On Hylozoism and whether it was Adolf Hitler's religion

Published by carolyn on Mon, 2018-08-13 15:50

"Honor Temple" built at the request of Hitler in the Königsplatz, a square in Munich originally built by Ludwig of Bavaria in the neoclassical style  in the early 1800's and modeled on the Acropolis in Athens.


 By Carolyn Yeager

I have a friend and frequent commenter at this website who goes by the name Janus with whom I recently disagreed quite a bit over his comments defining Adolf Hitler's beliefs and intentions. We ran out of space to comment and I said I was going to post an article about his concept of “Hylozoic Hitler” and we could continue from there. This is the promised article.

I can't help but be critical of Janus' wordpress blog that purports hylozoism to be Adolf Hitler's religion. It's all based on quoted remarks from Hitler, from his associates, and from philosophers/historians from 5th-6th century Greeks to modern metaphysicians. But they don't add up to the title of this blog. To start:

Hylo=matter Zo=alive, living

A philosophical point of view that “all matter is alive”; everything in the universe possesses life.

Taken further, in a religious sense, that Spirit (God) permeates all of physical matter.

Let me say first that I don't have any problem at all with Hylozoism as I understand it. I agree with it, and I always have, instinctively! And I think many people, possibly even Adolf Hitler, agree with it without ever knowing it by that name. It is a widespread human attitude. That's why I don't think it's correct to claim to have discovered such a belief to be AH's 'religion.' Hitler found many ideas interesting and mentioned them in conversation. The more important thing for Janus, from what I can see, is to show that Hitler was not a Christian. Here too, J has lots of company. So, so far, nothing new here.

We'll look at his main page which he has headed “Hitler's Religion” with a photo (shown above) of one of two “Honor Temples” that Hitler erected in Munich after he took power in 1933. They housed the crypts of the 16 NS movement members that were killed during the failed putsch attempt of 9 November, 1923. [Btw, both were blown up by the U.S. Army after the war. Nice?] The temples are, as you can see, in a modified Greek style to fit into the surrounding architecture. Janus first learned about them from a comment made not so very long ago on my website and got excited about them. That Hitler chose the airiness of a temple design for these structures is supposed to reinforce to us his commitment to everything Greek.

After a Table of Contents of 13 items comes an Introduction.

Hitler is not the man most people think he was. […] His significance was that he was the first world leader and politician in recent times to come out into the open and proclaim the laws of the universe …

Why does J need to modify his claim with the use of 'in recent times' and how are we to define 'recent'? This comes across as tentative. J then quotes his favorite, Laurency: “ All truly great guides in mankind were either members or disciples of the planetary hierarchy” in boldface. So here we go already with the esoteric beliefs. Is there actually a planetary hierarchy, which he then defines as 'avatars?' Did Hitler ever, ever, ever mention avatars? It's not like he never heard of such things, but he was always against this type of esotericism applied to himself, as J himself acknowledges in some places.

Next J writes,

Most people view Hitler's worldview as a purely racial doctrine. These people are mistaken. Certainly race played a vital role in his worldview, I’m not trying to downplay it’s significance. But to stop at the racial aspect of National Socialism is to ignore what Hitler was attempting to do with the German people. He was clearly trying to wean them off of Christianity to confer onto them a new worthy faith.

I certainly disagree with this straw man J has set up. “Most people” know that Hitler had many hopes and aspirations for the German people; he was not obsessed only with the race question. Funny, though, that it is always non-Germans who do indeed downplay the race issue. And neither was his main interest in “weaning them off Christianity.” In fact, he didn't think the German people needed to be weaned off Christianity at all, in spite of his own personal beliefs and feelings about it. It was not until after the 1937 “Mit brennender Sorge” attack on his regime by the Catholic bishop, and Pope Pius XI's 1938 statement on the “inadmissibility” of antisemitism that Hitler spoke seriously about confronting and lessening the Church's ability to confront his government. But in 1938-39 territorial and diplomatic agendas were far more important for him, and in 1940-45 his attention was totally taken up with the war of bullets and bombs So any religious-Church concerns were not uppermost.

If you call Hitler a Germanophile you would be correct. Far more than he ever was a philhellene. I am not denying he was an admirer of ancient Greece, particularly their art. He was also an admirer of Rome and the Roman Empire. But then, he also admired Napoleon, who built an empire, and the British Empire. What he admired was strength, beauty, accomplishment, mastery … which he associated with Western man. Meaning racial purity was essential for creating a great empire, which he thought Germans capable of doing. He said often it was racial deterioration that destroyed all earlier empires.

Janus makes a lot out of Hitler's use of the axiom “God helps those who help themselves”—he counts 13 speeches—and says he's convinced it is “the key to deciphering Hitler's worldview.” Yes, it is, but J insists it is “undeniably un-Christian,” but originated in ancient Greece. He links to this Wiki page to prove that Euripides in 420 BC was the author of "Try first thyself, and after call in God; For to the worker God himself lends aid." I say, how many things of universal appeal began, to our knowledge, with the Greeks only because the Greek culture flowered first? We are the Greeks, moved further forward in time! “God helps those who help themselves” fit Hitler's idea of Germans as a hard-working people and his National Socialist dictum that 'we Germans shall go to work and we shall lift ourselves up with our own labor and ingenuity.' That's why he liked it. He understood that one has to “start the ball rolling” so to speak, and then others will show up.

Under the heading Note to Christians (still in the introduction), J writes:

Hitler and his chiefs remained in the Catholic Church to avoid losing supporters …

This is a nonsense. Hitler never left his membership in the Church because he felt no reason to do so. He did not want to shift to another church or religion. He was areligious, as so many people are, but we know he always flatly rejected atheism. He believed in a Creator/Creative Force that he held in reverence; his favorite word for it was Providence (implying beneficence). He found inspiration in Natural Law, in Nature's Wisdom. He was a genius. However, he also had to recognize it would cause a furor if he made a point of leaving the Church, making it a foolish and unnecessary thing to do. Everything he did, he did because he thought it was good for Germany.

Purpose

On the sidebar on the main page, J writes his Purpose is “to bring about a reconciliation between Hitler’s beliefs and Pythagorean notions.” He uses Laurency.com to do that. Yet he writes that “Henry T. Laurency is the pseudonym of a Swedish esoterician who was actually opposed to Hitler and National Socialism, and who also rejected Fascism and nationalism.” Does J want to reconcile Laurency's teachings with Hitler simply because he likes them both? He also likes Adam Weishaupt, the originator of the Illuminati.

Under a Disclaimer heading he writes:

Neither I nor this site are National Socialist (or nationalist for that matter).

He often repeats that his site is WIP – a work in progress. I would say that J himself is a work in progress, and that is okay because he's still young. What is not okay with me is that instead of fitting his site around Adolf Hitler (where he may have begun), he fits Adolf Hitler into his site (that is, into his own beliefs). It's also not okay that he will over-emphasize a single mention of something by Hitler in conversation into an important part of Hitler's belief system. In so doing, he downplays AH's German origins and his love and loyalty to his people, or to his always overriding racial beliefs; instead he emphasizes Hitler the World Avatar and universal man of destiny. This can't be stopped but also doesn't need to be encouraged. And, rather pathetically, J states he is unable to tie all his quotes together to make a convincing case, so hopes for “another to come” (preferably a German!) who will be able to take it over and make it work.

I think what J is really interested in is conciousness. Everyone is interested in that, except for the extremely dull-witted. So here is ...

My personal position on religion, consciousness and Hylozoism

I know that I am a part of All That Is. That is a better name for what people generally think of as God since it doesn't carry the “human personality” baggage that “God” does. The name All That Is leaves no doubt that it is everywhere and omniscient, and therefore a kind of energy, or essence, or force. I believe another name for God is Life, and from that it follows that everything has life, and even consciousness, which is my understanding of the Greek hylozoism. 

I say 'I know' because 'knowing' is something that we all have, no matter how lacking we might be in IQ points. Knowing comes in the form of feeling, which is subjective, which we then translate into objective knowledge; we know/recognize what is true by how it feels. It follows that there is no “planetary hierarchy” guiding us, as Laurency wrote; we are self-guided. To be is to know. I can't know about you, or for you, that is your personal domain. But what I know in and of myself is not different in kind from what you know of yourself. That's the riddle of The Many In The One. We all live within the great, beneficent eternalness of All That Is, but we each develop according to our own personal choices. We're all a part of groups, too, based on Attraction—like attracts like, the most important law in our universe.

Thus I say that no one “sent” Adolf Hitler; he came of his own free will and made his choices freely. As we all do. In many instances, the greatest enemies while on earth conspired to play their roles together as members of the same non-physical group. You might be able to figure out their reasons for doing so in the larger picture.

Good and evil, wealth and poverty always appear together, as do all opposites, because they are the extremes on the same spectrum. Thus it is futile to try to “wipe out” one extreme. It must be approached in a different way: we can attract into our experience only what we want by where we put our attention. In this world of mass distraction (ie, choices) this is much more difficult than it sounds but like all things, practice makes perfect. Still, there is no wrong choice.

The most amazing thing I've learned is that our physical world today, and everyone living in it, is on the Leading Edge of all that has ever been. There is no time in our past when anything was “more advanced” or more anything than it is in this now moment. The contrast between the haves and have nots, for example, appears greater because there is more of everything. We evolved because desire for something more—something we didn't have, and out of awareness of its lack, developed a wanting for it – which moved us forward into that 'more' state. Not necessarily easily—often with struggle. Life continues as expansion as long as desire is adding more to it. Thus, in this moment we, as a totality, have more than we've ever had before, and that includes knowledge.

Doesn't this make it clear that there is not a more brilliant period, a better time in our past that we should pine for, or seek to resurrect. The Greeks didn't do a better job than we are doing—far from it. The Now is the best that's ever been. Naturally, certain periods in the past hold a lot of charm, even a vibratory resonance that can make them seem like the 'ideal,' but in truth, if experienced again, would fall short of all we have in our now. And since we are free to choose how we want to 'feel' in our Now; we are never captives except to our own thoughts.

I could write on this, and make changes to this, forever, so I'll stop now.

Tags 

Hylozoism

Category 

Adolf Hitler

Comments

I appreciate reading your analysis of Hylozoism and your views about Hitler, Carolyn.  Thanks for taking the time to investigate the overwhelmingly large website to give an overview of its offerings and to give your readers more of an understanding about AH.  What you write makes a great deal of common sense. I do not want to be "enriched" by any esotericism concerning AH as an avatar, so I am grateful for the warning.  Hitler, the genius, and Hitler the noble leader are good enough ideas for me.  

Well, I wouldn't say I've given an overview of Janus' website, that is too much to do, but I just poiinted out a few things that stood out to me in his introductory writings that I don't think are defensible. Naturally, I do recognize he can hold whatever views he wants, and I do still find him interesting. I have been kind of itching to put forth my own spiritual  ideas and discoveries for a while now, but I don't think they are of much interest to anyone. Too bad.

I was hoping that your "overview" was comprehensive in that the introductory part you explored might represent the whole.  I know the website is vast, but what you prepared for us was enough for me.  
 
What (little) you wrote of your spiritual ideas were, to me, also commonsensical as is most everything you write.  Why not go for it and write a more comprehensive essay?  Your writings always hold my interest as your brain or intellect always shines through it.  So let the reader glean a wider insight into the workings of your mind and spirit.  What discoveries might you be referring to?  Were they a consequence of your spiritual viewpoint?  

I did look over all the "topics" listed at the top of the page, but didn't think there was much "meat" in most of them. He has a lot of quotes pasted in those sections which are on a 'temporary' status ... waiting for him to determine how, or if, they relate to AH. A Work in Progress it definitely is.

I first wrote a lot more in my "spiritual" section, and it was more interesting to read, but I decided it was "too much" so cut it way back. Now it's too brief and curt. But I think it works better in a back and forth, replying to comments/questions. I don't understand your  question, "What discoveries might you be referring to?" These understandings are being circulated widely in our world today as more and more people are learning they can access their inner teachers. The most outstanding of these teachers in the world today, as far as I can tell, is Esther Hicks with her Abraham Group. I was introduced to them back when they began, in 1988, with their 'Earth Changes' tape and I had already spent a lifetime searching for and following "truth". Because of the way my own desires and learning have unfolded, I suspect I am a part of that large group that they are part of. This is not the reason but when they are asked about "horrible evils in the world, like the Holocaust" they answer that "this is a belief that does not serve you." A belief is just a thought that you keep thinking, and when you stop thinking it, it goes away, they say. Absolutely true. That's why (((they))) keep building holocaust museums and memorials, and the media keep writing about it. That puts us (me) into something of a dilemma. Recently I had the thought that if I had the power, I would bomb and bulldoze every one of those former German work camp shrines & memorials into oblivion, leaving not a trace of anything. That's what they did after the war to most of the beautiful things Hitler built. That's how you put an end to it. As long as people keep thinking the same thought ... that's what makes a belief.

Carolyn, your earlier comment mentioned that you had your "own spiritual ideas and discoveries."  I wanted to know consequently what discoveries you made and were they the consequence of your own spiritual ideas or were the discoveries something apart from your spiritual ideas.  You've answered me that your own spiritual ideas are rooted in a larger circulation of "understanding" established by Esther Hicks.  Do I have that right?

To answer your question, "There is nothing new under the sun." Just about every "new age" spiritual idea you can come up with can be found in the Holy Bible under different wording, and in Buddhist/Hindu literature. Sometimes the same wording, like "Ask and it will be given to you. Seek and you will find." I learned these and others when I was in the 4th grade. Even the Disney movie Cinderella, with its song "When you wish upon a star, makes no difference who you are ..." stuck with me; I remember singing it to myself as I washed the dishes for my mother. I loved the idea of unlimited possibilities. When the book The Power of Positive Thinking came out in the 50's, everyone was talking about it (186 weeks on the NYTimes Bestseller list); we eventually had a copy at our house, which I read. In the 7th grade my new best friend and I went faithfully to the Christian Science Church sunday school, which made her mother very happy. We both read Science and Health religiously and discussed it, hoping to heal ourselves of everything we didn't like. In high school, I'd go to the library and sit on the floor where the metaphysical, psychology and religion books were and look at them all, trying to decide which ones to take home. That's where I first came upon Jacob Boehme. When I was 21, alone in my Chgo. apt., I had an out-of-body experience which amazed me. I had just started to do a little meditation that was in a book I was reading and Wham! I was looking  down on myself sitting in the chair very still with the book in my hands. My location was the corner of the room right up against the ceiling. Taking all this in, I began to question how this was possible and that brought me back (I guess) to watching a very profound vision, after which I was back to regular and in great awe over what had just happened. What impressed me most was that my consciousness and eyesight were up in the corner, while my body was perfectly fine waiting in the chair. So eyesight is not limited to the physical. That's what I couldn't explain.

I was too much of a reader and thinker (mental) to have too many experiences like this. I've had lots of experiences of thinking fairly intensely about something and then having it appear in my experience. Also feeling hopeless about a problem, handing it over to God and then stop worrying and accept it as is,  only to find that problem suddenly flare up again and I am almost propelled to take steps that successfully got rid of it for good without any difficulty - or guilt.

From 1976 to 1986 a whole lot happened with me, really incredible experiences. It's a wonder I survived all the stress. But also thrills. I met my 'Spiritual Guide' (I prefer to now call her my Inner Self) and had many talks with her. What a magnificent teacher she is ... and I am her! So I could actually do everything Esther Hicks does, if I put myself to it. But it's not what I've chose to do - who can say why. One thing for me, I don't want to become famous - I don't want the scrutiny! I've always been kind of a hider. And I'm a pretty big control freak, too. But I've had lots of teachers, even teachers have teachers, you know. It's great to have the confirmation, great for your confidence. Esther is so far the last one that I really get a lot out of. I've met her several times in person, and Jerry too. But I'm not at all one of the big followers of theirs; I never went on a cruise and only went  to a few conferences over the years. I guess the last one was around 2000. I like to rely on myself and I've been busy with Adolf. I'm getting back to it now though, as you can maybe tell from my writing so much about it.

Fred wrote to me with this:

I have a friend whom I haven't talked with in a number of years.  She was a  member of a group of people that carry Hylozoism to an extreme.  She was in love with and married to a Fence.  She carried this to an extreme (as do a large group of people) and actually had sex with the fence.  She called this Anamism.   It was unclear to me how one could have sex with a fence and she sent me a photograph of the encounter.  I am not crazy about the term, if applied to Hitler.

Fred

I thank Fred for bringing this to my attention. I myself recently read about a woman who married some object, and I also recall a story of a man who had formed a permanent relationship (marriage?) with his inflatable sex doll. It seems these are people who have difficulty forming relationships with unpredictable human beings. This is NOT what I am talking about here, or I HOPE this is not how Hylozoism is interpreted.

The distinction is between nature-made objects and man-made objects. I think rock and stone is "living", but the appliances in my kitchen are not. (Even though they originate from materials found in the earth, like iron and aluminum, I ask? Hmm) Well, there are great differences in the type or level of consciousness of organisims.

Considering all the oddball extremes people take things to, I agree with Fred that we should be careful of applying something like "Hylozoism" to Adolf Hitler. Since AH never directly used the word or directly applied such beliefs to himself, we shouldn't be  doing so. I think I was right when I wrote:

Hitler found many ideas interesting and mentioned them in conversation.

And

It's also not okay that he [J] will over-emphasize a single mention of something by Hitler in conversation into an important part of Hitler's belief system.

Janus needs to address these questions.

Admittedly, the title of my site was not very well thought out but I owe that to inexperience. I now generally prefer calling it monism.

Taken further, in a religious sense, that Spirit (God) permeates all of physical matter.

Taken broadly, actually. The typical definition given for hylozoism barely scratches the surface of it's etymology. It's not surprising that Christians, such as Pope Pius XI and the theologian Richard Weikart, confuse it for pantheism. Incidentally, Weikart's various books about Hitler pointed out to me how similar Hitler and Haeckel were in their ideas and statements. This article also examines such similarities, albeit more broadly. http://worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/Radical%20Ecology.htm
Ernst Haeckel's given formulation for hylozoism was:
“This expresses the fact that all substance has two fundamental attributes; as matter (hyle) it occupies space, and as force or energy it is endowed with sensation (cf. chapter xix.).”
This suggests something more than the usual interpretation.

And I think many people, possibly even Adolf Hitler, agree with it without ever knowing it by that name.

Neither Ernst Haeckel's publications nor the writings of pre-Socratic philosophers would've escaped him. He already reiterates a formulation given by Xenophanes and the maxim “struggle is the father of all things” employed in several speeches is an obvious recurrence to Herakleitos, who was also invoked by NS propagandists Robert Ley and Alfred Rosenberg.

It is a widespread human attitude.

That is categorically false. “Most uncivilized races still make no material distinction between the two sets of mental processes, as the well-known animal fables, the old legends, and the idea of the transmigration of souls prove.” (Haeckel)
Celsus pointed out how the first and foremost point about the Jews that bewildered the ancient Romans was their refusal to defer to the stars and planets (their contempt for stars being found in the passing mention of their god having “made the stars also”; Gen. 1:16), only recognizing heaven and the angels (essentially the royal stars of Persia), “as if it were possible that ‘the whole’ could be God, and yet its parts not divine.” Plotinos described the quasi-gnostic Christians of his time similarly.

That's why I don't think it's correct to claim to have discovered such a belief to be AH's 'religion.' Hitler found many ideas interesting and mentioned them in conversation. The more important thing for Janus, from what I can see, is to show that Hitler was not a Christian.

The most important thing for all to see is that Hitler regarded the monistic science as the definitive refutation of Christianity! It would be the dynamite he had long sought for in his youth. It is perfectly consistent with his declaration that science would triumph over the Church's dogma. This was not just some obscure theory he passed by like he did with Odic Force. Not to mention his embrace of Hanns Hoerbiger's theory demonstrates not only an appreciation for the struggle concept, but also an inclination for monism: “what is found in the universe is ice, and not water”.
The ancient foundation of the Marxist teaching, as identified by it's “cultural prophet” Georgi Plekhanov (recommended by Lenin), even preceding Christianity and Aristotle, was Demokritos, who is regarded as the founder of atomic theory. If NS posits itself to be the direct antithesis to Marxism, then it must necessarily have a counterpart basis of knowledge, which could only be Pythagorean/Platonist.

The temples are, as you can see, in a modified Greek style to fit into the surrounding architecture. Janus first learned about them from a comment made not so very long ago on my website and got excited about them. That Hitler chose the airiness of a temple design for these structures is supposed to reinforce to us his commitment to everything Greek.

Actually, I posited that the temples were ahead of their times, with the possibility of being pre-Grecian. I never once suggested that it had been modeled off of the Greeks, I was even implying that it had surpassed them. The commenter I was discussing them with said he had never seen anything like it before.

Why does J need to modify his claim with the use of 'in recent times' and how are we to define 'recent'? This comes across as tentative.

I made that revision in consideration of past labors of great men. Hitler was not unique in that proclamative task.
Furthermore, I possess no gift for formulation. I'm only good at assimilating ideas and piecing them together, in consideration of Hitler's philosophy that one should treat facts as pieces to a mosaic.
Wagener believed Hitler's greatest skill laid in “his ability to express and verbalize with altogether admirable distinctness and clarity any theme that happened to suit him or that an external occasion pulled into the sphere of the discussion–the ability such as others were able to develop only after long preparation and in the form of a carefully considered lecture.” (Memoirs of a Confidant, p.g. 176-177)
Laurency
"Laurency" claimed to have been a Pythagorean in a past life and he doesn't come off to me as being well-read or having a bad intention. As an intellectual, he has at least surpassed Schopenhauer, in whom he found something in common.

So here we go already with the esoteric beliefs. Is there actually a planetary hierarchy, which he then defines as 'avatars??

I never once claimed any of it as “esoteric” nor do I label my site as “esoteric”. I even go so far as to denounce “esoteric Hitlerism” as represented by Savitri, Serrano, Myatt, etc. I would add Colin Jordan and James Larratt Battersby to that list. I believe even I expressed skepticism about a planetary hierarchy somewhere on the site at one point.
I might have later removed that, in consideration for Table Talk entry Feb. 17, 1942: “Peace can result only from a natural order. The condition of this order is that there is a hierarchy amongst nations. The most capable nations must necessarily take the lead.” This same notion was expressed by Otto Dietrich in one of his speeches, who invoked Platon's Laws as a model for this idea.

Did Hitler ever, ever, ever mention avatars? It's not like he never heard of such things, but he was always against this type of esotericism applied to himself, as J himself acknowledges in some places.

If he did, I'm sure I could find it given enough time and motivation. But at present, I do not know if he specifically mentioned the term. Besides, no avatar testifies to himself. I know, however, that Hitler (as well as Rudolf Hess) did hold onto a belief that Providence sent great men in times of need. Also, Peter Padfield recounts testimony from Felix Kersten (who's memoirs may not be so reliable) about Himmler applying the Hindu formulation ‘whenever the law of righteousness withers and lawlessness arises, I will be born anew’ to Hitler's appearance on the world stage.

“Most people” know that Hitler had many hopes and aspirations for the German people; he was not obsessed only with the race question.

Maybe it's just from my many dealings with moralists, but a vast section of human beings probably don't see it this way.

Funny, though, that it is always non-Germans who do indeed downplay the race issue.

From what I can tell, race as it is treated in modern-day nationalist circles is largely divorced from religion. In my discussions with people online, they often tell me that they are irreligious and only identify outwardly as religious.

And neither was his main interest in “weaning them off Christianity.” In fact, he didn't think the German people needed to be weaned off Christianity at all, in spite of his own personal beliefs and feelings about it.

His speeches throughout 1936-1941 speak for themselves. “God helps those who help themselves.” He urges them with unmistakable consistency not to rely on international and foreign aid, not to believe “in forces and ideals which lay outside the German Reich and outside of our people”.

It was not until after the 1937 “Mit brennender Sorge” attack on his regime by the Catholic bishop, and Pope Pius XI's 1938 statement on the “inadmissibility” of antisemitism that Hitler spoke seriously about confronting and lessening the Church's ability to confront his government.

Perhaps. He explicitly says in a Nov. 22, 1937 speech that he was founding a new state not founded in Christianity.

If you call Hitler a Germanophile you would be correct. Far more than he ever was a philhellene. I am not denying he was an admirer of ancient Greece, particularly their art.

Not only ancient Greece. He frequently praises his contemporary Greek adversaries in his speeches.

He links to this Wiki page to prove that Euripides in 420 BC was the author of "Try first thyself, and after call in God; For to the worker God himself lends aid."

That was not my intention for linking to that section. I never even mentioned Euripides. The link was meant to provide background, that is all.

I say, how many things of universal appeal began, to our knowledge, with the Greeks only because the Greek culture flowered first? We are the Greeks, moved further forward in time!

Admittedly, a better climate would have afforded the German people the same blossoming and I do regard the German people as the cultural successors and inheritors of ancient Greece.
 
“Hitler and his chiefs remained in the Catholic Church to avoid losing supporters.”
 
Clarification: he didn't want party division plus he acknowledged that Christianity had once served as a weltanschaaung foundation for Germany's morality.
 

He believed in a Creator/Creative Force that he held in reverence; his favorite word for it was Providence (implying beneficence). He found inspiration in Natural Law, in Nature's Wisdom.

And that is a contradiction.Also, the much abused word “create” should be substituted with “shape”.
“All that modern hygiene now does for the public health, especially the improvement of the dwellings and food of the poorer classes, the prevention of disease by healthier habits, baths, athletics, etc., can be traced to the monistic teaching or reason, and is altogether opposed to the Christian belief in Providence and the dualism connected therewith. The maxim of modern hygiene is: God helps those who help themselves.” (Ernst Haeckel)
Hitler's use of Providence was obviously not in the Christian or Deist sense. He merely took advantage of the word's ambiguity, knowing it would resonate with a Christian majority Germany. Martin Bormann made it explicitly clear that they did not mean a belief in “a manlike being who is sitting around in some corner of the spheres”. To Otto Wagener, Hitler had said, “If I use the word ‘divine,’ I am not visualizing a god in human form with a long white beard.” A Waffen-SS publication by devoted poet Kurt Eggers, whose quotes compilation had been read by Hitler, also discusses this subject.

Does J want to reconcile Laurency's teachings with Hitler simply because he likes them both?

I only like people who I have thoroughly studied and gotten to know. Even friends are merely acquaintances to me. I know hardly anything about “Laurency”, as such, I cannot be said to like him. I certainly appreciate him for his insight but that's all.
I actually dislike “Laurency” for his impertinent condemnation of Hitler without examining the pertaining literature. “Laurency” was familiar with the writings of innumerable theosophists, occultists, spiritualists, philosophers, scientists, etc. and addresses every one of them in great detail. But then how did he manage to overlook this one ideology and in turn hail FDR as a cultural savior? This proves that no man is absolutely invulnerable to atrocity propaganda and one would do well to remain constantly on guard against all such claims.

He also likes Adam Weishaupt, the originator of the Illuminati.

Weishaupt is probably the only one who I am really being subjective about. As it happens, I was introduced to his philosophical works before Hitler and “Laurency”. They speak volumes! I have also put a considerable amount of time into studying his life and ideas.
Furthermore, I am of the belief that one should pay homage to past precedents. To this day, Weishaupt remains a neglected reformer outside of Germany and his movement has become the unceasing victim of insipid caricature (undoubtedly an attempt to heap more guilt and shame upon Germans). By countering the myths that have built around him and his movement, it removes a large obstacle in pinpointing the true culprits of our time's calamity. Even FDR's son-in-law Curtis Dall puts the blame on the Illuminati.
Weishaupt was influenced by Christoph Meiners, who is said to have influenced “the well-known student of races” Ludwig Schemann. People will quote George Washington's concerns on the spread of Illuminism in masonic lodges. I in turn point them out to Thomas Jefferson's letter concerning Weishaupt, who he identifies as a reformer of Christianity. Is it a coincidence that four years later, he would go on to pen a treatise on The Philosophy of the Nazareth?

I have to say that you have not put to rest my main criticism, which is that you do not make your case. Whatever it is you are trying to demonstrate (and it shifts a bit every time you add to and make changes), as best I can make it out, you are not succeeding.

But I agree with Monism - that is better than Hylozoism. After reading up on Monism, I can confidently say I am a Monist. And probably Hitler was too. But then what? I said I thought it was a widespread human attitude, instinctively. You called that "categorically false." But I couldn't follow what you wrote after that - it didn't seem to apply.

Here's an example of this failure of yours. You wrote this:

Hitler mentions in several speechesstruggle is the father of all things” by Xenophanes, a obvious recurrence to Herakleitos who was also invoked by NS propagandists Robert Ley and Alfred Rosenberg.

Please explain in what way "struggle is the father of all things" is by Xenophanes and where Herakleitos comes in, plus where invoked by Ley and Rosenberg. I couldn't find it so it's not obvious. If you were doing this properly, you would source all of this and also provide the quotes.

You seem to be saying that because Ley and Rosenberg mention Herakleitos, that means that Hitler got the "struggle" idea from Xenophanes. I understand you see the connection, but does anyone else?+

It's partly because you try to cover such a broad range of things that you think you can't be thorough. Being thorough in a few things, in order to be convincing, is better than not being convincing in a lot of things.

One more example: You wrote,

I never once claimed any of it as “esoteric” nor do I label my site as “esoteric”.

In your very first Introductory paragraphs, you quote Laurency in boldface calling the “great guides of mankind members of the planetary hierarchy” and follow that with saying these members were (avatars). That's what I was specifically referring to. You are quibbling. You then say:

I know, however, that Hitler (as well as Rudolf Hess) did hold onto a belief that Providence sent great men in times of need. Also, Peter Padfield recounts testimony from Felix Kersten (who's memoirs may not be so reliable) about Himmler applying the Hindu formulation ‘whenever the law of righteousness withers and lawlessness arises, I will be born anew’ to Hitler's appearance on the world stage.

Please tell me how you “know” that Hitler (not Hess) held onto a belief that Providence sent great men in times of need. I am not denying such a thing, but where is the documentation that Hitler said so. Be complete, not sketchy. What Himmler thought does not count even if Himmler often matched his views with Hitler's. 

He often repeats that his site is WIP – a work in progress. I would say that J himself is a work in progress, and that is okay because he's still young.
I shouldn't have to point out how it is in youth that people lay down their groundwork.
 
What is not okay with me is that instead of fitting his site around Adolf Hitler (where he may have begun), he fits Adolf Hitler into his site (that is, into his own beliefs).
As I have recently added to the About page, my actual beliefs are nihilistic.
I merely bear the optimistic monistic teaching in hope that someone who understands it will take it up.

It's also not okay that he will over-emphasize a single mention of something by Hitler in conversation into an important part of Hitler's belief system. In so doing, he downplays AH's German origins and his love and loyalty to his people, or to his always overriding racial beliefs; instead he emphasizes Hitler the World Avatar and universal man of destiny.

That is absurd. It wasn't a single mention, it was mentioned in two separate conversations in the same month, also being affirmed in a speech (which is undoubtedly authentic, as the audio matches the transcript). Plus I have never used the word "avatar" to refer to Hitler.
I also indicated that the fulfiller of universal yearning would come after him. I fully recognize that he had only come for the German people.
Plus, Hitler's love for his people is undeniable. For comparison,
"Thank God the overwhelming mass of the German Volk has a finely attuned sense for who counts himself among the Volk and who distances himself from it." (Memoirs of a Confidant, p.g. 211)
"Thank God, the German Volk, as I have come to know it in its mass of different individuals, is strong and thoroughly healthy." (Nov. 8, 1943 speech)

This can't be stopped but also doesn't need to be encouraged.

I can call it quits anytime. As you know, I'm not invested in the future. But why would I shut down something I've spent so much time on? It'd be a "sin" of omission to do nothing with this knowledge.

And, rather pathetically, J states he is unable to tie all his quotes together to make a convincing case, so hopes for “another to come” (preferably a German!) who will be able to take it over and make it work.

That's not how I put it. I said, "It is hoped that someone who sees the bigger picture will build upon this site’s archives. Ideally a Germanic researcher. I’m hardly qualified for this task. I am not a German and lack the organizational talent to make it further comprehensible." Here my inferiority complex shows itself. If you compare my site to a publication by Schopenhauer or even the Jew Spinoza, you'll find the latter easier to read. Mine comes off as just being a giant jumble of quotes which only I seem to be familiar with navigating. At the very least, it furnishes me with a foundation for my beliefs so it's not entirely worthless.

I think what J is really interested in is conciousness. Everyone is interested in that, except for the extremely dull-witted.

Hardly, my interest is in the matter aspect. The Orientals tend to incline themselves towards consciousness and mysticism, but I am not one of them.

"There is no time in our past when anything was “more advanced” or more anything than it is in this now moment."
 
That is incorrect, @Carolyn! The first half of the 20th century was far advanced in its hatred of Christianity than we are. See the rise of Young Earth creationism in the US and the discontinuation of forced sterilization in Sweden.

What I mean by that is:

Everything in our past is included in our Now, so we just always have more available to us. This includes your Young Earth Creationsim idea and all the sterilizaton beliefs and programs. That doesn't mean anyone will be conscious of it all in their now, of course, but it has brought us to where we are now and it can be accessed. By contrast, 50,000,000 years ago, humans were vastly more limited beings. Even 50 years ago, we were more limited in our store of knowledge.

You have heard that the universe is expanding? It is, and it is our physical participation in physical life that causes the expansion.

First, 50 mil. years ago, there were no humans around - even primates were a distant future!
Second, "our physical participation in physical life" certainly does not cause the expansion of the Universe!
So, @carolyn, are you schizophrenic? Honestly, I'm appalled - I've come from César's blog to read your famed scholarly analysis of Hitler's words, and you're pushing clear insanity?

I should have said 5 million and pre-human, but they keep finding evidence of earlier intelligent life all the time. Anyway, I'm not a biologist and the point is that we are always expanding. You have no idea what causes the expansion of the Universe so don't pretend you do.

I'm talking about consciousness. The physical, in whatever form, is animated by consciousness. Consciousness (God) IS expanding and it expands through its creative power which requires Desire to create. So we partake of our Creator's creativity and expand Creation when we desire something more. This is the spiritual (and even physical) explanation of "what it's all for." You may want it to be something else, and that's your right as a participant in All That Is.

Add new comment