Hitler’s religion: Introduction

I woke up thinking that I was going to post another entry on Deschner’s history of Christianity today, but this comment from Mauricio, and my response changed my mind:

What strikes me about the matter is that, in recent times, American white nationalism has had only a couple of notable individuals who openly identify with NS memory: Carolyn Yeager and Hadding Scott.

By rejecting the final solution or the Master Plan East as Allied propaganda, they both hold to Christian ethics, and in Yeager’s case, she believes in Hitler’s public pronouncements on Christianity which, according to the Weikart book that just reached me, were PR pronouncements compared to Hitler’s harsh judgments in private (recorded even outside his table talks).

The revisionist historian Mark Weber also, a few years ago, looked solely and exclusively at Hitler’s public pronouncements. Simply put, there is no one of note in today’s white nationalist world who dares to look the ghost of Hitler in the eye.

______ 卐 ______

 

Hitler’s Religion by Richard Weikart offers a detailed analysis of a subject I am passionate about. Already in the dustcover we learn that with this book Weikart is ‘delving more deeply into the question of Hitler’s religious faith than any researcher to date’, and that ‘like the racist forms of Darwinism prevalent at the time, Hitler’s… religion was a direct attack on the Judeo-Christian ethics on which Western civilization is built’.

Herein lies the fundamental flaw of the book. Weikart doesn’t seem to realise that European civilisation is not to be confused with Western Christian Civilisation (see Daybreak, pages 25-44). Charles Bellinger, author of The Genealogy of Violence and The Trinitarian Self, wrote about Weikart’s book:

Hitler… sought to avoid alienating his support base in Germany, which was to a great extent churchgoing. But in private Hitler led his top aids in developing a subtle strategy to gradually destroy any traces of religious faith that would dissent from his [Bellinger’s pejorative adjective] plans to redraw the map of Europe, eliminate all Jews, and extirpate from human consciousness the idea that all human beings have an equal dignity and value before God, and a call from God to love all people as neighbors, with particular care for the weak.

Like Bellinger, Weikart is a Christian. He insulted National Socialism even in the subtitle of his book: ‘The Twisted Beliefs that Drove the Third Reich’, and on pages x and xii of his Introduction he says: ‘Evil often appears in the guise of piety’ and ‘Hitler’s evil was so intense and inexplicable that…’

This reminds me of some words from a book by Ron Rosenbaum about Hitler that I read when I was still a normie. Rosenbaum is a Jewish author, but Weikart is something worse: a traitor to his ethnic group. Because he reasons as Christians reason, he fails to realise that the evil was not in Hitler, but in himself and the other Christians who obey the Jew (i.e., who subscribe to the ethical value system bequeathed to us by Judeo-Christianity). That said, Weikart’s book is a real gold mine for those of us who know that racial preservation cannot be mixed with the cult of a Semitic god, as we see in this paragraph:

Otto Strasser, a leader in the early Nazi movement who broke away from Hitler in 1930, told his brother in the late 1920s why he was increasingly dissatisfied with Hitler: ‘We are Christians; without Christianity Europe is lost. Hitler is an atheist’. Despite the fact that Hitler never renounced his membership in the Catholic Church, before he seized power in 1933 and for about two months thereafter, the Catholic hierarchy forbade Catholics from joining the Nazi Party because they viewed Hitler’s movement as fundamentally hostile to their faith. In 1937, Pope Pius XI condemned the Nazi regime, not only for persecuting the Catholic Church and harassing its clergy, but also for teaching ideology that conflicted with Catholic doctrines.

Will those American white advocates sympathetic to NS be honest enough to recognise this?

Whatever conformed to the laws of nature was morally good, and whatever contravened nature and its ways was evil. When Hitler explained how he hoped to harmonize human society with the scientific laws of nature, he emphasized principles derived from Darwinian theory, especially the racist forms of Darwinism prominent among Darwin’s German disciples. These laws included human biological inequality (especially racial inequality), the human struggle for existence, and natural selection. In the Darwinian struggle for existence, multitudes perish, and only a few of the fittest individuals survive and reproduce. If this is nature’s way, Hitler thought, then he should emulate nature by destroying those destined for death.

Weikart omits—as neochristian atheists also don’t want to see—that Darwin himself harboured exterminationist ideas about blacks (see pages 37-39 of Daybreak). For those who believe that Hitler was a Christian, this passage should alert them:

Indeed, the Nuremberg Party Rally continued through the weekend, and when it came time for the normal Sunday morning worship services for the Christian God, Hitler and the Nazi hierarchy conspicuously participated in Nazi Party festivities instead of going to church…

George Lincoln Rockwell was right that Hitler tried to form a new religion:

During the Second German Empire (1871–1918), a common nationalist slogan had been ‘One Volk, one Empire, one God’. Just about every German would have recognized this saying, since it was emblazoned on many postcards and even on a German postage stamp during the Second Empire.

The book then reproduces the image of a NS

poster proclaiming the new Nazi saying, Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer (‘One Volk, one Empire, one Führer’). In this new slogan, which was widely disseminated in the Third Reich on posters and a postage stamp, the Führer had replaced God… By 1938, the confession of faith did not even mention God and seemed to imply that Hitler was now filling His shoes.

Perhaps what most enraptured me about the religion that I now call the religion of sacred words,[1] Hitlerism, is the following passage (I’ve highlighted some words in red):

The messianic thrust of the Hitler cult manifested itself frequently, as in this Hitler Youth song at the 1934 Nuremberg Party Rally:

We are the joyful Hitler Youth
We need no Christian virtue
For our Führer Adolf Hitler
Is ever our Mediator.

 

 
 
 
 

No pastor, no evil one, can hinder
Us from feeling as Hitler’s children.
We follow not Christ but Horst Wessel,
Away with incense and holy water.

The church can be taken away from me,
The swastika is redemption on the earth,
Its will I follow everywhere,
Baldur von Schirach[2] take me along!

Of course, not all Germans thought that way:

Some leading Nazis considered themselves Christians, while others were staunchly and forthrightly anti-Christian. Some Nazis embraced occultism, while others scoffed at it. Some promoted neo-paganism, while others considered pagan rites and ceremonies absurd. Hitler really did not care what they believed about the spiritual realm as long as it did not conflict with Nazi political and racial ideology…

[H]e clearly enunciated the central tenet of his worldview: the primacy of race. This racial worldview attempted to explain the essence of human existence and the meaning of history, while also providing moral guidance. Though this does not make Hitler’s ideology a religion per se, his comprehensive philosophy of life inevitably came into conflict with many religions, because most religions also claim to provide answers to these fundamental questions. Hitler recognized this problem, maintaining in Mein Kampf that a worldview such as his own must be intolerant toward any other worldview that conflicts with it—and here he specifically mentioned Christianity as a rival.

American white nationalism comes to mind. However, while it is true that Hitler had no choice but to become a public hypocrite because he was a public figure (in private he behaved like the real Hitler), white nationalists, who aren’t public figures because they have almost zero power in today’s West, are like Boromir.

Three years later, in his cultural speech to the Nuremberg Party Rally, he told the party faithful, ‘A Christian era can only possess a Christian art, a National Socialist era only a National Socialist art’. Hitler believed that the triumph of his worldview would transform the entire culture of Germany, whereupon it would no longer reflect previous religious concerns.

This reminds me of what a friend who speaks fluent German, and has helped me with the German section of this site, said about Bach’s music. But publicly Hitler could pretend to be someone else, so Weikart tells us: ‘As long as the churches or other religious organizations allowed him to rule this world, they could say whatever they wanted about the spiritual realm’.

This is especially true if we consider the moral philosophy of Nazism, which centered on promoting the biological welfare and advancement of the Nordic race and often conflicted with Christian ethics. Hitler’s Darwinian-inspired moral code called for the eradication of the weak, sick, and those deemed inferior, rather than universal love.

Deemed? Weikart seems to ignore what Jared Taylor has been calling race realism for decades. Universal love? I call that deranged altruism, which didn’t exist among whites before Christianity. Nevertheless, Weikart has a very clear mind, a thousand times better than Wikipedia’s definition of panentheism. I rarely speak of God but I have used this word on this site to explain my theological views. Weikart says:

In addition to pantheism, a position known as panentheism also emerged during the Romantic era. Panentheism is close to pantheism, but not quite the same, since it teaches that nature is a part of God, but God also transcends nature to some extent. In this view, nature is divine, but it is not all of God. In pantheism, God and nature are completely identical… During the Nazi period, the philosopher Kurt Hildebrandt argued that the pantheism or panentheism of German idealist philosophy—which he espoused—was the basis for any valid theory of biological evolution. He thus argued that pantheism and panentheism were the proper foundation for Nazi racial ideology.

Very true, and that’s why we have been saying that atheists are not true apostates but that, axiologically, they remain Christians. But some NS Germans had yet to mature:

Another problem creating confusion about Hitler’s religion is that some people (though usually not historians, who know better) think the Nazis had a coherent religious position. Some wrongly assume that because Rosenberg or Himmler embraced neo-paganism, this must have been the official Nazi position. However, there was no official Nazi position on religion, except perhaps for the rather vague and minimalist position that some kind of God existed.

Hitler’s blunder was to go on a rampage against the Soviet Union (almost a whole continent). Instead, his immature countrymen should have practised an internal jihad as a prelude to the external jihad of the new faith that was to conquer the world. We can already imagine the influence that a National Socialist state that didn’t invade the SU (unless it developed atomic bombs before them) would have exerted in the West if it had dedicated itself to propagating this new faith with the full power of the State…

____________

[1] I refer to the 14 words. But Hitler equally agreed with what now I call ‘the 4 words’.

[2] The leader of the Hitler Youth.

A new translation of Adolf’s talks

Or

The younger brother of Boromir

Before we begin translating each talk from Werner Jochmann’s 2000 edition, published in German, I must clarify a few points.

Hitler’s after-dinner talks have been repudiated both by some white nationalists (those who are Christian and sympathetic to National Socialism), and by anti-Christian liberals like Richard Carrier who resent the idea that Hitler might have harboured anti-Christian ideas. Both base their arguments on the botched English translation currently on the market. The way to shut them up is simply to translate into English a reliable edition of the original manuscript, which we will do for The West’s Darkest Hour.

Each Hitler after-dinner talk will be accompanied by a hatnote linking to this PDF: the translated introduction by Werner Jochmann and a very brief text by David Irving (the original in German can be read: here). Since Jochmann’s introduction consists of 34 pages, we have taken the liberty of adding some subheadings to make it less of a chore to read: Heim, Picker, Bormann, Hitler, Master Plan East, Final solution and Christianity (the subheading This edition does appear in Jochmann’s original text).

The Christian question is central to understanding not only the dark hour, but the resounding failure of white nationalists. Recently, some commenters and I made use of LOTR and the character Boromir to understand the problem. While I agree with what Krist Krusher said about Tolkien, the metaphor is splendid to illustrate why using the One Ring—Christianity—to save the race will always end in the destruction of whoever dons the ring.

The point is that ‘No one here can wield the ring: it only answers to its Master’. And the Master is none other than the Jew who wrote the Gospel! (even though he now only lives disembodied in the amorphous form of Sauron). The One Ring answers only to him and to him alone. When a racialist Christian wants to put on the ring to fight the dark hour he falls into the trap set by Sauron: precisely what I recently said about an old article published on this site: ‘Silly Christian apologetics on The Occidental Observer’.

I’d like to end this entry with what I said a couple of days ago in the comments section: ‘Even the toughest Americans are willing to put on the One Ring to fight Sauron rather than understand—as Frodo’s servant, Sam, finally made Faramir understand—that it was impossible to use it for Gondor’s purposes’.

In his private talks, Hitler understood what American white nationalists still fail to understand.

On the Boromirs

A commenter drew my attention to the most recent interview with Richard Weikart. I just watched the interview and at minute 35:40 Weikart said something that contradicts the impression I have of American white nationalism: ‘They are overwhelmingly anti-Christian’.

Most American white nationalists are either Christian or sympathetic to Christianity. Rare in American white nationalism is the person like Alex Linder who sees Christianity as evil, and there is no longer a truly central figure in that movement, as the late William Pierce, who has a negative image of Christianity.

It is a pity that there are no surveys to know the exact percentage of Christians or Christian sympathisers in white nationalism. But the impression I get after reading a dozen years of white nationalist sites is that, except for Linder, there is no major figure who truly abhors Christianity (Kevin Alfred Strom’s webzine is not as vehement as Linder in its criticism of Christianity).

Although brief, a good example of Christian racialists was seen recently in what was said to me in the comments section of The Occidental Observer, to which I have already referred a couple of times. The moderator didn’t let my last comment pass. In addition to answering his third question to one Occidentan, I suggested he read Pierce’s story of the race. It doesn’t matter that that answer of mine didn’t appear in TOO, as long as I was at least able to defend myself against the slanders that racialist Christians were casting on me.

As a good Christian, Weikart (who is almost exactly my age by the way), is anti-racist. The interview I heard today was very enlightening because it shows how the Christian religion clouds the otherwise clear understanding of such scholars. If I could answer Weikart I would tell him that regarding the leading white nationalist sites, the webzines of Jared Taylor, Kevin MacDonald and Greg Johnson, he won’t find overtly anti-Christian positions. Even a racialist site as much visited as Taylor’s according to the latest statistics I saw, Hunter Wallace’s, is openly Christian.

Given that Christianity is inherently anti-racist, the question that comes to mind is how much longer American white nationalists will continue to ignore the issue. People like Weikart, a good scholar of Hitler, are fascinating in that they show that, from the Christian POV, he is more consistent by being anti-racist than racist. Wallace may be looking to square the circle, but the other pundits mentioned in the previous paragraph simply ignore the CQ, the Christian Question. The West’s Darkest Hour will continue to be ignored by racialist Christians and even racialist non-Christians because an honest discussion about the religion of our parents is a taboo subject in the dissident right.

Changing the subject, today I received a mail from David Irving. The second volume of his biography of Himmler will be published next year. I am very much looking forward to reading it… It is infinitely more important to know Hitler and Himmler well than the Boromirs who covet the One Ring to the point of self-destruction. I hope that Weikart’s book, which will reach me this month, will help me in this endeavour.

Published in: on May 24, 2022 at 11:51 am  Comments (14)  
Tags:

Weikart’s book

Last year a commenter called to my attention a passage from Hitler’s Religion by Richard Weikart:

Worse yet, he [Hitler] actually threatened to obliterate Christianity later in the second volume. After calling Christianity fanatically intolerant for destroying other religions, Hitler explained that Nazism would have to be just as intolerant to supplant Christianity:

A philosophy filled with infernal intolerance will only be broken by a new idea, driven forward by the same spirit, championed by the same mighty will, and at the same time pure and absolutely genuine in itself. The individual may establish with pain today that with the appearance of Christianity the first spiritual terror entered in to the far freer ancient world, but he will not be able to contest the fact that since then the world has been afflicted and dominated by this coercion, and that coercion is broken only by coercion, and terror only by terror. Only then can a new state of affairs be constructively created. (Mein Kampf, Chapter V)

Hitler’s anti-Christian sentiment shines through clearly here, as he called Christianity a ‘spiritual terror’ that has ‘afflicted’ the world. Earlier in the passage, he also argued Christian intolerance was a manifestation of a Jewish mentality, once again connecting Christianity with the people he most hated. Even more ominously, he called his fellow Nazis to embrace an intolerant worldview so they could throw off the shackles of Christianity. He literally promised to visit terror on Christianity. Even though several times later in life, especially before 1934, Hitler would try to portray himself as a pious Christian, he had already blown his cover.

Hitler’s tirade against Christianity in Mein Kampf, including the threat to demolish it, diverged remarkably from his normal public persona. He was usually more circumspect, refraining from open criticism of Christianity. However, many of his colleagues testified that Hitler’s personal opinion about Christianity did not match his hypocritical public stance; Hitler, for his part, thought religion itself was hypocritical.

Gilad Atzmon, a Jew whose relatively recent books have been reviewed by the racial right, said that the intolerant fanatics win.

He is right: and that was why Julian the Apostate failed: he was a very tolerant emperor towards Christians, Jews and pagans. The priest of the 14 words, on the other hand, is as intolerant as the Christians who destroyed the classical world.

As I said last year to the commenter who quoted the passage above, ‘Although Richard Weikart is ideologically an enemy, he is infinitely more honest about Hitler’s anti-Christianity than Richard Carrier. I guess I’ll have to get a copy of Weikart’s book…’

I just ordered it from Amazon.

Published in: on May 23, 2022 at 12:39 pm  Comments (5)  
Tags:

Forbidden ring

by Adit

Christianity used to have a lot of political clout, and they think they [the American white nationalists] can somehow harness that clout. It reminds me of the Lord of the Rings where it is suggested they could wield the ring against the enemy. ‘No one here can wield the ring: it only answers to its master’. Ethno-nationalists can’t wield Christianity because it is Universalist. If you try it will only corrupt and consume you. I wish they could get that through their heads.

Published in: on May 22, 2022 at 6:25 am  Comments (4)  
Tags:

TOO, OD and CC on Xtianity

Regarding what I was saying a couple of days ago about an exchange of mine in The Occidental Observer, it is curious that when I criticise Christianity, some racialists resort to smearing me rather than answering my arguments.

On another racialist forum, Occidental Dissent, a commenter who some time ago said I was right about Christianity (though he added I was pretty severe) commented yesterday: ‘­­I am not a Believer but I wouldn’t mind living in a strict Christian theocracy if that form of government knew how to deal with the jews, coloreds, communists and queers’. That hypothetical is a pipe dream: history shows us that Christian theocracies have never implemented Aryan preservation in the West. Then the editor of that webzine intervened in that comments section:

Feel free to show me the data where White identity is correlated with secularism or paganism. If there is a sizeable audience for this, I have never seen any evidence of it. There is no such thing as a White pagan ethnostate or a White secular ethnostate because there is no support for it. BTW, White identity has always been associated with Protestantism here. There was never a point when that was not the case. The very idea of racial purity comes from Protestant settlers who didn’t want to mix with the natives.

First of all, there was indeed a pagan state exclusively for Nordid whites. The Nazi government was quasi-pagan (my next line of research will be precisely Hitler’s anti-Christian POV and Himmler’s paganism). Secondly, if the Americans had been as purists as the Nazi leadership, they wouldn’t have allowed that anti-racist, anti-slavery propaganda flourish in the US, something that OD’s editor knows very well. (In 1688 some Quakers signed an antislavery petition in Pennsylvania: a little mustard seed that, over the centuries, grew into the huge tree of today.) Third, even without having developed an explicitly racial ideology, Sparta and Republican Rome were de facto ethnostates for the Nordid types. Finally, white identity has always been associated with Protestantism in the US because Catholics have been mixing since Constantine, but Protestant churches now admit even blacks to the white altar!

The Occidental Dissent article is a response to yesterday’s article in Counter-Currents ‘What Christian Nationalism Looks Like in Current-Year America’ by Robert Hampton. What Hampton says about Christian nationalists is worth a look. In addition to considering the stance of these Christian nationalists as ‘Israelite LARPing’, Hampton said:

In reality, Christian nationalism is an evangelical, multiracial, philo-Semitic circus… Some figures associated with the movement will highlight the dangers of illegal immigration or Critical Race Theory, but it’s not their central focus. They’re in a spiritual struggle to make America Christian again. This is not a euphemism for making America white again. The central identity they want for Americans is the Christian faith, not the racial identity of the men who built this country. What unites us is religion, not race. This identity can include all people, regardless of color. All that matters is that one professes a fundamentalist version of Christianity.

However, there is one phrase I disagree with Hampton:

Christianity is still the faith of the vast majority of white people, and it would be stupid to wage war against it.

This seems to me like telling the loved one of a heavy smoker that it is stupid to wage a war against smoking; that he has to find another way to prevent cancer instead of lecturing him about giving up his bad habits. So bad are Xtian habits that Hampton writes: ‘A lot of what fundamentalist Christians believe doesn’t align with our struggle, for example their worship of the state of Israel and their strange fixation on adopting non-white kids’.

As old visitors know, this thing, raising coloured kids, is the real sin against the holy ghost. What I don’t quite understand is why anti-Christian racialists like Kevin Alfred Strom keep saying things like: ‘The primary enemy we face as a people, beyond any question, is the Jewish power structure’. Is it because they are stuck in William Pierce’s school and haven’t yet crossed the Rubicon?

The inversion of values brought about by Christianity from the 4th century c.e. onwards is the root of our fall. We wouldn’t have these problems (now even influential Jews) in a modern society that had emerged not from the Christian Middle Ages, but from a parallel quantum world in which the descendants of Spartans or Republican Romans had discovered science, modern technology and eventually National Socialism.

Throne revisited

Three years ago, on 19 May 2019, the finale of Game of Thrones, ‘The Iron Throne’, premiered. Because of how popular this HBO series became among normies, I’ve tried to use Tyrion’s message in the finale about the stories we tell ourselves.

What strikes me most is that the story being told by American white nationalists is, like the story told to the plebeian German under the Nazi regime, the story that the Jews wrote for our consumption, the New Testament: a story where the heroes and protagonists are Jewish.

It reminds me that I recently watched the special edition DVD of the 1959 film that won so many Oscars: Ben-Hur. Commenting on the opening of the film with images from Nazareth, Charlton Heston was talking to another film pundit, who remarked that the people in red clothing were the ‘bad guys’ of the movie, i.e. the Romans. It was implied that the good guys were the Jews!

It is alarming that American racialists keep coming up with these stories in which the Aryans are the bad guys and the Jews the good guys, as if telling us such stories had nothing to do with the empowerment of the Jews in the West!

Never mind that Game of Thrones is rubbish (I criticised each of the 73 episodes in On Beth’s Cute Tits). What matters is my use of the finale to say something that reminds me of Goethe’s words: The hardest thing to see is what is in front of you.

And indeed, today’s racialists, unlike Hitler, are unable to see what is right under their noses: that to tell us a Jewish story for two thousand years is pure poison for racial preservation, and that the first thing we must do is to tell us the Aryan story.

The Führer’s monologues (viii)

Given the uncompromisingness in the implementation of his ideological goals, Hitler encountered permanent resistance from all opposing forces in Europe. The struggle against communists, socialists and pacifists, waged from the beginning, became steadily tougher during the war. More complicated was the confrontation with the liberal and conservative forces of the bourgeoisie, who expressed more and more reservations as the war progressed and circumvented or delayed numerous orders. They could rarely be forced or ousted because they could not be replaced as experts in their fields of activity. Disgruntled by this, Hitler repeatedly criticised civil servants, teachers, professors and intellectuals who did not take into account the requirements of the time.

The intensification of the Weltanschauungskampf (worldview struggle) is particularly evident in the accusations against Christianity and the Christian churches. Since Christians fundamentally respect every human being as a creature of God, many of them rebelled against the practices of racial, ethnic and occupation policies when they realised that these were not temporary exaggerations or excesses, but a planned approach. Not only the small group of those who actively resisted became a danger for the National Socialist leadership, but also the constantly growing number of Christians who, out of conscientious objection, refused the regime in whole or in part.

The accusations against the churches and Christianity were so sharp not least because Hitler was by no means areligious and believed in a Creator, but in contrast to the Christians was convinced that he knew and could do His will. From his point of view, the churches were acting completely unnaturally by observing the commandment of love, which included the incurably ill, people of different skin colour and race, and unbelievers. For him, therefore, Christianity was ‘pre-Bolshevism’ (table talk #40). In Hitler’s view, Paul had transformed and used the teachings of Christ to undermine and bring down the Roman Empire from within. Through the demand for equality of all people, the uprising of the lowly and the inferior had been initiated: the ground was prepared for overthrow and destruction. ‘Pure Christianity’, Hitler concluded, ‘leads to the destruction of humanity, it is naked Bolshevism in metaphysical dressing’ (table talk #66).

The verbal radicalism of the attacks against Christianity was also determined by the fact that Hitler knew exactly that he could not wage a determined church struggle during the war. He was well aware of the power that the churches still represented. A great conflict, therefore, was bound to lead to deep anxiety among the population and evoke great dangers during the war. Therefore, it seemed advisable merely to register the opposition of the bishops, clergy and church laity and to postpone the reckoning until a later time (# 130).

Hitler’s sharp front against Christianity was by no means approved of by all, even within the NSDAP and its branches. Ministers who had gained their office through the party broke ranks. Even in the SS there were still leaders and members who had not left the church and who were bound to come into serious conflict in the event of a dispute. It was no different in the corps of political leaders up to the highest ranks. This example—others could be brought up—shows that the NSDAP was not a monolithic bloc, and that there was no basic consensus even on decisive questions. In the Weltanschauungskampf Hitler could not rely unconditionally on his party; rather, he was dependent on other forces and power-bearers to carry out his plans and orders.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s Note: This wonderfully shows that it was not time to wage war! It was time to consolidate the Nazi state and educate the masses about Christianity: something that white nationalists across the Atlantic haven’t yet managed to do. (That’s why I consider them semi-normies, as I said yesterday.)
 

______ 卐 ______

 
But other groups of Germans were certainly not unreservedly prepared to make the goals of the National Socialist state their own. In Hitler’s national community (Volksgemeinschaft), the social contradictions and the old ideals were by no means overcome, as has been shown, but only pushed back; they broke out again when rapid rearmament and military expansion overstretched popular forces. Even before the war began, the enthusiasm of the national bourgeoisie that it had shown in the face of the reintroduction of universal conscription and the foreign policy successes of the Third Reich was waning. Regimentation, growing restrictions on economic, intellectual and cultural activity and the constant threat of external conflict led to a revival of faded principles. The working class, which to a large extent had recognised the efforts to revive the economy as well as the improvement of social benefits, increasingly rebelled against the restrictions on the choice of employment and the enforcement of their wage demands. The more powerless they felt in the face of decisions to extend working hours and worsen employment conditions, the more they became aware of the disintegration of trade union organisations.

In Hitler’s thinking, ideological goals had absolute priority, so he ignored the concerns and wishes of the population as soon as his rule was securely established. His regime became uncompromising, the subordinate leaders and generals were to be ‘ice-cold dog snouts’ and ‘unpleasant people’ (#98) when it came to accomplishing the tasks set. Convinced of the rightness of what he was striving for, he allowed no leniency or forbearance. He understood people with their faults and weaknesses, but forbade himself and others to take them into account. His regime was not in the service of the people, but the people were made to serve his worldview.

In recent years, various attempts have been made to revise the image of Hitler. According to them, the leader of the Third Reich appears as the man of peace, the patron of the arts and the builder of a new, more beautiful Europe.[1] Evidence for these theses can certainly be found in the monologues published here. And there is no doubt that Hitler knew how to win over and inspire people for himself and his goals right up to the end. But anyone who reads these conversation notes carefully, cannot ignore the fact that he wanted to build the happiness of future generations on the misfortune of those whom he declared enemies or who did not act and believe as he did. On the way to his future, not only enemies but also enthusiastic followers and faithful followers were left behind as victims.

_________

[1] I will mention here only one book, representative of many others, by the architect Hermann Giesler: Ein anderer Hitler. Erlebnisse–Gespräche–Reflexionen. Leoni am Starnberger See, 1978.

Published in: on May 18, 2022 at 10:26 am  Comments (2)  
Tags:

Christianity’s Criminal History, 145

For the context of these translations click here

 
Mission and slaughter

Under Dagobert I, whose chief advisors included Arnulf, bishop of Metz, and Kunibert, bishop of Cologne, the paganism on the left bank of the Rhine was increasingly combated, and all the Jews in the kingdom were forcibly baptised.
 

______ 卐 ______

 

Editor’s note: This is where it becomes clearer than ever that white nationalists, most of whom have a positive view of Christianity, aren’t honest with themselves.

While it is true that The Northman film that depicts Vikings burning women and children alive isn’t to be believed, it is true that some ancient Scandinavians were brutal in preventing miscegenation, like the Visigoths who burned at the stake those who stained their blood with Mediterranean mudbloods. Christianity came to change things in Visigothic Spain: burning heretics rather than Goths who sinned against the holy spirit of their race. Now even Jews could mingle with Aryans if they only converted to Christianity! And not only Jews…

As long as the racial right in North America is reluctant to revise its history of Christianity, I will be pointedly denigrating them on The West’s Darkest Hour. The German Karlheinz Deschner continues:

______ 卐 ______

 

Dagobert also opened the mission of the Frisians, to which Bishop Kunibert had formally committed himself, with an edict imposing baptism. And just as the king fought in the south, west and north, and just as he fought the Basques, Bretons, Saxons and Frisians, he also invaded the first Slavic kingdom, the great kingdom of the Frankish merchant Samo, which stretched from the Erzgebirbe or Ore Mountains to the eastern Alps…

The only source, which recounts the genocide of the Bulgars, is found in Fredegar: ‘After their defeat the Bulgars were expelled from Pannonia: 9,000 men with women and children, who turned to Dagobert, begging him to take them into Frankish lands for a lasting settlement. Dagobert ordered the Bavarians to take them in for the winter, while he consulted with the Franks about what to do next. When they had been distributed among the various houses of the Bavarians, Dagobert ordered the Bavarians—after taking advice from the Franks—that each of them should kill the Bulgarians on a certain night with the women and children he had in his house. And the Bavarians carried it out immediately’. And of the 9,000 people, only 700 escaped the slaughter and fled across the Windisch to the Duchy of Walluc.

The main reason for the unprecedented carnage was probably ‘the annihilation of the Bulgarian ruling class’ (Stórmer). In principle, this had nothing to do with the ‘mission’ but with an Ostpolitik or Eastern policy, which in turn had a lot to do with a ‘mission’.

‘Mission, Catholicisation and the healing of souls appear in the 5th-6th centuries in close connection with the Frankish king, with the deputy duke of Bavaria and the Frankish aristocracy in the west and east’, writes Kari Bosi after narrating the great slaughter, and adds: ‘It is no accident the name of the last great Merovingian king Dagobert I who pursued a vigorous Ostpolitik strongly emphasised in the Lex Baiuarium… It is known for the close collaboration between Dagobert and St. Amandus’.

Moreover, it is known that the rex torrens was considered a saint like other murderers of entire populations, such as Charlemagne or Charles ‘the Great’. And finally, it is known that St. Amandus reproached King Dagobert, ‘something that no other bishop dared to do’, with capitana crimina for very serious crimes; although these crimes, which one saint reproached another saint for, were less about the sexual life of the sovereign than about his violent actions.

(Left, Dagobert’s tomb at Saint-Denis, remade in the 13th century.) But that was an exception. For nothing prevented the old chroniclers from comparing Dagobert, the great beheader, the initiator of the Bulgarian slaughter and an unscrupulous man in general, with Solomon, the rex pacifica, and exalted as ‘benefactor of the churches’ (ecciesiarum largitor), as ‘most vigorous nourishing father of the Franks’ (fortissimus enutritor francorum) who brought peace to the whole kingdom and won the respect of the neighbouring peoples; which also doesn’t prevent us from reading: ‘He filled all the surrounding kingdoms with fear and terror’ (Liber Historiae Francorum). Nevertheless, or precisely because of this, the ‘great’ Merovingian king, the friend of the monks, Dagobert, who died after a brief illness on 19 January 638-639, still lives on today especially in France, as the bon roi Dagobert (the good king).

Published in: on May 11, 2022 at 1:48 pm  Comments Off on Christianity’s Criminal History, 145  
Tags:

The Führer’s monologues (iv)

Editor’s note: In ‘The resurrected Jew’ I wrote: ‘With the characteristic symmetry of the Renaissance, Mantegna composed this Resurrection in which the resurrected Jew is the luminous axis of the scene… Always keep in mind that the doctrine of the Resurrection was plagiarised by the Jews who originated the Christian sect. They simply used the story of the founding hero-God of the Romans: Romulus. The idea of those who wrote the New Testament was simply to use the mythological biography of the white God to convince the Romans to better worship the god of the Jews’.

Below we continue the German-English translation of the preface to Monologues at the Führer’s Headquarters 1941-1944, the Records of Heinrich Heim edited by Werner Jochmann—a translation that we had suspended because of the other translation, that from French to English of Savitri’s book.

If there had been mobile phones in the 1940s, Hitler’s after-dinner monologues would have been recorded down to the intonation of his voice. But what we got is what we got.

However, the imperfect text of the table talks still reflects that the Führer wanted to solve the Christian problem (see my emphasis in red below). And it would have been solved if he had won the war. In that hypothetical parallel world, American white nationalists wouldn’t be celebrating the resurrected Jew, as they did yesterday. In the preface of the German edition we read:

 

______ 卐 ______

 

Picker’s selection and reproduction of the sources also give rise to objections. For example, he included a document under number 6 in his edition of the table discussions that is missing from Bormann’s collection. It does not belong to the conversation notes, nor was it recorded and handed down by Heim. Record 7—number 16 in the present edition—is incorrectly dated. Picker adds two sentences to the note of 21 July 1941 at the end which do not exist in the original. There is no space here to register all the carelessness that Picker committed in transcribing Heim’s texts. Henceforth, the originals from Bormann’s collection published in this volume should be used in any case, especially since Picker has occasionally even compromised the substance of the statement in his transmission. According to Picker’s text, Hitler declared on 13 December 1941: ‘The war will come to an end. The last great task of our time is then to be seen in still settling the church problem’. In Heim’s original, on the other hand, the passage reads: ‘The war will come to an end, and I shall see my last task in life in settling the church problem’. It is surely significant that Hitler himself still intended to fight the battle against the churches.

But Picker was not only negligent in transcribing other people’s texts; he also failed to take the necessary care in reproducing his notes. In the note of 2 July 1942, for example, he says: ‘After reviewing the report, the chief remarked that one could not, however, have expected such a rapid write-off of Egypt by the English’. The following sentence in Picker’s publication reads: ‘Besides, the lies show that once Churchill is dead, we will have to make sure that his unshakeable loudmouthedness does not live on’. This sentence is missing from the original version of the Bormann Collection signed by Picker. Finally, a trivial sentence is inserted at the end of the document, which is also missing from the transcript given to the client. It is also unacceptable that Picker occasionally mixes his observations and comments with the interview transcripts, so that Hitler’s statements are not clearly distinguished.

Update of April 25:

I completely forgot to add the footnotes—:

Ibid., doc. 11, 13. 12. 1941, p. 80.
Document 65 of this issue, see p. 150.
Picker, Hitlers Tischgespräche doc. 165, p. 406.
Ibid., Doc 49, p. 151; Doc 50, p. 154.

—that will be properly added in the book, once I can relaunch my Daybreak Press.

Published in: on April 18, 2022 at 12:25 pm  Comments (3)  
Tags: