Karlheinz Deschner (1924-2014) was a liberal German. I started reading him in 2002 when I was also a silly liberal. I would not wake on the jewish question until early 2010. But Deschner, like all Germans of our times who aspire to see their books in the bookstores, never woke up. He even criticised historical “antisemites.”

The reason I read some of his books fifteen years ago is simple. The difference between Deschner and liberal theologians like Hans Küng (The Church) and conservative historians such as Paul Johnson (A History of Christianity) is that the books of this pair conceal a great deal of historical facts.

It is incredible how a scholar who has abandoned Christianity (like Deschner) can criticise it in a way that Küng or Johnson never dreamed of, so much so that presently the histories of this pair seem to me intellectual charlatanry.

After awakening to the realities of the jewish problem I realized that Deschner’s information, despite his mistaken point of view, still can be rescued. It only has to be processed through the POV of one who has revalued his values regarding the jewish question.

In the previous post and the following Saturdays entries, we will see what Deschner says about how the early theologians denounced the jews. Although for the liberal Deschner that was part of the “criminal history of Christianity,” the information it provides serves us to understand early Christianity.

After the next Saturdays entries in which I will reproduce antisemitic passages from these early theologians, I will add others in which Deschner denounces the sins of the church against other Christians and those they labelled as pagans.

If Germany had won the war, Deschner, who appears above in Nazi uniform, could have, awakened on the jewish question, written his history on criminal Christianity from our point of view. Unfortunately, because of the Anglo-Saxons (who in my opinion behaved worse than the jews), Germany lost the war. Yet Deschner’s monumental work, even as it came from this defeated and inverted Germany, is a milestone. It presents the history of Christianity from a very different angle of what we know.

Remember that I excerpted Deschner’s introduction to Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums as an article for The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour, and can be read as a PDF: here.

Published in: on July 15, 2017 at 10:28 am  Comments (5)  

The URI to TrackBack this entry is:

RSS feed for comments on this post.

5 CommentsLeave a comment

  1. Deschner’s criticial history of the US, Der Moloch, is also worth a read.

  2. It is easy and convenient to demonize Christianity now. Try criticizing Islam. But a mullah or an imam might issue a fatwa calling for one’s beheading. Demonizing Islam is intimidating after all. Compared to the quite bloody and turbulent history of Islam, any history of criminality in Christianity pales in comparison. It took 4 centuries for Christianity to establish itself in Europe. It took one generation for Islam to conquer the vast space from Morocco and Andalusia to Afghanistan and Central Asia. Islam was like a thunderbolt which shattered what remained of the Ancient world and ushered in the Dark Ages. It was Islam which had the decisive role in making the Dark Ages possible. Islam began in a remote place in the Arabian Peninsula. In a cave in the desolation of the desert an angel spoke to a traveling merchant. And with the words from the angel, the traveling merchant and his companions conquered half the world. These early muslim conquerors Khalid ibn Al Walid, Saad ibn abi Waqqas, Amr ibn al Aas were ruthless men who brought Islam onto the unwilling by the sword and flame. They felt no remorse and no pity. Muslim clerics are quite honest about the more untidy actions of their predecessors and they even take pride in them. Christianity compared to the bloodthirsty muslim clerics is civilized.

    • This site aims to understand the causes of white decline; it’s not about comparing Christianity with other religions.

      From the POV of understanding white decline, Christianity is an etiological factor of the brew that’s killing whites.

      See the articles in this site on the “Christian problem”.

    • “It took 4 centuries for Christianity to establish itself in Europe. It took one generation for Islam to conquer the vast space from Morocco and Andalusia to Afghanistan and Central Asia. Islam was like a thunderbolt…”

      Four centuries to take over a continent is hardly anything to boast about. Do you not see how inverted your statement is? If we suppose Islam to be “the one true religion”, then it has already demonstrated it’s superiority over the Christian religion. It doesn’t even matter which of the two ideologies succeed, they’re both Jewish sects. Hitler himself said that the progress of the Christian religion was meager compared to Islam (Mein Kampf, Hitler-Bormann documents Feb. 7, 1945, Table Talk Feb. 27, 1942)

      You should read Hitler’s private talk to his generals and officers in May 26, 1944, Platterhof Hotel. He clearly indicates Christianity was inhumane in it’s approach, contrasting it from his movement:

      “Christendom destroyed other people, who did not wish to think in the prescribed way, just not so simply and quickly, as we do, but more slowly; we do it with a bullet, and there they did it using fire, they burned them.”

      In Mein Kampf, he quoted from Moltke, who said that the most humane method of fighting is to get a decision as quickly as possible (according to Speer, Hitler said a Gauleiter should be in a position to make irrevocable decisions) and to be most ruthless. He reiterates this in Table talk entry Jan. 23, 1942 and Political Testament.

      Thus, the progress of Islam can hardly be called bloodthirsty.

  3. from “Inside the Third Reich,” the memoirs of Albert Speer, Hitler’s architect and minister for armaments:

    Hitler had been much impressed by a scrap of history he had learned from a delegation of distinguished Arabs. When the Mohammedans attempted to penetrate beyond France into Central Europe during the eighth century, his visitors had told him, they had been driven back at the Battle of Tours. Had the Arabs won this battle, the world would be Mohammedan today. For theirs was a religion that believed in spreading the faith by the sword and subjugating all nations to that faith. The German peoples would have become heirs to that religion. Such a creed was perfectly suited to the Germanic temperament. Hitler said that the conquering Arabs, because of their racial inferiority, would in the long run have been unable to contend with the harsher climate and conditions of the country. They could not have kept down the more vigorous natives, so that ultimately not Arabs but Islamized Germans could have stood at the head of this Mohammedan Empire.

    Hitler usually concluded this historical speculation by remarking: ‘You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?’

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: