racism here amongst certain groups is high, but not acknowledged because it is not politically correct to do so. The most insidious form of racism is "I'm not racist, but....". You don't have to be a card carrying nazi to tacitly agree with some of their principles. Casual racism is still racism, and if you look at Australian history from the first 30 years of the 20th Century, then the nazis cannot be seen as unique. Under the collection of laws known popularly as the White Australia Policy, immigration was limited to white people, who were majority protestant and english speaking, and a whole generation of indigenous Australians from that time were stolen from their families to be raised in white families. Interestingly, the Australians of the era were not particularly religious, although the same is not true of today, as the rise of christian fundamentalism into American politics has its knock on effects over lackeys and lapdogs like the Australian government. Its casual racism that means aboriginal people here can't get jobs in white companies, which is 99% of the companies. Its casual racism that means that pagans cannot get jobs in christian schools, which is 100% of the private schools. Its casual racism unchecked that allows nazis and australian governmental white supremacists to thrive. Racism is everywhere, nazis are just the instantly recognisable face that people can hold in smug disdain while secretly believing in a watered down version of the same thing.
Just stepping away from only Asatru [angle] for a second. Just look at the level of Overt and Casual Racism our sitting American President has drawn to the surface within America. That is some pretty powerful and ugly stuff.
That being said, I would respec that the author of this blog has such a love for the Heathens that he would speak out about his concerns rather than be silent and appear to comply with something that is toxic and unworthy of the children of the Ases and Wanes.
I would like to respectfully suggest that while this is a great topic, I think it needs to be broadened beyond a Pagan perspective to fully understand how there can be--if we are not careful--an undercurrent of unthinking and illogical hate within occultism in general. Such an undercurrent is not merely based on the "I love my race" mentality, but rather on the source of that belief, a mythic history that can pervade modern mystical thought.
Specifically, I would contend that there would not have been the created myths of that so-called Aryan Invasion of India (which is still taught as history without any evidence to support it) or the Nazi concept of history if not for people such as Max Muller and Madame Blavatsky.
Although the concepts of "races" goes back to Christian interpretation of the Tower of Babel myth, it was given an impetus in the popular writing of Blavatsky. Blavatsky, a founder of the Theosophical society wrote about mythical "root races" coming from different areas (including Atlantis) based on physiology. (One outcome of this was the "science" of physiognomy which remained popular until it was discovered that Nazis used it to determine who "real" Aryan's were.)
Muller, with no training in archeology, took that concept and combined it with with the fantasy of Bishop Ussher (who invented the idea that the God of the Bible had created the world about 6,000 years ago), and the German nationalist desires of not coming from Jews to claim that a mythic race of Aryans invaded India from the north 5,000 years ago.
Combining Muller's idea of the superior Aryan race with Blavatsky's root race myth led, in part, to the Nazi racialist views.
But Blavatsky also heavily influenced the members and teachings of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn (you can find these race ideas in the writings of Dion Fortune), the Golden Dawn influenced Aleister Crowley (you can find his continuance of racial ideas in his writings), Crowley influenced Gerald Gardner, and Gardner--along with Crowley and Fortune and Blavatsky and others--have influenced modern Paganism.
I would suggest that we should become aware of these myths--myths that can lead to problems of all sorts. I would respectfully say, for example that carefully reading Seeing Eye Chick's post shows that she is not anti-Semitic. However, a cursory glance shows the expression, "people of Jewish descent." This, taken out of context and by itself, implies some sort of Jewish gene or race. In fact, there is no Jewish race. There is no Jewish gene. There is not even a Jewish "appearance" (the archetype of Jewish appearance is actually a Central European appearance).
She correctly points out that Judaism is "Cultural and Religious." Culture is usually an accident of the location of birth, and while a religion is frequently adopted simply because one's parents were of a religion, anyone can convert to Judaism (or Paganism or Hinduism, or many other faiths).
To sum up, I would contend that the entire concept of race and races is the source of the problem. "... humans share 99.9% of their genetic makeup" ( http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1456889 ), and while people do have differences, they're based on localisms and not distant genetics. Racism cannot exist without the fantasy of races.
For the sake of the future of Paganism--and for all of humanity--I believe it's time for us to move beyond the scientifically false and archaic myth of white, black, Jewish, mongoloid, Aryan, etc. races, a concept that has caused excuses for treating people horribly and even murdering tens of millions of people over the ages. I believe it's time to accept the scientific fact that there is only one race--the human race--a race filled with miraculous and delightful variations, but one race nonetheless.
Well Said and a mighty HAIL to Donald Michael Kraig!
Too much power has been given to the idea of individuality and particular "races" and not enough on the idea of humankind!
I would like to support Mr. Kraig's comments, furthering that Race itself is merely a social construct. It is not merely Jews who are not entirely or even predominantly "Semitic" per se. Race in general is a rather arbitrary and superficial subdividing of humans per some very minor genetic differences along a much more fluid continuum of differences between individuals. Increasingly the idea of any sort of a “racial purity” is seen as absurd. There really is not and never has been any such thing.
Most of what you are dealing with has been dealt with quite well in Matias Gardell's book Gods of the Blood. If anything he is a bit heavy handed and there are apologies from him online to view in that regard.
Also, to say that a small percentage of Asatruar are white separatists for white racists may be a bit of an understatement, although the trend in definitely away from neo-Fascist or Neo-Nazi (racist) ideologies there. I rather think it is quite a large percentage still, say even as much as half. But yes Asatru, Vanatroth, Runeosophy and the like are wonderful avenues to pursue none the less.
Also let me agree with the facts regarding Nazism as an emphatically self described "Christian" system and not predominantly Pagan or neo-Pagan. Many of the non-Christian esotericists were done away with in the Camps along with Jews, Gays, Free Masons, Leftists, etc.
It matters little in who's name atrocities are committed, but there has been quite a bit of baiting going on when we see sensationalist films of Hitler as the spooky Pagan and all of this "weird" occult stuff he was into. To my knowledge only Himmler was a bit of a neo-Pagan occultnik and that was more about borrowing than reconstructing.
I think it is a bit of a shallow ideology to despise the concept of race when it is a powerful and thorough conditioning of the human condition to think in terms of race. You can say that race is merely a human construct - what things about humans aren't merely a construct? The topic that we are talking about is about archetypical constructs (ie Gods). I do not hold with neo-nazi ideology but it doesn't do any good to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Race is a fundamental part of humanity, along with faith, along with competition and family. It probably once helped to make a person feel that they could rely on their neighbouring towns and cities in ancient Akkad and Sumer to keep out the barbarian hordes, by thinking of those neighbours as being of a particular 'race'. It helps people in much the same way. Do you think that America would hold together without the shared quasi-racial belief of a construct such as freedom or liberty? Or that China would have held together more or less for the last 5000 years without a shared Chinese racial identity?
Anyway, race is more fluid than you might suspect. Look at the British. Some British people describe themselves as British when they have no 'racial' affiliation to those isles. They also define particulars of their society as Indigenous English or Welsh or Scottish or whatever. The point is that race exists on a number of levels. Should complete devolution the the United Kingdom occur, something that may well happen in our lifetimes, then the concept of the British racial epithet disappears from use. Don't worry, it only dates from the early 1700s, when England & Wales joined with Scotland. Australians count themselves as a member of the Australian race, without being indigenous. Race is a powerful mechanism that cannot be discarded and neither should it be.
I was intrigued by the point that Matt BP made in his last post regarding the historical influence and thought processes of the human condition and racism. I definitely see what he is saying, but I could not help but correct a few things.
Sociologically speaking, racism is a social construct which is fairly popular among a variety of different cultures around the world. What makes it interesting is that these racial lines are always and consistently drawn differently within and across different cultures; in otherwords, no two cultures define one race the same as the next. A good example of this is the American definition of someone being "black." There is always reference to the old "One Drop Rule" which
"is an historical, colloquial term in the United States that holds that a person with any trace of sub-Saharan ancestry, however small or invisible, unless said person has an alternative non-White ancestry they can claim, such as Native American, Asian, Arab, Australian aboriginal, they must be considered Black."
This rule was established as a statute in almost all states beginning with Tennessee in 1910, by 1931 (blackhistory.com).
Now this is a distinct difference from say Brazil, which has a more varied racial makeup for those with sub-Saharan heritage, and even today those same varied racial lines base an almost class system in their socio-economic culture.
An example given by Matt BP that I do feel I need to bring up, mostly because of the widespread misunderstanding of the culture, is that of China. The 5000 year history is very much not "racially" continuous in their eyes. The modern country that we refer to as China, is made up of many different cultural and ethnic groups, which would be often offended to be lumped together. Of course they do have a certain national pride, but the dynasties are each of different ethnic lines and family names, which as many people do know take priority over the individual identity of a person in Chinese culture. This cultural define is deep, and takes broad priority of what we in the west refer to as race.
Also, the British reference and others are good points, but they are actually what is referred to as nationalism. There is an obvious overlap, particularly when it came to Nazism (the original). Today, that same extreme nationalism can be seen in the united states today, as well as other countries, particularly in the Republican Party of the USA and the Hindu Nationalist Party of India. Both are very right-wing, strictly religious and even fundamentalist/orthodox at times, and even racially supremest, as stated earlier. But someone can be nationalist without being racist; we can love our country, but welcome newcomers, realizing they likely love our country more than we do, as they often give up their life, home and family in their home country to live here (wherever 'here' is). We can also appreciate the differences and variety within the world, but also appreciate our own heritage as well. There is a difference between having pride in one's own heritage (a common perspective in American thought), but also appreciating and knowing others. An example, A friend of mine has Irish heritage, and takes pride in that; he also is interested in and holds respect for many eastern cultures and philosophies (namely Buddhist and Japanese), which he can claim no heritage with.
Taking another look at race from the sociological standpoint again, we see that the main basis is due to the human condition or nature that is known as creating and identifying "in-groups" and "out-groups". This is how we identify ourselves, by "this is my family, this is my culture, that is not." separating is a way we as humans help to define what something is. This is the same reason why the Pagan community has so much infighting as to whom is whom, and what is what (as regards to the common quibbles between Wiccans and Witches, Pagans and Heathens).
Of course we should all shed our racial judgments and work together to survive the current world crises, but it is difficult when people need to self-identify as themselves and what they are, and everyone wants to be around people like themselves. Like attracts like. The biggest hurdle is getting to a point when we can all look around and say, "yes, we are all different, but what matters is what we can do together due to those differences, and be sure everyone is treated equally and has access to an equal standard of living, and no one group or person is naturally better or more valuable than others.
To Donald Michael Kraig: Are you then referring to a Cultic Milieu?
bluejaderose - where does nationalism become a race matter? I imagine it would be difficult thing indeed to draw a precise line, especially when, on this blog in general, we have referred to Californian, British, Celtic, American, Australian racial identities when what we take for being those racial identities all have their modern beginnings after the creation of the British racial identity at the start of the 1700s.
Greetings MattBP,
Since you addressed my comments directly, I've addressed yours here below in >< and mine open. Dunno if I'll have time to respond further, but here you have my thoughts this evening.
>I think it is a bit of a shallow ideology to despise the concept of race when it is a powerful and thorough conditioning of the human condition to think in terms of race.<
“shallow ideology”: neither in fact, but fact in fact and verifiably so rather than ideology or belief. The depth of implication depends upon the person. If the concept of race is somehow as dear as mom’s apple pie then by all means cling to. God created all in seven days and so forth: if that is what you believe. Creationism, Eugenics, and such were and are still “powerful and thorough conditioning(s) of the human condition”. That doesn’t make these notions any more valid per se.
>You can say that race is merely a human construct - what things about humans aren't merely a construct? The topic that we are talking about is about archetypical constructs (ie Gods). I do not hold with neo-nazi ideology but it doesn't do any good to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Race is a fundamental part of humanity, along with faith, along with competition and family.<
Oh dear, this historical brain fart is the very foundation of civilization: no way man, just get real. Race is a popular misconception and nothing more: no more despicable than any other misconception I’d hasten to add. If we speak of ‘national identity’ and the like, then we are closer to what people talk about when for instance they use the term “the American Race” for instance. This is really short hand for a set of cultural norms. That is the way most ancient cultures viewed things: not in terms of skin color or place of origin but in terms of whether or not you believed as you should, spoke the language, obeyed the customs. If you did these things then you were part of society. Not that this is somehow superior to Racial thinking, but it is what it is.
>It probably once helped to make a person feel that they could rely on their neighbouring towns and cities in ancient Akkad and Sumer to keep out the barbarian hordes, by thinking of those neighbours as being of a particular 'race'. It helps people in much the same way. Do you think that America would hold together without the shared quasi-racial belief of a construct such as freedom or liberty? <
Well, yes I do think we’ve gotten along with out this because afterall what the hell is “the shared quasi-racial belief of a construct such as freedom or liberty (sic)”? What does liberty or freedom have to do with Race or racism? This makes no sense to me at all.
>Or that China would have held together more or less for the last 5000 years without a shared Chinese racial identity?<
China is a very multiethnic society and always has been. It was and has been held together or held down by monarchs and dictators for the most part.
>Anyway, race is more fluid than you might suspect.<
My point exactly. That very fluidity belies the notion of stable racial categories. Maybe read my post again to find where I said basically the same thing.
> Race is a powerful mechanism that cannot be discarded and neither should it be.<
Indeed the concept of Race should be discarded in the terms that it is generally thought of. Rather when we use the term Race are ethnicities and cultural identity. Doubtless this simple adjustment will merely shift our genocides from Racial Holy Wars to Ethnic Cleansings, so what does it matter? Well, if we can know what words mean and how those words do or do not correspond to what we can justly call reality: then there is some hope for communication beyond inane argumentation, ego trips and power struggles. Most if not all ideologies are shallow anyway. Reality is what matters.
Cheers, Russell
This reminds me of exploring the concept of Liberal {as an American Ideological Perjorative} as the new "Mud People." Because Liberal is an epithet that denotes that one is essentially not sufficiently ethnically/Culturally White.
That is where my meanderings took me anyhow. A little OT, but Russell and Matt's Discussion sort of ran a parallel track.
Sorry mate but were you high when you wrote that? I don't mean that as a way to shatter your arguments, I just think you were high to have written "“shallow ideology”: neither in fact, but fact in fact and verifiably so rather than ideology or belief."
On with the rebuttal:
Race is nothing to do with eugenics. I never mentioned eugenics. Or Creationism. You also mentioned that the concept of race is a personal matter, which is a fair statement, but you then go on to say it is wrong to have a concept of race. Which is it? The fact that we have the concept of race means that it is part of the human condition, whether or not it is dear to you or not.
I asked the question of when does National Identity become Race? Apparently for you its only when all people look, sound, believe and act the same way. I thought you said race was nothing but a misconception? Then I think you called me man.
Liberty and Freedom and all that are not real. They are concepts, like race, which are important to people. Americans like to rant on about them a lot because it is part of the American national identity to do so. And good on 'em for it, its after all better than ranting on about the system from ancient Sparta, where the slave class of Hellenes worked the land while pairs of Spartans wandered around feeding their offspring to the winter and checking each other out. The point is - America is founded on a human concept; Liberty. That doesn't mean that liberty is a lie, but it does mean that it is not a tangible thing.
As for China; a region can never be held by just a iron fisted dictator for long, because the people will rebel. It is a fact (in fact, as you say) that China has been remarkably constant in its borders for 5000 years. It has a huge number of cultures within its borders, but what constitutes China and what constitutes its historical border regions which are not truly China needs to be taken into account. I am not saying that the Chinese are naturally superior to their border dwellers, but some time ago, probably in the neolithic, geography made it that the core of China would be two huge fertile plains, as opposed to the other end of the Eurasian landmass (Europe), which is deeply bisected by rivers, mountain ranges and inlets. This fact (in fact per se as you say) means that China is easily controlled by relatively few people, while Europe is divided into dozens of countries. Don't take my word for it, go read Jared Diamond. You might even find him on Wiki.
You ended with something about reality. To be honest I had to read it a couple of times to figure out what you were on about, with this conclusion of mine; reality is down to personal interpretation. You said as much yourself through your whole comment. Basically, the way that we perceive the world comes down to how we are brought up. If we are brought up to think in terms of race, ethnicity or culture, that is the terms we use. There is no point having the idea in your head to get everybody to discard race, when you still need something to define that concept. It is not about racism, or Nazi propaganda. It is about defining a group of people from another group of people.
Dictionary.com gave me this:
Race
-noun
1. a group of persons related by common descent or heredity.
2. a population so related.
3. Anthropology.
a. any of the traditional divisions of humankind, the commonest being the Caucasian, Mongoloid, and Negro, characterized by supposedly distinctive and universal physical characteristics: no longer in technical use.
b. an arbitrary classification of modern humans, sometimes, esp. formerly, based on any or a combination of various physical characteristics, as skin color, facial form, or eye shape, and now frequently based on such genetic markers as blood groups.
c. a human population partially isolated reproductively from other populations, whose members share a greater degree of physical and genetic similarity with one another than with other humans.
4. a group of tribes or peoples forming an ethnic stock: the Slavic race.
5. any people united by common history, language, cultural traits, etc.: the Dutch race.
Have you ever seen a definition so broad? You said about the way the term race is used; Do you mean in America? Britain? Rwanda? You have made sweeping statements about the way the term is used, when your attitudes are a result of your assumptions about race. I am afraid that you have no idea how everybody is going to use the term, so how can you espouse its rejection while saying that it is up to everybody to make up their own mind?
Lets talk about blood groups, they're interesting.
MattBP, sorry I have neither the time nor the inclination to read or respond to your further comments. Frankly its a waste of my time. I say no further to you.
When California's governor Davis tried for the Republican nomination for president back in the '90s, the speeches he was giving made me feel that he was basically recycling the speeches of the Nazi party candidates during the early-to-mid thirties, simply substituting "Immigrants" for the earlier target of "Jews."
As I understand it, outside of people's preference for neighbors and other subjects of their own kingdom, until the beginning of the Colonial era post-Columbus matters of race weren't all that important in Europe. But they needed a salve to their conscience as they appropriated the lands of these far-away foreigners to pretend that they were of "inferior races."
The greatest ethnocentric bigots the world has ever known were and are the Talmudic Zionists. Talmudism, which forms the basis for what came to be called Judaism in the Middle Ages, demands the subjugation and enslavement of non-Talmudic gentiles, relegating them to a state of thralldom.
The Talmud states that gentiles are nothing but cattle who were only created by Yahweh to be the slaves of Talmudists. It states that sex with gentiles is sex with animals. It states that Talmudists can murder gentiles with impunity because they are only killing animals. There are dozens of other comparable statements in the Talmud that relegate gentiles to the status of beasts. Additionally, Talmudists take what they call their Kol Nidre oath each year on September 17th at sundown, swearing to their Yahweh to lie to, cheat and defraud all gentiles.
The Zionist-Marxist Communism that murdered at least seventy million gentiles was a direct manifestation of this Talmudism. Marx, Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin were all Zionists. People should consider this fact when judging the Germans and their titanic battle to not be crushed beneath the force of this Talmudic Zionism.
Most people are too ignorant of legitimate historicity to know that International Jewry declared war on Germany in 1933. These Zionists called for the world to joined them in an economic boycott of German products, which had the potentiality to destroy the German economy. They later went on to call for the cultural destruction of Germany. Huge rallies were held all over the United States and the world that collectively screamed for the destruction of Germany. Coverage of these rallies was carried in every major paper. In truth, Talmudic Zionism started World War II. Let me also point out that the Germans never called themselves Nazis, which only referred to one of a number of parties in Germany.
The Talmudic-Zionist takeover of the world's monetary systems, the media, the legal system and virtually all other aspects of culture totally substantiate the fact that these Talmudic Zionists have taken over the world, and are on the verge of reducing gentiles to a state of slavery, as has been prognosticated in the Talmud.
It is overwhelmingly apparent that the true oppressors of humanity are these Zionist AshkeNAZIS.
The pagan connection to Nazism is not merely the plans of some leaders. The problem of all this is that a harmless seeming kind of pagan revival in Germany laid the groundwork for the rest of it.
http://takimag.com/article/hitler_and_the_new_nazi_religion/print#axzz2hLH9Yvdi
two links the article are dead, but extensive quotes from a book drawing on source information from the time are informative.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_aspects_of_Nazism
This article's premise seems to be that this is overblown, but still gives plenty of evidence for it. Where there is this much smoke there is fire.
I am a Christian, who used to be an occultist of sorts. It is my contention that the harmless type of neopagans now, without realizing it, are by their rituals and so forth empowering the demons who shape shift and create soothing or ennobling seeming vibes to deceive, and then go off once they have vampirically fed off the worshippers, to seek those elsewhere they can subtly influence in more dangerous directions.
Also, even without this, they are laying the groundwork for developments they may not anticipate or approve off. How many Wandervogel for instance, were expecting full scale Nazism at its worst to develop or approved it? But they contributed to its groundwork.
Race and eugenics. I suppose these may not be identical issues, if you don't go for selective breeding (positive eugenics) or culling of inferior but pure bred persons or mix blood persons (negative eugenics), but there is a natural tendency in these directions once you start taking race too seriously.
All the Norse tribes are Nordic. How is that not race based? Every single god is Nordic. All the good giants are Nordic too. The evil one is named Surtr which means black.
I am not saying Norse are racist honestly, but they were not interested in non-Nordic people joining their group. The few examples you find of it led to violence and human sacrifice.
I suggest you go back to school for writing that piece of ill researched bullshit. The Nazis were pantheists.
Please go read some of the professional historians who have written about the Nazis and religion, such as Richard Steigmann-Gall (The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity 191-1945) or Derek Hastings (Catholicism and the Roots of Catholicism) or Kevin P. Spicer (Hitler's Priests: Catholic Clergy and National Socialism), and you will see that many Nazis and Nazi supporters were indeed Christian, and that Hitler made far more effort to court Christian church support than to do anything with Norse Paganism, which was a minor project of the Nazis compared to their Christian outreach.
Post a Comment