Hitler’s performance art

This is what happens almost every day in the Netherlands. A Holocaust against non-human animals. People get offended when you say this. “How dare you compare the murder of animals shoved into a gas chamber to the murder of people shoved into a gas chamber!” They’ll insist. This is a product of your anthropocentric thinking.

In Hitler’s Germany, Germanocentric thinking was the norm: The rights of Germans matter. Children were taught from an early age that Jews are subhuman. In school they would be taught how to spot the difference between a Jewish nose and a Germanic nose. And so they can not be held morally responsible: To them the rights of a Jew would seem as absurd as the rights of a pig do to you. How can you be held responsible for eating meat in a culture that normalizes it? How can you be held responsible for operating a gas chamber in a culture that normalizes it?

Nothing that happens in history happens without a reason. We humans are here to manifest timeless ideas. We are puppets of the Gods. And the Holocaust similarly, was a sadomasochistic pact between the Nazi (which means prince or priest in Hebrew) and the Jew, actors engaged in a form of performance art on the world’s stage, that was meant to confront human beings with their own cruelty.

The Greek word Holocaust means “burned offering”. It was a sacrifice, of millions of human beings, to confront humans with their own evil, how we are capable of any atrocity when our culture normalizes it. The Jews had to be the victims, because they were barely distinguishable from other Europeans: They were our neighbors, our marriage partners, they were in the process of assimilating until they would be unrecognizable. It thereby illustrated the full extent of human cruelty, how our imagined virtues are really just a product of social conditioning.

Hitler was a dramatic man, he wanted to become an artist, but was not allowed into art school, so he turned politics into performance art. Like Zelensky in Ukraine, he blended the lines between politics and acting. All his earliest speeches were basically just about the stuff he saw in the theater, he would just complain about the theater performances he disliked.

Hitler was not just a dramatic man, the young Hitler also had a weak spot for Jewish girls. He complains in his earliest speeches about how Jewish men pimp out their wives and daughters. It’s very clear he had a sexual desire for Jewish women. And this is also illustrated by his insane desire for Stefanie Isak, which almost drove him to suicide. The only woman who is said to have had any influence over Hitler was Stephanie von Hohenlohe, an illegitimate Jewish princess, who was popular among the top hierarchy. Hitler was also extremely fond of his Jewish doctor, who treated his mother for free when she had breast cancer and he made sure he would not become a participant in his performance theater.

Hitler’s real objective was very simple and it can be understood when you recognize his effort as the conversion of Germany to Dharma. Why would a European politician rally an entire country under the Swastika, an ancient Indian symbol? Why would Himmler carry the Bhagavad Gita with him? Why would they import a foreign culture? Why did they ban Kosher slaughter? Why did they ban animal experimentation? Why did they restrict hunting? Why was Hitler a vegetarian? Why did Goebbels say that Hitler wanted to shut down all the butcheries after the war was over? Why did they begin feeding their troops soybeans near the end of the war?

Once victory proved impossible, once it became clear Hitler could never shut down all of the world’s butcheries, the Wannsee conference was organized. And here a historical decision was taken, to confront a people with their own cruelty. The dehumanization of other ethnic groups would be taken to its most extreme conclusion: To treat them the way we now treat animals every single day.

The Holocaust is the most extreme taboo in modern society, a secular religion, because it reminds human beings so much of the evil they continue to commit, behind closed doors, where nobody is supposed to see it. They want to pretend it is not going on and they become enraged when they are confronted with it, like when someone points out to them that all this manure is poisoning our soil. They want to pretend it is not happening. Simultaneously, they are thankful to the farmers, who commit the cruel acts on their behalf and will pay the full price during their future reincarnations. The more guilt Dutch white trash feel, the more thankful they are to the Dutch farmers, the more they venerate them.

There is just one word you need, to understand Hinduism: Ahimsa. To abstain from cruelty. And yet, immediately after Hitler was surrounded on all sides within meters of his bunker and committed suicide, people began to misinterpret what had happened. They were going to preempt anyone drawing the logical conclusion from his grand performance: What Hitler did is wrong because all humans are equal, in contrast to those born as non-human who have a hereditary subordinate status.

The post-WWII era would be the era that takes anthropocentrism to its extreme conclusion. Every single day, your species commits a Holocaust against 200 million land animals. The whole planet is beginning to suffocate, ecosystems are collapsing because you have usurped all the world’s land for your eternal animal Holocaust. You are the evil species, Hitler is your collective scapegoat. Until 1945 Jesus died for your sins, but now Hitler died for your sins.

It is the most absurd possible conclusion to draw from the Holocaust, that humans are somehow an egalitarian master species, elevated on an equal basis above all other species, yet this is your modern religion, this is the only thing you people truly believe. Where do you wish to draw the line? A chimpanzee is non-human and thus proper food? Are you going to teach me how to recognize the difference between a chimpanzee’s nose and a human nose?

It’s not alright to send Jews to the gas chambers, because they are human, but it is alright to send chimpanzees to the gas chamber? What about a chimpanzee human hybrid, would it be ok to gas them for food? No? Because they have some human genetic material in them?

Alright, what then about the pigs who are genetically manipulated with human genes, to produce donor organs? Do they deserve not to be murdered, because they have some human genes? How many human genes do you need, for it to be wrong for you to be sent to the gas chamber? Some mice have multiple human genes. Or are animal genes somehow responsible for you not deserving the right to live? Well almost all of us have some animal genes in us: We descend from species other than Homo Sapiens too.

Hitler preempted all your criticisms, he was willing to play the villain and wear the black robe, to expose YOU as the villain. You have no valid argument on the basis of which you can say that there is a difference between his grand performance theater and your casual animal genocide turned into an economic sector.

Is it intelligence you wish to base rights on? In that case you’re arguing that Hitler was in his right when he engaged in his eugenics program to murder the handicapped! His message was very simple: By playing the villain, by performing his insane trolley thought experiment, he forced you towards the natural conclusion that compassion should be extended to ALL SENTIENT LIFEFORMS. Hence why Savitri Devi saw him as an avatar of Vishnu.

And the price he was willing to pay to accomplish this, was to be forever seen as the world’s worst person, the incarnation of pure evil. That’s what I call a sacrifice.


  1. As context, I myself eat little meat but a modest amount of fish, all for health reasons.

    Your big error in this post is in the assumption that equality is true, therefore, different tribes are all just “human” and must be considered as a giant brotherhood of equals.

    Since equality is in fact not true, universal brotherhood of man is a lie, and there is no reason whatsoever to think of different tribes as “equal” to ourselves.

    The intended goal of your article here is to force people to confront the contradiction in their reasoning, thinking that X was bad when Hitler did it but that X is perfectly fine when done to pigs and other animals.

    The problem is that it’s far more logical to conclude X was fine in both cases, than that X was wrong in both cases.

    The holocaust was dope, and there is nothing wrong with exterminating tribal enemies, and never has been.

    Don’t get me wrong, I severely disliked Hitler, I think Erich Ludendorff’s critiques against him were essentially correct. Statism and bureaucracy are the most retarded possible ways to try to implement everything, especially volkism.

    • The problem with exterminating tribal enemies is that you will never run out of tribal enemies. In fact, you will rapidly find tribal enemies among your own tribe, or your tribe will declare you to be a tribal enemy.

      This simple fact means that over time, such tribes are replaced by tribes that are more compassionate.

      The Indians do not gravitate towards Dharma because they are mistaken, but because it is ultimately also just the optimal long-term survival strategy: With their habit of incorporating other religious teachers like Jesus and Buddha into their belief system, while discouraging the consumption of meat, they create a continent where they can give birth to many people.

      The evolution of humanity is towards ever greater compassion for other organisms, because this is the optimal survival strategy.

      Tribes like the Dutch, who use their land as a place to build concentration camps for animals, will simply go extinct and be replaced by less cruel tribes. The murder of animals damages our soils and poisons our groundwater. This place will simply become uninhabitable as a result. Similarly, use of modern weaponry in Ukraine is poisoning the Ukrainian soil.

      • Re. the Dutch, that may come true but it must be mainly because they foolishly invite up Indians to replace them. In the past inviting people in to replace the indigenous was unheard of. I mean when the indigenous of the Americas or Australia were replaced, force played a role. Aztecs, Sioux, Incas, Aborigines etc weren’t happy about being replaced but the conquerors were much stronger.
        That’s not the case now, if aliens like Kodos or Kang are observing us they must find it interesting.
        You may have a point about Indians being comparatively pacifist but what you’re saying just can’t be universal. The Chechens are interesting, they weren’t/aren’t pacifist. Listen to Timur Mucuraev. I read they tied down a very considerable percentage of the Russian imperial army.
        You may have somewhat of a point, but some cultures succeed by being aggressive.

        ALSO, if there were no fossil fuels, shifting Indians or Africans up to Europe on replacement missions would be that mush harder. They are predicted to run out fairly soon so it will be interesting to observe what happens. I mean in the time of Marco Polo intercontinental travel took years or decades.

      • The competition between tribes will never end, no.

        Competition also exists intra-tribally, faction vs faction, family vs family, and man vs. man.

        This too is historically normal and eternal. When Erich Ludendorff as I mentioned above said he rejected christianity, he said he did so because it was international, because it was jewish, and because in cowardly fashion it desired peace on earth.

        I essentially agree; we have always and will always live in a darwinian meat grinder. That is called “nature.” Rather than struggle against it, I affirm nature.

      • > The evolution of humanity is towards ever greater compassion for other organisms, because this is the optimal survival strategy.

        Ehhhh….gonna need a source on that.

    • Overall I’d say I agree with your take and perspective, and you concisely describe my problems with the article.

      Knowing your other attitudes, I’d be interested in knowing how you felt about something that occurred to me reading these comments: I have no problem with killing things as long as
      -their existence is offensive to me, or
      -my doing so constitutes a tragic yet beautiful end to their lives.
      Suffering, pain, misfortune, etc. are all part of the grand theater of existence and are ultimately “good” in the grand scheme for the sake of the beauty they create (visible in the stark irony of people avoiding/forgoing all of those things for the sake of comfortable lives revolving around consumption of entertainment media, all of which is predicated on conflict; we yearn for conflict, hardship, dynamics even if we might be scared of them on the surface), but not all suffering and hardship are beautiful. Therein lies the problem: wild game living on the run and eventually meeting a tragic end is beautiful, yet an animal born and raised in a stuffy slaughterhouse doing nothing for its entire life is not living nor dying beautifully, and the creation and purveyance of ugliness is sinful.

      One of rintrah’s commenters on twitter called the operation an aesthetic crime, which resonated with me; if I were to stop eating meat (again) then something along these lines is probably what would make me do so.

  2. I’ve been thinking about this for most of my life (found your blog through sharing of a covid post).

    1. Food isn’t a moral choice until one has a decent level of health and accessible good food to choose from.
    2. The very young certainly need milk, and sometimes that’s cow/goat/etc. milk replacing the more ideal mother’s milk.
    3. The very old sometimes benefit from dairy products.
    4. Some people would be in ill health if they did not consume a little to a lot of animal flesh, and their health is their business.

    Basically, the ‘original’ definition of veganism (https://www.vegansociety.com/about-us/history), which I will paraphrase as, “To avoid, to one’s ability and within reason, the murder of animals, the exploitation of animals, and cruelty towards animals, in all aspects of life,” needs to be seen for what it is: guidance. The most important aspect within is the assertion that animals can be murdered, exploited, and that one can be cruel to them. It does not follow that an exhausted, spent father feeding his family with KFC on a Thursday is a murderer, or uncaring – see the 4 points above.

    Humans are going through some sort of collective identity crisis. If I hear the sentence, “humans are special/ unique because ______ ” – one more time, I am going to shit in my hand and fling it at them. Jokes aside… Going around acting like I am special and therefore no one else is special, or that what makes me special is more important than what makes anyone else special, is ridiculous. It ends in needless hurt every time.

    A measure of success regarding our collective ability to remain on this planet, a measure of healing, will be our ability to see Others as people, different but equal. Person-hood is a gift, it’s in the way you look at another. Person-hood is the space you make inside yourself for another to inhabit. It’s that there is a space at all. Are the doors of your soul open to receiving visitors? Can we learn to be humble enough to value ourselves without devaluing others? Etc. etc. Basic wisdom.

    I might have high hopes for the long run, and if people decide to raise and slaughter their own meat in the short term because their grandparents did it, may they be big enough to meet the eyes of those creatures and ask the hard questions: Is this okay? Do I need to do this? Are there other ways? And if they eat the mrna bill gates flesh, may they realize it’s hurting them sooner rather than later. And if they go on a vegan-fascist killing spree may they calm the frack down and stop it.

    I don’t think Hitler was sacrificing himself and those he killed to show us how awful we are. I think he was mad. And, this slice of history does teach how humans can be cruel and exclusionary.

    Everything is also a mirror. People meet the eyes of pigs and hate that they see themselves reflected there. The journey to self-knowledge and therefore freedom involves respecting pigs, and trees, and ants, because everything is also mirror. Would we recognize ourselves if we saw our own reflection? I don’t think so. Not right now. We have so many ideas about ourselves we use as shields against seeing.

  3. What a weird egocentric view about our relationship with the animals. We are omnivore, so we eat animal and plants. We are “equal” in the sense that we are all subject to laws of nature and we are all in circle of the food chain. If you prefer to self delete or self limit by ignoring basic facts, the suit yourself. Humans’ killing and eating animals is just part of the nature. You seem to think our human bodies made of flesh and blood can function above the rules predetermined for us. What a raging covet narcissist. Get over your pathetic self loath.

  4. So ehm. Dear radegast.
    You really think gas-chambers were real in WW2?

    For someone so knowledgeable and smart you sure have multiple taboos you just will not look into, will you?

  5. There’s also the possibility that WWII was just an act in a long war between Semites and Brahmans that is played out using local dopes as soldiers (Europeans).

    • This rings interesting and worth investigating, and I don’t know anything about it. Where could I start looking? Thanks.

  6. And all this time I’ve been thinking Adolph offed millions of Jews because he hated them more than his life itself. I never realised he was possibly a divine being sent here to reach us about animal rights.

  7. Hitler didn’t commit suicide, he escaped to south america. This has been known for a long time to anyone not brainwashed, who assayed the evidence, and confirmed by recently declassified CIA documents.

    The Holocause was fake. There is no court admissable (ie physical, not torture extracted, not ridiculous physically impossible hearsay etc) evidence for gas chambers or deliberate extermination attempts, much evidence against it, and complete physical impossibilities within the holohoax narrative. Zero, zilch, zip, none, nada. No documents (that aren’t deliberately misinterpreted. No speeches (that arent deliberately misinterpreted). No witnesses (that arent repeating physically impossible, or at best unproven, hearsay and rumours). 200k people died in the camps, mostly disease and starvation, and hitler wanted to kick the jews out of the country, yes, for pretty understandable reasons when you know the full story, but the extermination story is a jewish fairytale, one that your jewish owners wont allow you to speak about trithfully 😄

    As to your ahimsa: if you aren’t willing to face truth and avoid lies, you will NEVER reduce harm. Eating crops from modern farms kills more animals per calorie than just eating grass fed pastured beef, in more painful ways. You kill more animals than me to eat, in horrific ways (internal organ liquification due to poisoning, random crushing by equipment etc), you just decided the truth, and actual ahimsa, was less important than FEELING like you were following ahimsa….
    The karmic lesson I feel you will have to eventually face is that pretending not to harm is not the same as actually not harming.

Leave a Reply

The patients in the mental ward have had their daily dose of xanax and calmed down it seems, so most of your comments should be automatically posted again. Try not to annoy me with your low IQ low status white male theories about the Nazi gas chambers being fake or CO2 being harmless plant food and we can all get along. Have fun!

Your email address will not be published.


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.