Uncle Adolf’s table talk, 145


4th July 1942, at dinner

German Embassy at the Vatican—The Concordat must be ended—Faulty manœuvres by the Wilhelmstrasse—I refuse open war with the Church—the Bishops will soon fawn on the State.

Should we decide to recall our present representative from the Vatican, I can see no adequate reason for sending any fresh incumbent to this Embassy. The relations between Germany and the Vatican are based on the Concordat. But this same Concordat is no more than the survival of agreements reached between the Vatican and the different German States, and, with the disappearance of the latter and their incorporation in the German Reich, it has become obsolete.

Once the war is over we will put a swift end to the Concordat. It will give me the greatest personal pleasure to point out to the Church all those occasions on which it has broken the terms of it. One need only recall the close cooperation between the Church and the murderers of Heydrich. Catholic priests not only allowed them to hide in a church on the outskirts of Prague, but even allowed them to entrench themselves in the sanctuary of the altar.

The development of relations between State and Church affords a very instructive example of how the carelessness of a single statesman can have after-effects which last for centuries. When Charlemagne was kneeling at prayer in St. Peter’s, Rome, at Christmas in the year 800, the Pope, giving him no time to work out the possible effects of so symbolic an action, suddenly bent down and presto popped a golden crown on his head! By permitting it, the Emperor delivered himself and his successors into the hands of a power which subjected the German Government and the German people to five hundred years of martyrdom.

Today, as always, there are responsible people to be found who are careless enough to allow a crown of gold to be popped on to their heads, and one cannot exaggerate the enormous effects which such an action, seemingly trifling at the time, can later produce.

Much in the same class and equally stupid is the idea of the Wilhelmstrasse that every note from the Vatican must be answered. The very act of answering is tantamount to an admission of the right of the Vatican to interfere in German domestic issues—if only in ecclesiastical issues—and to maintain official correspondence with us.

When once the Concordat and its financial obligations have been repudiated, and the Church becomes dependent on the offertory, it will pocket a bare 3 per cent of the money it at present gets from the State, and all the Bishops will come creeping and begging to the Reichsstatthalter.

It will be the duty of the Reichsstatthalter to make it quite clear after the war that he will deal with the Church in exactly the same way as he deals with any other national association, and that he will not tolerate the intervention of any foreign influence. The Papal Nuncio can then return happily to Rome, we shall be saved the expense of an embassy at the Vatican, and the only people who will weep tears over the jobs that have been lost will be the Foreign Office!

Published in: on June 28, 2015 at 11:25 am  Comments (3)  

Uncle Adolf’s table talk, 159



1st August 1942, evening

British lies—A comparison with America—The Church’s cunning wisdom—Exit the Pope.

Conversation turned to a book entitled Juan in America which Bormann had recently lent to the Fuehrer. In it the author paints a picture of the unbelievable conditions which reigned in the intellectual and political circles of the United States, and of the astonishing credulity of the American citizen. Hewel stated that this credulity was not an exclusively American characteristic, and that in Britain, too, the people swallowed everything they were told. Hitler said:

It is perfectly true that the British swallow everything they are told. At the moment, nevertheless, there is a certain amount of murmuring over faked reports. According to the Americans themselves, America has the finest, biggest and most efficient of everything in the wide world; and when one then reads a book like this about them, one sees that they have the brains of a hen! Well, the disillusionment will be all the more severe, and the consternation, when this house of cards collapses, will be enormous.

It is very difficult to argue with Americans. They immediately shout: “Say, take a look at what our workers earn!” True, but let us take a look at the shady side as well. The industrial worker earns his eighty dollars; but the man who is not in industry gets absolutely nothing. At one time they had no less than thirteen million unemployed. I have seen pictures of shelters built out of old kerosene tins which the unemployed had erected for themselves and which remind me of the holes of misery to be found in the Bolshevik industrial cities. I grant you that our standard of life is lower. But the German Reich has two hundred and seventy opera houses—a standard of cultural existence of which they over there have no conception.

To sum it up, the Americans live like sows in a most luxurious sty!

Reichsleiter Bormann drew attention to the gifts which France made almost every day to the Church, and on which the power of the Church was thriving mightily. The Fuehrer continues:

It was exactly the same in Bavaria! Held restored to the Church forest lands to the value of thirty or forty million marks, lands which by expropriation belonged to the State!

The Church has succeeded in striking a very pretty balance between life on earth and in the Hereafter. On earth, they say, the poor must remain poor and blessed, for in Heaven the earthly rich will get nothing; and the unfortunate poor on earth believe them!

It is only by keeping the masses ignorant that the existing social order of things can be maintained; in the eyes of the faithful, this is the justification for supreme Papal authority. Cramer-Klett told me one day that he had become a Catholic because he realised that Luther with his Reformation had completely destroyed authority as such.

Possibly—but I cannot help thinking that man has been endowed with a brain which he is intended to make use of, and that anything which is founded on a premise unacceptable to the human intellect cannot endure for ever. It is not possible to hold fast for very long to tenets which the progress of knowledge have proved to be false. I should be wrong if I condemned as a liar a man who believed firmly in the Aristotelean or Ptolemaic world, when he had no other alternative to choose from. But a man who still believes in this old conception of the world today certainly is a liar. No science remains stationary. In my eyes the ability of mankind to reject a proven untruth is one of its virtues. By the Church the Unknown is described and explained with precision, and if she advances with the times, the ground must inevitably be cut from under her feet. For this reason she is opposed to all progress. It adds little to our knowledge of the Creator when some parson presents to us an indifferent copy of a man as his conception of the Deity.

The most pressing danger, as I see it, is that Christianity, by adhering to a conception of the Beyond which is constantly exposed to the attacks of unceasing progress, and by binding it so closely to many of the trivialities of life which may at any moment collapse, is ripening mankind for conversion to materialistic Bolshevism. And that is a terrible tragedy. Man will lose all sense of proportion, and once he considers himself to be the lord of the universe, it will be the end of everything. And if the Church in Spain continues in the way it is doing, it will end on the refuse-heap.

In Venice, in 1934, the Duce once said to me: “One of these days the Pope will have to leave Italy; there is not room for two Masters!” The Church of today is nothing more than a hereditary joint stock company for the exploitation of human stupidity.


Consider obtaining a copy of the complete notes
published by Ostara Publications.

Christianity on the dock


The Franciscan and the Indian
(José Clemente Orozco)

In a recent thread on The Occidental Observer Jack Frost commented:

Very interesting talk by the professor referenced above. One thing that stood out for me was how, while he did spend a lot of time discussing Puritans and their universalistic outlook, he avoided the “C” word (Christianity) entirely. I’m with Sunic on this, and would even go him one better. I would venture to say you can’t hope to understand the origins of this white pathology without a full analysis of the way Christianity has shaped the culture of the West. Attempts to locate the source of the pathology in prehistoric times, as a response to severe environmental conditions, fail for at least a couple of reasons.

For one thing, if that were the case, wouldn’t individualism and pathological altruism also be found at similar latitudes all over the world? It isn’t. As KMD [Kevin MacDonald] himself acknowledges, whites were the only ones to develop in this way. Also, if the origins of individualism and pathological altruism were really that ancient, why didn’t it manifest itself in classical times?

Pre-Christian Roman society was decidedly un-altruistic, and un-empathetic. You can scour the history books all you want, and you will find no mention of Roman charity missions to help foreigners. They wouldn’t have understood that idea at all. Foreigners were taken to be useful as slaves and made into tributaries, but little else. Those who didn’t cooperate were put to the sword. And empathy? Forget it! The Romans were expert torturers and considered death an entertainment. On a typical weekend they’d watch gladiators hack each other to pieces just for fun! The excruciating and prolonged death by crucifixion was a Roman specialty of which they made frequent use. After the failed revolt of Spartacus they crucified the surviving rebels along a 300 mile stretch of roadway, about one every hundred yards or so. The bodies were left to rot, as a lesson to the rest.

All of this changed eventually only with the coming of Christianity. It is Christianity, in its manifold forms, and especially, in its cultural residue, which influences and shapes the perceptions of even non-believers, that is the source of the racial egalitarianism and philo-Semitism that rules modern life.

Christianity has even reshaped our genetics, as KMD has documented elsewhere in his paper that dealt with outbreeding as a policy promoted by the Catholic Church. Over time, it has become, in effect, a fully metastasized cultural and genetic cancer that has changed who we are.

There’s a tendency in our circles to think of Christianity as either completely good or completely bad. I would put forth the proposition—mind-blowing to some, no doubt—that it has both good and bad points; that as a means to an end it once offered advantages with respect to some ends, but that those advantages were obtained only at a tremendous cost. The consignment of the white race to oblivion may well be one such cost.


Tom Sunic also commented:

Thanks for starting up this subject. The same Swedish white guilt scenario is having its replica now all over EU chancelleries and ministries. The other day at the Brussels summit EU leaders agreed on “a joint effort to solve the humanitarian catastrophe,” following the African migrants drowning off the coast of Africa. Now all EU leaders are in the process of outbidding each other with lachrymal effusions, each promising big help, thus enticing more and more Africans to try their luck. A small very Catholic, very conservative Croatia, with its four million inhabitants, still a rare white enclave in the EU, sent yesterday a military frigate with a medical team to help those about to drown. (Many homeless and unemployed Whites in Croatia and elsewhere in the EU and the USA would be happy to receive such a first class maritime treatment.) The answer for such a mimicked Samaritan EU stint is obvious: it is considered a mortal sin in any EU country to be publicly branded with a shut-up word “fascism” and “racism.” The Merchant, the Commissar, the Cleric have all finally become part of this new multikulti Holy alliance.

EU white leftist MEPs, such as the good looking Swedish lady Cecilia Wikström, posturing now with the standard masochistic white antifa mea culpa, are not the only ones to be blamed. The Catholic Church has been for decades the ringleader in its public outcry over African migrants. Pope Francis with his incessant transracial homilies surpasses even the loudest leftist deputy in the German or French Parliament. The problem of immigration resides not at all at the institutional level of the Church. Rather it is the age-long ecumenical-multicolor Christian call to all races that lies at the very heart of the Christian Vulgate. We have to look at the Levantine Christian root causes of the unfolding cataclysm in Europe and the USA before rehashing its secular leftist side effects.

Kevin MacDonald: The issue of Christianity vs. non-European immigration is a tricky subject—starting with our Catholic relatives and colleagues both here in the EU and the USA. But we need to make an effort and look dispassionately at this matter. I have more troubles listening to multicultural sermons on “good Mexican illegal immigrants” by Cardinal Dolan in NY, or local bishops here in Europe, than watching Femen nudes. At least the Femen and their leftist acolytes are more explicit and therefore better visible as negative heralds of multiracialism and transgenderism.

We can endlessly argue about whether Christianity was more racially oriented in the medieval times in Europe and prior to the Second Vatican Council in 1965, or whether the Church is becoming today more transracially oriented due to its inherent dogma of equality of all souls. The fact is that the very teaching of Christianity excludes ethnic separatism—unlike ethnocentric Judaism.

St Paul (aka Saul), after converting to Christianity, in his Epistle to the Galatians 3:28 said those famed words we all know by heart now: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” How can then today any devout white Christian nationalist weaponize himself against floods of non-European immigrants when his own belief system contradicts his fears of non-European immigration in the first place? This is particularly true in the USA where the majority of immigrants are pious Catholic mestizos from Latin America. Of course, one can conveniently resort to anti-Muslim name calling, as many nationalists in Europe do, the reason being that they can more easily substitute the expression of “non-European immigration” with the word “Islam.” The vast majority of immigrants entering the EU are non-European, non-White Muslims.

The otherwise staunch anticommunist Pope Pius XI, did not hesitate in 1938 to draft a very strong encyclical disparaging all racial theories on differences between peoples and races. This theme merits a separate annotated piece of mine. Will do eventually.

Surely, we take Charles Martel and Charlemagne as our white icons who saved Europe from Islamic threat in the 8th ct. But Martel and Charlemagne were equally diligent to carry out, further to the east, mass killings and ethnic cleansings of pagan Frisians, Wends, Saxons, Pannonian Croats, etc., depleting substantially the European gene pool. St Boniface and hosts of other Martel-imported English and Irish missionary zealots into German lands of that time, were often viewed by German civilians during the Anglo-American aerial firebombing from 1940to 1945, as transposed imagery of earlier Charlemagne’s conversion exploits.

It is an error to assume that that Marxist Jews of the so-called Frankfurt School were the sole factor in intellectual brainwashing of Europe after 1945 to this day. Truckloads and planeloads of new democratic Bonifaces, i.e. many US evangelicals and Quakers and other Bible zealots were sent to Europe by President Trumann in order to spread the sacred word of democracy. Multiracial admixture via the Mediterranean now is just another cog in the transracial wheel largely abetted by all Christian denominations.

Massive Iberian screw-up

As a postscript to my recent post about why the single-cause hypothesis in White Nationalism is untenable—that is, that “Whites can do no wrong and are the eternal victims of Jewish deceit and aggression”—, let me clarify something I said about the Iberian side of the conquest of America and New Spain in particular.

mestizo kid

(A Mestizo kiddie: the symbol of the Iberian blunder.)

The main culprit of the extremely thorough mestization that took place in the American continent at the south of Río Grande, all the way to the lands of the Incas in South America, was the Iberians’ lust for gold and silver.

That was the main culprit that in this blog I have called, inspired in Wagner and Tolkien, as falling prey of the One Ring or “economics over race” policies. That’s also why, at the very top of this blog, I include an image of the real god of spoiled whites, Mammon.

The second culprit was the Catholic Church that allowed the bachelor Spaniards in the continent to marry Amerindian women with a Pope bull only ten years after the conquest of the Aztec Empire. Christianity in general is blind to racial matters and the Church did not give a damn about the havoc that such bull would cause. (The Catholic Church was so powerful in New Spain that by the end of the 17th century it owned more than half of its territories.)

Those are, in my view, the two main factors that explain how the Iberians massively screwed up the continent.

As I said in my previous post, this case proves that whites are capable of committing ethno-suicide by themselves, without the help of the subversive tribe, the Jews, who were persecuted and dispatched when detected in the three-hundred year period that lasted the Colonial times. (Hernán Cortés was the first to burn at the stake a couple of kikes in 1528, even before the Inquisition was formally established in New Spain.) Yes, it is true that even with such controls some cryptos might have entered spheres of influence. According to one biographer, Bartolomé de Las Casas was of converso heritage, although others refer to Las Casas family as old Christians who migrated from France.

But the larger point is that even if Las Casas (and presumably other cryptos who escaped detection) was of Jewish ancestry, it would be ridiculous to claim that they “caused” the thoroughgoing mestization that, with time, ruined the genetic pool of the conquerors.


If you want to breathe the zeitgeist of New Spain I would highly recommend reading the primary sources, starting with the stupendous chronicle of Bernal Díaz del Castillo (d. 1585), The Truthful History of the Conquest of New Spain, i.e., the conquest of Mexico-Tenochtitlan. Bernal was a foot soldier and fought with Hernán Cortés during the conquest of the capital of the Aztec Empire.

You will breath in The Truthful History, right from the beginning of the history of post-Columbian Mexico, how gold and religion provided the zeitgeist or axis around which the Iberian dominion over the Americas would move. Whatever happened in this large part of the American continent it had nothing to do with Jewish subversion. It was the Spanish and the Portuguese doing it to themselves. But judge it by yourself if you are interested in history. Read the primary sources that have been translated to English.

Are Spaniards Aryans?



This piece has been chosen for my collection Day of Wrath. It was slightly modified and presently can only be read as a PDF within the book, ready for printing in your home for a truly comfortable reading.

March of the Titans

The following sentences of March of the Titans: The Complete History of the White Race by Arthur Kemp caught my attention:

The isle of influence – England, Scotland, Wales
and the United Kingdom

• Æthelred II ordered the killing of all Danish men in England on St Brice’s Day, November 13, 1002.

• In 1189, the first anti-Jewish riot took place in London, which soon spread to York, where 150 Jews were killed by a mob after they took refuge in a local building, Clifford’s Tower, the ruins of which still stand to the present day.

1 Manuscript from The Chronicles of Offa that depicts Jews

• In 1290, all the Jews of England were expelled from the country, accused of exploitative financial practices related to their dominance of the banking business.

• Mary I restored the Roman Catholic church in England, violently suppressing the Anglicans, ordering 300 leading members of that church burned at the stake. [Her] bloodthirsty revenge upon the Anglicans earned her the title of Bloody Mary.

• In 1655, Cromwell also ruled that Jews could be allowed back into England in 1656, the first time since their expulsion in 1290.

• Elizabeth I, Queen of England, ordered the deportation of all Blacks from London in 1601, after objecting to the presence of approximately 20,000 Black slaves in the capital city. This single act ensured that Britain had no large scale Black presence until the late 20th Century.

• The occupation of India however led to a significant amount of racial mixing between British officers stationed in that country and Indian women—and many of these Indian wives were taken back to Britain (and Ireland, as Irishmen served in the British army at that time, the latter country also being controlled by Britain). The product of these mixed unions can still be detected amongst the modern day British and Irish populations.

• Politics in Victorian Britain became dominated by the liberal party under William Gladstone and the Conservative Party under Benjamin Disraeli, who traded places as prime minister and opposition leader twice during their long careers. Disraeli was a Christianized Jew whose writings on race were profound: they are however ignored by modern historians. In his book Tancred, published by Frederick Warne, London, in 1868, Disraeli wrote: “All is race—there is no other truth” (page 106). And in his book Endymion, published by Longmans, London, he wrote:

No man will treat with indifference the principle of race. It is the key to history and why history is so often confused is that it has been written by men who were ignorant of this principle and all the knowledge it involves… Language and religion do not make a race—there is only one thing which makes a race, and that is blood. [pages 249-250]

• The most important feature of post World War Two Britain has been the large immigration into that country from the Third World, a process which showed no signs of slowing down during the last quarter of the 20th Century. This process and its implications are discussed in another chapter.

David Friedrich Strauss, 3

The following is excerpted from Albert Schweitzer’s The Quest of the Historical Jesus, published in 1906: a scholarly yet readable introduction to the field of New Testament studies from a modern viewpoint. Schweitzer’s ninth chapter is titled “Strauss’s Opponents and Supporters”:

DF Strauss

Scarcely ever has a book let loose such a storm of controversy; and scarcely ever has a controversy been so barren of immediate result. The fertilising rain brought up a crop of toad-stools. Of the forty or fifty essays on the subject which appeared in the next five years, there are only four or five which are of any value, and even of these the value is very small.

If his opponents made no effort to understand him rightly—and many of them certainly wrote without having carefully studied the fourteen hundred pages of his two volumes—Strauss on his part seemed to be stricken with a kind of uncertainty, lost himself in a maze of detail, and failed to keep continually re-formulating the main problems which he had set up for discussion, and so compelling his adversaries to face them fairly.

Of these problems there were three. The first was composed of the related questions regarding miracle and myth; the second concerned the connexion of the Christ of faith with the Jesus of history; the third referred to the relation of the Gospel of John to the Synoptists.

It was the first that attracted most attention; more than half the critics devoted themselves to it alone. Even so they failed to get a thorough grasp of it. The only thing that they clearly see is that Strauss altogether denies the miracles.

The fear of Strauss had, indeed, a tendency to inspire Protestant theologians with catholicising ideas. One of the most competent reviewers of his book, Dr. Ullmann in the Studien und Kritiken, had expressed the wish that it had been written in Latin to prevent its doing harm among the people. An anonymous dialogue of the period shows us the schoolmaster coming in distress to the clergyman. He has allowed himself to be persuaded into reading the book by his acquaintance the Major, and he is now anxious to get rid of the doubts which it has aroused in him. When his cure has been safely accomplished, the reverend gentleman dismisses him with the following exhortation:

“Now I hope that after the experience which you have had you will for the future refrain from reading books of this kind, which are not written for you, and of which there is no necessity for you to take any notice; and for the refutation of which, should that be needful, you have no equipment. You may be quite sure that anything useful or profitable for you which such books may contain will reach you in due course through the proper channel and in the right way, and, that being so, you are under no necessity to jeopardise any part of your peace of mind.”

Immediately after the appearance of Strauss’s book, which, it was at once seen, would cause much offence, the Prussian Government asked Wilhelm Neander to report upon it, with a view to prohibiting the circulation, should there appear to be grounds for doing so. He presented his report on the 15th of November 1835, and, an inaccurate account of it having appeared in the Allgemeine Zeitung, subsequently published it. In it he censures the work as being written from a too purely rationalistic point of view [Schweitzer refers to the naïve “rationalistic” attempts to explain miracles away], but strongly urges the Government not to suppress it by an edict. He describes it as “a book which, it must be admitted, constitutes a danger to the sacred interests of the Church, but which follows the method of endeavouring to produce a reasoned conviction by means of argument. Hence any other method of dealing with it than by meeting argument with argument will appear in the unfavourable light of an arbitrary interference with the freedom of science.”

The pure rationalists found it much more difficult than did the mediating theologians, whether of the older or younger school, to adjust their attitude to the new solution of the miracle question. Strauss himself had made it difficult for them by remorselessly exposing the absurd and ridiculous aspects of their method, and by refusing to recognise them as allies in the battle for truth, as they really were.

Paulus [the major exponent of “rationalism” of the time] would have been justified in bearing him a grudge. But the inner greatness of that man of hard exterior comes out in the fact that he put his personal feelings in the background, and when Strauss became the central figure in the battle for the purity and freedom of historical science he ignored his attacks on rationalism and came to his defence. In a very remarkable letter to the Free Canton of Zurich, on “Freedom in Theological Teaching and in the Choice of Teachers for Colleges,” he urges the council and the people to appoint Strauss because of the principle at stake, and in order to avoid giving any encouragement to the retrograde movement in historical science. It is as though he felt that the end of rationalism had come, but that, in the person of the enemy who had defeated it, the pure love of truth, which was the only thing that really mattered, would triumph over all the forces of reaction.

Accordingly Hengstenberg’s Evangelische Kirchenzeitung hailed Strauss’s book as “one of the most gratifying phenomena in the domain of recent theological literature,” and praises the author for having carried out with logical consistency the application of the mythical theory which had formerly been restricted to the Old Testament and certain parts only of the Gospel tradition. “All that Strauss has done is to bring the spirit of the age to a clear consciousness of itself and of the necessary consequences which flow from its essential character. He has taught it how to get rid of foreign elements which were still present in it, and which marked an imperfect stage of its development.”

Hengstenberg’s only complaint against Strauss is that he does not go far enough. He would have liked to force upon him the role of the Wolfenbiittel Fragmentist [Reimarus], and considers that if Strauss did not, like the latter, go so far as to suppose the apostles guilty of deliberate deceit, that is not so much from any regard for the historical kernel of Christianity as in order to mask his attack.

Even in Catholic theology Strauss’s work caused a great sensation. Catholic theology in general did not at that time take up an attitude of absolute isolation from Protestant scholarship; it had adopted from the latter numerous rationalistic ideas, and had been especially influenced by Schleiermacher. Thus, Catholic scholars were almost prepared to regard Strauss as a common enemy, against whom it was possible to make common cause with Protestants. In 1837 Joseph Mack, one of the Professors of the Catholic faculty at Tübingen, published his “Report on Herr Dr. Strauss’s Historical Study of the Life of Jesus.” In 1839 appeared “Dr. Strauss’s Life of Jesus, considered from the Catholic point of view,” by Dr. Maurus Hagel, Professor of Theology at the Lyceum at Dillingen; in 1840 that lover of hypotheses and doughty fighter, Johann Leonhard Hug, presented his report upon the work.

Even French Catholicism gave some attention to Strauss’s work. This marks an epoch—the introduction of the knowledge of German critical theology into the intellectual world of the Latin nations. In the Revue des deux mondes for December 1838, Edgar Quinet gave a clear and accurate account of the influence of the Hegelian philosophy upon the religious ideas of cultured Germany. In an eloquent peroration he lays bare the danger which was menacing the Church from the nation of Strauss and Hegel. His countrymen need not think that it could be charmed away by some ingenious formula; a mighty effort of the Catholic spirit was necessary, if it was to be successfully opposed. “A new barbarian invasion was rolling up against sacred Rome. The barbarians were streaming from every quarter of the horizon, bringing their strange gods with them and preparing to beleaguer the holy city.

With Strauss begins the period of the non-miraculous view of the life of Jesus; all other views exhausted themselves in the struggle against him, and subsequently abandoned position after position without waiting to be attacked. The separation which Hengstenberg had hailed with such rejoicing was really accomplished; but in the form that supernaturalism practically separated itself from the serious study of history. It is not possible to date the stages of this process. After the first outburst of excitement everything seems to go on as quietly as before; the only difference is that the question of miracle constantly falls more and more into the background. In the modern period of the study of the Life of Jesus, which begins about the middle of the 1860s, it has lost all importance.

Few understood what Strauss’s real meaning was; the general impression was that he entirely dissolved the life of Jesus into myth. The only writer who really faced the problem in the form in which it had been raised by Strauss was Ch. G. Wilke in his work Tradition and Myth. He recognises that Strauss had given an exceedingly valuable impulse towards the overcoming of rationalism and supernaturalism and to the rejection of the abortive mediating theology.

“In making the assertion,” concludes Strauss, “that the truth of the Gospel narrative cannot be proved, whether in whole or in part, from philosophical considerations, but that the task of inquiring into its truth must be left to historical criticism, I should like to associate myself with the ‘left wing’ of the Hegelian school, were it not that the Hegelians prefer to exclude me altogether from their borders, and to throw me into the arms of other systems of thought—only, it must be admitted, to have me tossed back to them like a ball.”

In regard to the third problem which Strauss had offered for discussion, the relation of the Synoptists to John, there was practically no response. The only one of his critics who understood what was at stake was Hengstenberg.

But there is no position so desperate that theology cannot find a way out of it. The mediating theologians simply ignored the problem which Strauss had raised. As they had been accustomed to do before, so they continued to do after.

In this respect Strauss shared the fate of Reimarus; the positive solutions of which the outlines were visible behind their negative criticism escaped observation in consequence of the offence caused by the negative side of their work; and even the authors themselves failed to realise their full significance.

Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums

Spanish version of this entry: here.

Below, my excerpts of the general introduction by Karlheinz Deschner of his maximum opus, the ten-volume Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums (in English, “Criminal History of Christianity”):

Deschners maximus opus

To begin, I will say what the reader should not expect. As in all of my criticisms of Christianity, here there will be missing many of the things that also belong to history, but not to the criminal history of Christianity that the title indicates. That which, also belongs to history, may be found in millions of works that fill up the libraries, archives, book stores, academies and the lofts of the parish houses. He who wants to read those materials can do so long as he has life, patience and faith.

This religion has thousands, hundreds of thousands of apologists and defenders; it has books in which many boast of “the luminous march of the Church through the ages” (Andersen), and that the Church is “one” and “the living body of Christ” and “holy” because “its essence is holiness; sanctification, its end” (the Benedictine von Rudioff).

It is understood, on all this, that the unfortunate side details (religious wars, persecutions, fighting, famine) happened in the designs of God; often inscrutable, always just, full of wisdom and salvific power.

Given the overwhelming predominance of the silly, misleading and deceitful glorifyings, was it not necessary to show, to be able to read, sometime, the opposite view insofar as it is much better proven? At any event, those who always want to see the bright side are shielded from the ugly side, which is often the truest.

The distinction between the Church and Christianity is relatively recent.

As is known, there is a glaring contradiction between the Christians’ lives and the beliefs they profess: a contradiction which has always been tried to be downplayed by pointing to the eternal opposition between the ideal and the real. Nobody dares to condemn Christianity because it has not fulfilled all its ideals, or has fulfilled half of them, or not at all. But such an interpretation “equals to carry too far the notion of the human and even the all too human, so that when century after century and millennium after millennium someone does the opposite of what he preaches then he becomes, per share and effect of all his history, epitome and absolute culmination of world-wide and historical criminality,” as I said during a conference in 1969 which earned me a visit to the courthouse.

Because that is really the question. Not that they have failed the ideals in part or by degrees, no: it is that those ideals have been literally trampled, without which the perpetrators lay down, for a moment, their claims of self-proclaimed champions of such ideals, nor stop their self-declaration of being the highest moral authorities in the world.

Western Christianity, in any case, “was essentially created by the Catholic Church”; “the Church, organized from the papal hierocracy down to the smallest detail, was the main institution of the medieval order” (Toynbee).

Part of our question are the wars started or commanded by the Church: the extermination of entire nations: the Vandals, the Goths, and the relentless slaughter of East Slav peoples—all of them, according to the chronicles of the Carolingian and the Ottos, criminals and confused peoples in the darkness of idolatry that was necessary to convert by any means not excepting betrayal, deceit and fury.

Of the fourteen legislated capital crimes by Charlemagne after subduing the Saxons by blood and fire, ten offenses relate exclusively to the religious camp. Under the old Polish criminal law, those guilty of eating meat during the Easter fast were punished by pulling their teeth out.

We will also discuss ecclesiastical punishments for violations of civil rights. The ecclesiastical courts were increasingly hated. There are issues that we will discuss extensively: sacrificial practices (the stolen goods from the Church to be repaid fourfold, and according to Germanic law up to twenty times); ecclesiastical and monastic prisons, especially of the ergastulum type (the coffins were also called ergastula), where they were thrown both “sinners” as the rebels and madmen, and usually installed in basements without windows or doors, but well equipped with shackles of all kinds, racks, handcuffs and chains. We will document the exile punishment and the application of it to the whole family in case of murder of a cardinal; which extended to the male descendants up to the third generation. Also very fashionable were torture and corporal punishment, especially in the East where it became furiously popular to mutilate limbs, pull out eyes and cut off noses and ears.

It is quite plausible that not all authorities indulged themselves in such excesses, and certainly not everyone would be as insane as the Abbot Transamund, who tore off the eyes of the monks of the Tremiti Convent, or cut their tongues (and, despite this, enjoyed the protection of Pope Gregory VII, who also enjoyed great notoriety).

Without doubt, the churches, particularly the Roman Church, have created significant cultural values, especially buildings, which usually obeyed no altruistic reasons (representing power), and also in the domain of painting, responding to ideological reasons (the eternal illustrations of biblical scenes and legends of saints). But aside from such opted love of culture that contrasts sharply with paleo-Christianity—that with eschatological indifference contemplated the “things of this world”, as they believed in the imminent end of all (a fundamental error in which Jesus himself fell)—, it should be noted that most of the cultural contributions of the Church were made possible by ruthlessly exploiting of the masses, enslaved and impoverished century after century. And against this promotion of culture we find further cultural repression, cultural intoxication and destruction of cultural property.

The magnificent temples of worship of antiquity were destroyed almost everywhere: irreplaceable value buildings burned or demolished, especially in Rome itself, where the ruins of the temples served as quarries. In the tenth century they still engaged in breaking down statues, architraves, burning paintings, and the most beautiful sarcophagi served as bathtubs or feeders for pigs.

But the most tremendous destruction, barely imaginable, was caused in the field of education. Gregory I, the Great, the only doctor Pope of the Church in addition to Leo I, according to tradition burned a large library that existed on the Palatine.

The flourishing book trade of antiquity disappeared; the activity of the monasteries was purely receptive. Three hundred years after the death of Alcuin and Rabanus Maurus, the disciples were still studying with manuals written by them. Even St. Thomas Aquinas, the Church’s official philosopher, writes that “the desire for knowledge is a sin when it does not serve the knowledge of God.”

In universities, the Aristotelian hypertrophy aborted any possibility of independent research. To the dictation of theology were subject philosophy and literature. History, as a science, was completely unknown. The experimentation and inductive research was condemned; experimental sciences were drowned by the Bible and dogma; scientists thrown into the dungeons, or sent to the stake. In 1163, Pope Alexander III (remember in passing that at that time there were four anti-popes) forbade all clerics studying physics. In 1380 a decision of the French parliament forbade the study of chemistry, referring to a decree of Pope John XXII.

And while in the Arab world (obedient to Muhammad’s slogan: “The ink of scholars is more sacred than the blood of martyrs”) the sciences flourished, especially medicine, in the Catholic world the bases of scientific knowledge remained unchanged for more than a millennium, well into the sixteenth century.

The sick were supposed to seek comfort in prayer instead of medical attention. The Church forbade the dissection of corpses, and sometimes even rejected the use of natural medicines for considering it unlawful intervention with the divine. In the Middle Ages not even the abbeys had doctors, not even the largest. In 1564 the Inquisition condemned to death the physician Andreas Vesalius, the founder of modern anatomy, for opening a corpse and for saying that man is not short of a rib that was created for Eve.

Consistent with the guidance of teaching, we find another institution, ecclesiastical censure, very often (at least since the time of St. Paul in Ephesus) dedicated to the burning of the books of pagans, Jews or Saracens, and the destruction (or prohibition) of rival Christian literature, from the books of the Arians and Nestorians until those of Luther. But let us not forget that Protestants sometimes also introduced censorship, even for funeral sermons and also for non-theological works, provided they touched on ecclesiastical matters or religious customs.

This is a selection of the main issues that I refer to in my history of the crimes. And yet, it is only a tiny segment of the overall history.


Like any other historian, I only contemplate a history of the countless possible histories, a particular one, worse or better defined, and even this biased aspect cannot be considered the whole “complex of action”: an absurd idea, given the volume of existing data; theoretically conceivable, but practically impossible and not even desirable.

No. The author who intends to write a criminal history of Christianity is constrained to mention only the negative side of that religion… which weight has exceeded ultimately that of the perceived or real positives. Those who prefer to read about the other aspects ought to read other books: The Joyful Faith, The Gospel as Inspiration, Is it True that Catholics are No Better Than the Others?, Why I Love My Church?, The Mystical Body of Christ, Beauties of the Catholic Church, Under the Cloak of the Catholic Church, God Exists (I Have Known Him), The Way of Joy toward God, The Good Death of a Catholic, With the Rosary to Heaven, SOS from the Purgatory, The Heroism of Christian Marriage.

The pro-Christian literature! More numerous than the sands of the sea: against 10,000 titles just one of the style of this Criminal History of Christianity, not to mention the millions of issues if we add the countless religious periodicals.

It turns out that there truly are among the Christians men of good will, as in all religions and in every game, which should not be taken as data in favor of those religions and parties, because if that were allowed how many crooks would testify against such belief!

And good Christians are the most dangerous, because they tend to get confused with Christianity, or to borrow the words of Lichtenberg, “unquestionably there are many righteous Christians, only that it is no less true that in corpore their works as such have never have helped much.”

What is the basis of my work?

As with most historical studies, it is based on sources, “tradition,” contemporary historiography; especially texts. But when I expose my subjectivity bluntly, my “point of view” and my “positioning,” I think I show my respect to the reader better than mendacious scribes who want to link their belief in miracles and prophecies; in transubstantiations and resurrections from the dead; in heavens, hells and other wonders with the pretense of objectivity, accuracy and scientific rigor.

Could it not be that, with my confessed bias, I am less biased than them? Could it be that my experience, my training, did not authorize me to form a more independent opinion about Christianity? At the end of the day I left Christianity, despite having been formed in a deeply religious household, as soon as it ceased to seem real.

Let’s face it: we are all “partial,” and he who pretends denying it is lying. It is not our bias what matters, but confessing it, without pretense of impossible “objectivities.”

We are all biased. This is particularly true in the case of historians who are more bent on denying it, because they are the ones who lie the most—and then they throw to one another the dogs of Christianity. How ridiculous, when we read that Catholics accused the Protestants of “bias”; or the Protestants the Catholics, when thousands of theologians of various confessions throw over each other so common reproach. For example, when the Jesuit Bacht wants to see in the Protestant Friedrich Loofs “an excess of zeal against monastic status as such,” for which “his views are too one-sided.” And how would not the Jesuit Bacht opine with partiality when he refers to a reformed; he, who belongs to an order whose members are required to believe that white is black and black white, if mandated by the Church?

Like Bacht, unquestioning obedience is imposed upon all Catholic theologians in the habit through baptism, dogma, the chair, the ecclesiastical license to print and many other obligations and restrictions. And so they live year after year, enjoying a steady income in exchange for advocating a particular view, a particular doctrine, a particular interpretation of history, strongly impregnated with theology… not so much to deceive themselves but to continue cultivating the deception of others. For example, accusing of bias the opponents of their confession and pretending to believe that, notwithstanding, Catholics are safe from such defect; as if it didn’t exist, for two thousand years, another bias sneakier than the Catholic.

Historiography… is no more than the projection into the past of the interests of the present. The conservative historian who compared his job to that of the priest (for heaven’s sake!) and issued for himself reports of maximum impartiality and objectivity, claimed that he “erased his subjectivity”!

This unshakable faith for objectivism, called “ocularism” by Count Paul York Wartenburg and lampooned as a proposal for a “eunuch objectivity” by Droysen (“only the unconscious can be objective”), is illusory. Because there is no objective truth in historiography, nor history as it happened. “There can only be interpretations of history, and none is definitive” (Popper).

All historiography is written against the background of our personal vision of the world. It is true that many scholars lack such a worldview and thus are often considered, if not markedly progressive, at least notably impartial, honest and truthful. Those are the champions of “pure science,” the representatives of an alleged stance of neutrality or indifference as to value statements. They reject any reference to a particular point of view, any subjectivity, as if they were unscientific sins or blasphemies against the postulate of true objectivity they advocate; against that sine ira et studio which they have as sacrosanct and that, as Heinrich von Treitschke ironizes, “nobody respects, let alone the speaker himself.”

The fiction of the concealment of the ideological premises of the historical presentation can serve to conceal many things: an ethical relativism and a cowardly escapism fleeing categorical decisions on principles—which still is a decision: irresponsibility on behalf of scientific responsibility! For a science that does not make assessments, with that, whether they like it or not, is an ally of the status quo; it supports the dominating and hurts the dominated. Its objectivity is only apparent, and in practice it means nothing but love to one’s own tranquility, security and attachment to a career.

But our life does not run value-free, but full of them; and scientists, insofar as they start from life, if they claim they are value-free incur in hypocrisy. I have had in my hands works of historians who were dedicated to the wife, who had died in the bombings, or maybe dedicated to two or three fallen sons on the fronts; and yet, sometimes, these people want to keep their writing as “pure science,” as if nothing had happened.

That’s their problem. I think otherwise. Even if it existed, and I say it does not, a totally apolitical historical research, oblivious to all kinds of judgments, such an investigation would serve no purpose but to undermine ethnics and make way for inhumanity. Moreover, it would not be true “research” because it would not be dedicated to reveal the relationships between things; as much as it would be mere preparatory work, mere accumulation of materials, as noted by Friedrich Meinecke.

Now, to what extent does the reality of history coincides with my statement?

I prefer life on principle to science, especially when it starts to become apparent as a threat to life in the broadest sense. This is often objected that “science” is not to blame, but some scientists (the problem is that there are many, at worst almost all): quite a similar argument that says that we should not take Christianity to task for the sins of Christendom.

All this does not mean that I am a supporter of pure subjectivism, which does not exist. A limited capacity of conviction would my thesis of the criminal character of Christianity have if to prove it I would confine myself to provide only some examples. But, being a multi-volume work, no one will say that these are isolated or inconclusive examples. Because I write “out of hostility,” the story of those I describe has made me their enemy. And I would not consider myself refuted by having omitted what was also true, but only when someone proves that something I have written is false.

There are even those who believe that it is very wrong to criticize, especially when they are criticized, although the latter they would never confess. Quite the contrary, they always claim they have nothing against criticism: that all critiques are welcome but, yes, provided they are positive critiques, constructive; not negative or deleterious. With swollen anger they set those high standards, precisely against the “mania of judging” (Aitmeyer), and display their scandal with “scientific” trims when an author dares to “value”; when “the historian, given his inability as moralist, assumes the role of prosecutor.”

Is it not grotesque that the sworn representatives of an ancient mystery cult, those who believe in trinities, angels, demons, hell, virgin births, celestial assumptions of a real body, conversion of water into wine and wine into blood, want to impress us with their “science”? And could it not be the height of grotesqueness that such people continue to receive the honors of the scientific world itself?

We are invited to take care on behalf of the “zeitgeist” so that we understand and forgive. But the very Goethe satirized it in his Faust: What you call spirit of the times, is ultimately the spirit of the masters.

If we are not worth the testimony of the poet for being notoriously anti-Christian and not less anticlerical, let us go to St. Augustine: “Times are hard, miserable times, people say. Let us live well, and times are good. Because we ourselves are the times that run; so that how we are, so will our time be.”

In his other sermons, Augustine reiterated this idea that there is no reason to accuse the times or the “zeitgeist,” but the very humans that (as the historians of today) blame everything on the times, those miserable, difficult and murky times. Because “time does not offend anyone. The offended are men, and other men are the ones who inflict the offenses. Oh pain! It offends men who are robbed, oppressed, and by whom? Not lions, snakes or scorpions, but men. And so men live the offenses on pain, but will not themselves do the same, if they can, and as much as they have censored it?”

Augustine knew what he meant, as he himself fits perfectly in the last sentence of the quotation (see Chapter 10).

As this, ultimately, cannot be denied by the apologists, they object that sometimes (i.e., every time it was necessary, whatever the historical period under consideration) the agents “were not true Christians.”

But look, when there were true Christians? Were they the bloodthirsty Merovingians, the Franks so fond of plundering expeditions, the despotic women of the Lateran period? Was Christian the great offensive of the Crusades? Was it the burning of witches and heretics? The Thirty Years War? The First World War, the Second or the war of Vietnam? If all those were not Christians, then who was it?

In any case, the spirit of the times was not ever the same at each particular time. While Christians were spreading their gospels, their beliefs and dogmas; while they were transmitting their infection to always larger territories, there were not a few men, such as the first great debunkers of Christianity in the second century, Celsus; and Porphyry in the third, who knew how to raise a comprehensive and overwhelming criticism, which we still feel justified.

As Christianity was guilty of appalling outrages, Buddhism, which never had a Western-style organized church in India or central authority dedicated to homogenize the true faith, gave signs of a much higher tolerance. Non-priest believers contracted no exclusive commitment, nor were forced to recant other religions, or converting anyone by force. Their peaceful virtues can be seen, for example, in the history of Tibet, whose inhabitants, a warrior nation among the most feared of Asia, became one of the most peaceful under the influence of Buddhism.

In every century there was a moral conscience, even among Christians, and not less than among “heretics.” Why should we not apply to Christianity its own scale of biblical standards, or even occasionally patristic standards? Do not they themselves say that “by their fruits ye shall know them”?

For me, history (and what I said is but a drop in an ocean of injustices) cannot be cultivated sine ira et studio. It would be contrary to my sense of fairness, my compassion for men. He who has not as enemy many enemies, is the enemy of humanity. And is not anyone who pretends to contemplate history without anger or affection similar to the one who is present to a large fire and sees how victims suffocate and does nothing to save them, limiting himself to take note of everything? The historian who clings to the criteria of “pure” science is necessarily insincere. He wants either to deceive others or deceive himself. I would add: he is a criminal, because there can be no worse crime than indifference.

And if the sentence of St. John Chrysostom retains its validity today, “he who praises the sin is guiltier than he who commits it,” would then praising the crimes of history and glorifying the criminals be even worse than these crimes? Would not human affairs be better, and also the affairs of history, if historians (and schools) illuminated and educated based on ethical criteria, condemning the crimes of the sovereigns rather than the praising? But most historians prefer to spread the feces of the past as if they had to serve as fertilizer for the future havens.

An example of it, to cite only one, is the daily glorification of Charlemagne (or Charles the Great). The worst looting expeditions and genocides of history come to be called expansions, consolidation, extension of the catchment areas, changes in the correlation of forces, restructuring, incorporation domains, Christianization, pacification of neighboring tribes.

When Charlemagne oppresses, exploits, as liquidates what is around, that is “centralism,” “pacification of a great empire.” When there are others who rob and kill, those are “raids and invasions of enemies across the borders” (Saracens, Normans, Slavs, Avars) according Kampf. When Charlemagne, with bags full of holy relics, sets fire and kills on a large scale, thus becoming the nobly smith of the great Frank empire, the Catholic Fleckenstein speaks of “political integration.” Some specialists use even safer, more peaceful and hypocritical expressions as Camill Wampach, professor of our University of Bonn: “The country invited immigration, and the neighboring region of Franconia gave inhabitants to newly liberated lands.”

The law of the jungle, in a word: the one which has been dominating the history of mankind to date, always where a State intended it (or another refused to submit), and not only in the Christian world, naturally.

Because, of course, we will not say here that Christianity is the sole culprit of all these miseries. Perhaps someday, once Christianity disappears, the world remains equally miserable. We do not know that. What we do know is that, with it, everything will necessarily remain the same. That’s why I have tried to highlight its culpability in all cases I have found it essential, trying to cover as many cases as possible but, yes, without exaggeration; without taking things out of proportion, as those could judge who either do not have idea about the history of Christianity, or have lived completely deceived about it.


JVLIAN excerpts – III

“Why were you so ungrateful to our gods
as to desert them for the Jews?”

—Julian, addressing the Christians


Libanius to Priscus
Antioch, April 380

You cannot imagine the pleasure I experienced when your letter was brought to me this evening.

Since I wrote you, I have not been idle. Through the office of the praetorian prefect at Constantinople, I have proposed myself for an audience with the Emperor. Theodosius has met very few people of our set, coming as he does from Spain, a country not noted for culture.

How often in the past we have been horrified by princes reputed to be good who, when raised to the throne of the world, have turned monstrous before our eyes? The late Valens for example, or Julian’s own brother, Caesar Gallus, a charming youth who brought terror to the East. We must be on guard, as always.

The question that now faces us is this: how seriously will Theodosius enforce the edict? It is customary for emperors who listen to the bishops to hurl insults at the very civilization that created them. They are inconsistent, but then logic has never been a strong point of the Christian faith.

The extraordinary paradox is the collusion of our princes with the bishops. The emperors pride themselves on being first magistrates of the Roman imperium, through whose senate they exercise their power; and though in reality we have not been Roman for a century, nevertheless, the form persists, making it impossible, one would think, for any prince who calls himself August to be Christian, certainly not as long as the Altar of Victory remains in the senate house at Rome. But confusion of this sort are inconsequential to the Christian mind as clouds to a day in summer, and as a teacher I no longer try to refute them; since most of my students are Christian, I suppose I ought to be grateful that they have chosen to come to me to be taught the very philosophy their faith subverts. It is a comedy, Priscus! It is tragedy!

Meanwhile, we can only wait and see what happens. The Emperor grows stronger in health every day, and it is thought that later this spring he may take the field against the Goths, who as usual are threatening the marches of Macedonia. If he decides to go north, this means he will not return to Constantinople till late summer or autumn, in which case I will have to attend him at Thessalonica or, worse, in the field. If so, I am confident the journey will be my last. For my health, unlike yours, continues to deteriorate.

Over the years I have made a number of notes for a biography of Julian. I have them before me now. All that remains is the final organization of the material—and of course the memoir. Please send it to me as soon as the copy is ready. I shall work on it this summer, as I am no longer lecturing. I thought it wise to go into seclusion until we know which way the wind blows.

There have been no incidents so far. My Christian friends come to see me as usual (rather a large number of my old students are now bishops, a peculiar irony). Colleagues who are still lecturing tell me that their classes are much as usual. The next move is up to Theodosius, or, to be exact, up to the bishops. Luckily for us, they have been so busy for so long persecuting one another that we have been able to survive. But reading between the lines of the edict, I suspect a bloodbath. Theodosius has outlawed with particular venom the party of the late Presbyter Arius on the grounds that Galileans must now have a church with a single doctrine to be called universal… a catholic church, no less!

To balance this, we must compose a true life of Julian. So let us together fashion one last wreath of Apollonian laurel to place upon the brow of philosophy, as a brave sign against the winter that threatens this stormy late season of the world. I want those who come after us to realize what hopes we had for life, and I want to see how close our Julian came to arresting the disease of Galilee.

Again, my best wishes to the admirable Hippia, and to you, my old friend and fellow soldier in the wars of philosophy.

National Socialism on homosexuality

Heinrich Himmler
Speech to the SS Group Leaders
(18 February 1937)


When we took over power in 1933, we came across the gay clubs. The registered members totalled two million; conservative estimates by processing officials go as high as two to four million homosexuals in Germany. Personally I think the number was not that high because I do not believe that all those who were in the clubs really were personally homosexual.

I would like to go over with you a couple of ideas on the issue of homosexuality.

Among the homosexuals there are those who take this view: What I do is nobody else’s business, it is a purely private matter. However, all things which happen in the sexual sphere are not the private affair of the individual, but impinge upon the life and death of the nation. A people which has many children has the qualifications for world power and world domination. A people of good race which has too few children has a sure ticket for the grave, for insignificance in 50 to 100 years, for burial in two hundred and fifty years.

However, even apart from this number—I have taken up only the numerical issue—this nation can go kaput from something else. We are a Men-state (Männerstaat), and, with all the faults which this Men-state has, we must staunchly hold on to it, for the constitution of the Men-state is the better one.

There have also been in history Women-states. You have surely heard of the word matriarchy. There were Amazon-states not only in fable but in fact. There were matriarchal constitutions in the friezes—especially among sea-peoples. We can follow their traces and emergence even up to our time. It is no mere coincidence that Holland gladly lets itself be ruled by a queen and that in Holland the birth of a daughter, the Queen, is more welcomed than the birth of a son. This is no peculiarity, but derives from the ancient instincts of maritime peoples. [Translator’s note: Among maritime peoples the men are often away at sea, and hence the women tend to be unusually independent, if not actually rulers. This tendency has been noted by observers of Iceland after the banking crisis in 2007. It was primarily the women there who rose up and demanded punishment of the bankers.]

For centuries, for millennia, the Germanic peoples and especially the German people have been officially ruled by men. This Men-state, however, is now in the process of going kaput on account of homosexuality. In the field of government I see the main error in the following: the state, the organization of the people, the army and whatever else is connected with state institutions, all these attain their positions based on merits, apart from human shortcomings. Even the occasional, quite unrealistic attainment of an official post after the “First” (Einser) in the judicial examinations is nevertheless still a selection based on merit. The selection in this case is made according to merit because first the First is taken, and then the Bruckeinser [exam] and finally the Second [exam], etc., are taken.

In the positions of the state and the economy, in which women are employed, no honest man will be able to claim that the position is gained purely on the basis of merit. [For example], in the moment when you choose a typist and you have two candidates before you (a very ugly 50-year old one who types 300 syllables [per minute], almost a genius in this field, and another who is 20 years old, racially sound and pretty and who types only 150 syllables), and you take the pretty young 20-year old candidate who types fewer syllables.

Well, one can laugh, for this is harmless and proves meaningless because, if she is pretty, she will soon get married; and besides the position of stenographer is not crucial for the state; it now has others to choose from.

But in the moment when this principle—not to pick purely on merit: a sexual principle takes root in the Men-state—, the destruction of the state begins. I will take an example from life. I want to emphasize that I say: from life. I want to interject here in this matter that I doubt that any place on the present inhabited earth has gained so much experience in the field of homosexuality, abortion, etc., as we have in Germany as the Secret State Police. I believe that we can really speak as the most experienced people in the field.

Councillor X is homosexual and is not selecting on the basis of the merit-principle the assessors that he needs for his office in the government. He will not choose the best lawyer. He will not say that assessor Y may not be the best lawyer, but he has received a good score, has been in the practice of law, and, what is much more significant, looks good racially and is ideologically in order. No, he does not take a well-qualified and good looking assessor, but rather seeks out the one who is also a homosexual. These people know each other with a glance across a room. If at a dance you have 500 men, within a half hour they have mutually picked out those who have the same disposition as they. How that happens, we normal people cannot at all imagine.

The councillor seeks out the assessor who has the worst score and who is also ideologically out of order. He does not ask about his performance, but recommends him to the director of the ministry for appointment. He praises him and justifies his recommendation in detail. The assessor is now hired, for it will never occur to the director of the ministry to ask for greater details and to examine the hiring more closely because from the outset as an old official he assumes that the councillor’s recommendation is based on merit. The idea that the assessor has been recommended due to the similarity of his sexual predisposition does not enter the head of a normal man.

It does not stop with these two because the assessor, who is now a governmental official, will proceed on the same principle. If in a Men-state you have a man with such a disposition in any position of authority, you are sure to find there three, four, eight, ten or even more men of similar disposition; for one draws in another, and watch out if there are one or two normal men among these people; they are basically damned, they can do what they want but they will be ruined. Let me give you an example of a comrade from this very circle, for whom it went like this. SS-Obergruppenführer von Woyrsch was present in Silesia at the time of his struggle with the homosexual SA-Gruppenführer Heines and the homosexual Gauleiter and Oberpräsident Brückner. Since he was the man who upset this wonderful accord, he was persecuted not because, as was said, he is not like us, but always on moral, political, ideological—National-Socialist grounds.

Homosexuality therefore undoes in the state every merit, every basis for merit, and destroys the state in its foundations. That is not all: the homosexual is a thoroughly mentally-ill man. He is soft, he is in every crucial regard a coward. I believe that he can be brave here or there in war; in the field of civil courage however they are the most cowardly men that there are.

Interconnected with this is the fact that the homosexual lies pathologically. He is not lying—to take an extreme example—as a Jesuit. The Jesuit lies for a purpose. He says anything whatever with a beaming face and knows that he is deceiving you. He has a moral foundation: for the glory of God, majorum dei gloriam. The end justifies the means. There is a whole moral philosophy, a moral doctrine that Saint Ignatius worked out.

The Jesuit therefore is lying and knows it; he does not forget for a moment that he is lying. The homosexual however lies and believes it himself. If you ask a homosexual about something: Have you done that? Answer: No. I know of cases where homosexuals interviewed by us said: with my sacred oath, in honour of my mother, or may I immediately drop dead here if this is not true. Three minutes afterwards, when with the help of our evidence we said to him, “Please, and this?” [irrefutable evidence], he unfortunately did not topple over, but is still alive.

I never understood that in the beginning. In the years 1933-34 we approached these matters like ignorant fools because that was and is a world so strange to a normal man is that he can hardly imagine it. Gruppenführer Heydrich and I and some other people had to really learn in the field and only thanks to bad experiences. I asked myself at the beginning if the fellows were lying. Today it is quite clear to me that they cannot help it. I therefore think no more of asking a homosexual: can you give me your word? I do not anymore because I know that I will get a false word. At the moment in which he says something with watery eyes, the homosexual is convinced that it is true. In my experience homosexuality leads to an absolute, I would almost say, mental insanity and madness.

The homosexual is of course the most appropriate object for every kind of extortion, firstly because he is himself liable to arrest, but secondly also because he is a soft fellow and thirdly because he lacks will and nerve. Moreover, the homosexual has an insatiable desire to communicate in all areas, especially in the sexual area. You usually find that the one who gets caught then tells you uncontrollably all the names he knows. Since there is no fidelity in the love of man for man, the homosexual tells everything unrestrainedly and does so in the hope that he can perhaps save his own skin thereby.

We need to be clear about this. If we continue to have this vice in Germany without being able to fight it, then that is the end of Germany, the end of the Germanic world. Unfortunately we do not have it as easy as our ancestors.

The homosexual, who was called Urning, was sunk in the swamp. The professors who find these bodies in the swamp are determined not to realize that in ninety out of a hundred cases they have before them a homosexual who, with his robe and all, was sunk in the swamp. [Chechar’s note: Himmler is referring to Tacitus’ study on ancient Germanics: “Traitors and deserters are hanged; cowards and those guilty of unnatural practices are suffocated in mud under a hurdle.”] That was not a penalty, but rather just the extinction of an abnormal life. That had to be removed, as we pull out nettles and throw them in a pile and burn them. There was no feeling of revenge, but the person in question had to go.

Nordeuropa, Truppenunterhaltung

So it was with our ancestors. With us unfortunately that is, I have to say, no longer possible. Within the framework of the SS I would like to explain very clearly the following. I stress this point: I know exactly what I am saying. This of course is not intended for leaders’ meetings, but you can repeat it conversationally in individual discussions with one person or another:

In the SS today we still have about one case of homosexuality a month. In the entire SS in a whole year approximately eight to ten cases occur. I have now decided upon the following: in each case these people naturally will be publicly degraded, expelled, and handed over to the courts. Following completion of the punishment laid down by the court, by my orders they will be sent to a concentration camp, and they will be shot in the concentration camp while trying to escape. I will make this known by order to the unit to which the person in question belonged. I hope thereby to finally have done with persons of this type in the SS, so that we will at least keep pure the good blood which we have in the SS and the on-going recovery of the kind of blood which we are cultivating for Germany.

But this does not solve the problem for all of Germany. One should harbour no illusions about the following. If I bring the homosexual to court and have him locked up, the case then is not finished, for the homosexual comes out of prison just as homosexual as he went in. Therefore the whole issue is not cleared up.


It is cleared up only to the extent that this vice has been denounced, in contrast to the years before our seizure of power. Although we had the paragraphs before the war, during the war, and after the war, in reality nothing happened. I can best make that clear by an example: in the first six weeks of our activity in this area in 1934 we brought more cases to court than had the entire police department in Berlin in 25 years. No one should come and say that the problem got big only because of Rohm. He of course was a big setback, but the problem flourished before the war, during the war, and even after the war.

Now you see you can regulate everything possible with state and police measures. One can manage the prostitute problem which in and of itself is quite harmless in comparison to this other problem. That is a matter that by certain measures can be brought under sustainable control for a civilized nation. We will be exceedingly generous in this matter because one cannot, on the one hand, want to prevent all the youth from drifting toward homosexuality and, on the other hand, block for them every [sexual] outlet. That is madness. In the end every blocked opportunity to meet up with girls in big cities, even if it is for money, has therefore a big downside.

Amid all these considerations we must not forget that Germany has unfortunately become (up to two-thirds of it) an urban nation. The village does not have these problems. The village has its natural and healthy regulation of all these issues. There despite the clergyman, despite Christian morality, despite a thousand years of religious education, the youth climbs through the bedroom window of the girl. The problem is thus put in order. There are a few children born out of wedlock; a few of them are sprinkled about the village, and the minister is glad of it, for that gives him a topic for the pulpit. The boys do the same thing as before and—do not be fooled—as was done in our past. The whole theory which one has rightly built up that the Germanic girl, if she is unlucky enough not to get married until 26 or 30-years old, lived up to that time as a nun, is a myth. The blood laws, however, were strict, that no guy and no girl was allowed to mess around with someone of inferior blood. That law was relentlessly and strictly observed. Furthermore this was strict: marital fidelity. If that was broken by the woman, the death penalty was imposed. For from that there was a danger that foreign blood come in.

That was all natural; the social order then was clean and decent and acted in accordance with the laws of nature and not as our order today against the laws of nature.

As I said, the questions which belong to this sector can somehow be brought into order. The more that we facilitate early marriage, that our men can get married by the age of 25, the more the other problem decreases: it then takes care of itself. The issue of homosexuality, however, cannot bring itself into order. Obviously I can forth-lock up all the male prostitutes in Germany and put them in a camp.

I only pose to myself the question: if I lock up 20,000 hustlers from the big cities, will I bring back to a normal way of life the maybe three or four thousands of these who are young enough (17 to 18) by means of discipline, order, sports, and work? It has been done successfully in quite a number of cases. But the moment when the hustlers are not there—I am not going to lock up the homosexuals—then there is a risk that the millions of homosexuals will seek new victims for themselves. So this is a sword that cuts both ways.

We will gather up all of these 17 to 18-years old boys, except for those who are already totally spoiled, and bring them into a camp. We will try to make these boys reasonable again, something which, as I said, has already been done successfully in a large number of cases.

All this does not solve the whole problem. The only solution I see is as follows: we cannot let the qualities of the Men-state and the benefits of male society diminish through errors. We have overall, in my opinion, a much too strong masculinization of our whole life. I feel as though I were witnessing a catastrophe when I see girls and women—especially girls—who march through the area with wonderfully well packed knapsacks. That can lead to trouble. I view it as a catastrophe when women’s organizations, communities of women, and women’s federations become active in an area; that destroys all feminine charm, all feminine dignity and grace. I view it as a disaster if—I am talking about things in general, for it does not apply to us [in the SS] directly—we foolish men want to turn women into logical instruments of thought and educate them in everything, which is only possible if we also masculinize them [so far] that in time the difference between the sexes, the polarity, disappears. Then the path to homosexuality is not far.

The question now is posed: the SS says it is an order. The party also says it is an order. These claims are not at all mutually exclusive. We are very clearly and expressly a National Socialist order of definitely Nordic men and a sworn community of their kin (Sippe). We are firstly a soldier order, a National Socialist soldier order, bound by rearing and blood to Nordic blood, a tribal community (Sippengemeinschaft), if you will. Previously one would have said: an association of nobles (Adelsgenossenschaft). I do not purposely use this expression. But I want to say by using it that our task has to do with the breeding and rearing of people (das Menschenzüchterische), while the task of the political order has to do with the political leading of the people.

The moment in which it is clear to me that the party is a political order, it must take on more and more a spiritual meaning and less and less a military meaning, that of packed knapsacks and falling in line, etc. That applies right down to individual nuances.

I come back to this point again. I said we are masculinizing all of life too much. I will cite a few examples, to which you can probably add some drawn from your personal experience and from experience with different children.


I view it as disastrous for a people when boys tell their mothers: “When we are marching in the Hitler Youth, see to it that you do not pass by. I would greet you, yes, but the others would laugh, I would then be considered a mama’s boy and a weakling.” I view it as disastrous for a people when a boy is ashamed of his sister and his mother or is directed to be ashamed of women, in this case of the women who are closest to him, of his mother and of his sister who is becoming a woman. When a boy who is in love with a girl is mocked more than the normal amount, is designated as not fully respectable and as a sissy, and if one says to him: a guy does not bother with girls, he won’t bother with them. There are then only friendships with other youths. Men dominate in the world: so the next step is homosexuality.

These are the thoughts of Herr Blüher [a notorious pederast], which then prove that: “In general, the greatest form of love is not between man and woman; with that there are children; that is something animalistic. The greatest form is the sublimated love between man and man. It is only from this that the greatest things in world history have come about.” But that is the outrageous hypocrisy of these people who stake claim to Alexander the Great and Bismarck. There are no great men whom the homosexuals do not claim for themselves: Caesar, Sulla, etc. I think Don Juan is not yet claimed, but otherwise pretty much all. That is now served up in palatable form to the young people who are already in a hugely masculinized movement and because of the men-camps have no opportunity to get together with girls. In my opinion we need not be surprised that we have gone down the road to homosexuality.

I see a fundamental change only through the following:

1) This is something particularly urgent for us in the SS: We absolutely must re-educate the SS man and boy to become a chivalrous man or a young gentleman. That is the only way in which we can draw the line very clearly so that we do not fall into Anglo-Saxon and American conditions. I once told an English woman who had said that she found it terrible that men greet women first: “With you probably the hens do the courtship display around the rooster! Does this seem with you to be different from normal?” A consequence of the over-privileged woman is that in America no man any more dares to look at a girl, since otherwise he will be brought before the marriage court and made to pay for it. In America homosexuality is absolutely a defensive measure for the men because they have fallen into such slavery to the women. The woman can behave like an axe there: she just starts hacking away on something. She is never rebuked: the best example of a tyranny by women!

There is no danger among us, however, that the chivalry of the man be overplayed and exploited by the other side, since the women in Germany by habit and education are not inclined to do that. In any case we must educate our young always to be chivalrous men who stand up for women.

I recently said to a Hitler Youth leader: “You are usually so un-Christian, but your attitude toward women is the purest Christianity that is at all possible.” A hundred and fifty years ago someone at a Catholic university wrote a doctoral thesis with the title: “Does a woman have a soul?” From this the whole tendency of Christianity emerges: it is directed at the absolute destruction of women and at emphasizing the inferiority of women. The entire substance of the priesthood and of the whole of Christianity is, I am firmly convinced, an erotic union of men (Männerbund) for the erection and maintenance of this 2000-year old Bolshevism. I reach that conclusion because I know very well the history of Christianity in Rome. I am of the conviction that the Roman emperors, who eradicated (ausrotteten) the first Christians, did exactly the same thing that we are doing with the communists. These Christians were then the worst yeast which the great city contained, the worst Jewish people, the worst Bolsheviks that there were.


The Bolshevism of that time had now the power to become great on the carcass of the dying Rome. The priesthood of the Christian church which later subjugated the Aryan church in unending conflicts goes on, since the 4th or 5th Century, longing for the celibacy of priests. It relies on Paul and the very first apostles who derogate the woman as something sinful and permit or recommend marriage as merely a legal way out of prostitution—that is in the Bible—, and derogate the procreation of children as a necessary evil. This priesthood continues along in this way for several centuries until in 1139 the celibacy of priests is fully implemented.

I assume that in the monasteries the homosexuality ranges from 90 or 95 to 100 percent. If today the trials that concern homosexuality among priests went on again and if we would treat the priests as [we do] any citizen in Germany, then I would undertake to guarantee for the next three to four years 200 or more such trials. The realization of the trials fails to take place not because there is a lack of cases, but because we just do not have as many officials and judges as we would need to employ. Within the next four years very conclusive evidence will be produced—I hope—that the Church organization in its leadership, its priesthood, is for the most part a homosexual erotic men-union (Männerbund) that on this basis has been terrorizing humanity for the past 1800 years, demands from it the greatest blood sacrifice, and has been sadistically perverse in its utterances in the past. I need only to recall the witch and heretic trials.

The German woman, not the man, has borne the greater sacrifice of blood in the witch and heretic trials. The priests knew exactly why they burned 5000-6000 women: exactly because they emotionally held fast to the old knowledge and the old doctrine and emotionally and instinctively could not be dissuaded, while the man had already converted by logic and thought: “There is no point. We are going under politically. I adapt, I let myself be baptized.”

I come back to our issue. I see in the whole movement an excessive masculinization and in this excessive masculinization the seedbed for homosexuality.

I ask you now, if you have the opportunity to discuss these ideas in detail—but not before the entire officer corps!—, to talk about these things with one man or another. Please make sure that our men, as it has been initiated by me, come together at the summer solstice celebration with the girls to dance.

I think it absolutely essential that we now and then arrange a dance for the young candidates in the winter to which we don’t invite girls who are in any way bad, but rather the very best—and where we give the SS-man the opportunity to dance with girls and to be happy and merry with them. I think this is particularly important for the single reason that [it helps to assure that] no one ever comes down the wrong road in the direction of homosexuality. That would be a negative reason. But I think it important also for a positive reason: we should not be surprised if this or that SS-man marries a completely wrong and racially worthless girl if we do not give the men the opportunity to get to know worthy, racially sound girls.

With the youth I see the need absolutely to take care that the boy of 16-17 years comes together with girls for a dancing lesson or some other event during communal evenings. The age of 15-16 years—that is a fact from experience—is the age at which the boy is on the tipping point. If he has a dancing lesson heartthrob or a childhood crush on some girl, he is won over, he has been drawn away from the dangerous plane

I thought myself obliged to speak to you once on these issues, my group leaders. This matter is deadly serious and cannot be solved with tracts and moral theories.

Gentlemen! A misguided sexuality brings about the craziest thing that the mind can imagine. To say we are animalistic is an insult to animals, for animals do not do such things. So, this question about properly guided sexuality is a question of life [or death] for every people.


Translated especially for Neues Europa by G.F.H.
Syntactically revised and abridged for WDH


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 291 other followers