Hitler Wasn’t ‘Right Wing’, Wasn’t ‘Christian’; And Nazism Was Applied Darwinism

Glenn Beck’s program on Friday, September 24, 2010, was devoted to the subject of Adolf Hitler, Christianity, and the nightmare that ensues when big government seizes religion in order to legitimize, even divinize, its socialist and totalitarian policies.

I have written about this myself, mostly in responses to atheists who want to foist Adolf Hitler onto Christians and Christianity.  I have grown up reading that Nazism represented the threat of a conservative, right wing government.  It’s a giant load of bunk.

To put it briefly, the communist Soviet intellectuals – and all leftist Western intellectuals influenced by them – created a false dichotomy between fascism and communism.  Zeev Sternhall observed how study of fascist ideology had been obscured by “the official Marxist interpretation of fascism” [Sternhall, “Fascist Ideology,” in Fascism: A Reader’s Guide: Analyses, Interpretations, Bibliography, p. 316].  Marxism simply redefined fascism as its polar opposite in order to create a bogeyman: If Marxism was progressive, fascism became conservative.  If Marxism was left wing, fascism had to be right wing.  If Marxism championed the proletariat, then fascism had to champion the bourgeoisie.  If Marxism was socialist, fascism needed to be capitalist.  And the fact that none of the above was even remotely true was entirely beside the point.

“Nazi” stood for “National Socialist German Workers Party.”

As Gene Edward Veith points out:

“The influence of Marxist scholarship has severely distorted our understanding of fascism.  Communism and fascism were rival brands of socialism.  Whereas Marxist socialism is predicated on an international class struggle, fascist national socialism promoted a socialism centered in national unity.  [And in fact, Both movements were “revolutionary socialist ideologies.”  Going on,] Both communists and fascists opposed the bourgeoisie.  Both attacked the conservatives.  Both were mass movements, which had special appeal for the intelligentsia, students, and artists, as well as workers.  Both favored strong centralized governments and rejected the free economy and the ideals of individual liberty.  [And finally,] Fascists saw themselves as being neither of the right nor the left.  They believed that they constituted a third force synthesizing the best of both extremes” [Gene Edward Veith, Jr., Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview, p. 26].

And if the Nazis didn’t represent the far left, they were at best the right wing of the extreme left wing.

Jaroslav Krejci demonstrated the inadequacy of the “unilinear imagery” of left wing versus right wing.  He pointed out that the metaphor derived from the seating arrangements of the French Parliament  following the Revolution.  Politically, those seated on the right side favored an absolute monarchy.  Economically, they favored government monopolies and a controlled economy.  Culturally, they favored authoritarian control of the people.  Those seated on the left favored democracy, a free market economy, and personal liberty [see Krejci, “Introduction: Concepts of Right and Left,” in Neo-Fascism in Europe, 1991, pp. 1-2, 7].

Gene Edward Veith points out that these models simply break down in 20th century politics [see Veith, Modern Fascism, p. 27].  In terms of the model above, American conservatives who want less government and trust the free market would be on the left.  Liberals who want more of a government-directed economy would be on the right.  And so, while the Nazis would be “right wing” on this model, so also would the American liberal.  Furthermore, the terms “liberal” and “conservative” are relative, depending upon what one has to conserve.  The classical liberals of the 19th century, with their pursuit of free-market economics and resistance to government control, became the conservatives of the 20th century as they sought to conserve these principles.

And, to quote myself:

And just what on earth do liberals who call Nazism a form of conservatism even think Hitler was trying to “conserve”?

Adolf Hitler was a violent revolutionary out to overthrow the current system and impose his own radically different system in its place.  He was hardly a “right wing conservative” in any way, shape, or form.  Rather, Adolf Hitler was, as Jonah Goldberg accurately described him in Liberal Fascism, a “man of the left.”

Further, many American leftists embrace communism as though that somehow precludes them from guilt – even though many of their ideas and actions have been objectively fascist in spite of their rhetoric.  But even aside from this fact, don’t forget that communism itself was the single most evil ideology in the history of human civilization.

Were Hitler and Nazism among the greatest evils in the history of the world?  Of course they were.  But actually, Hitler and his Nazism were only the third worse mass murderer in all human history, behind Joseph Stalin and Chairman Mao, who were both communist leaders of officially state atheist governments.

With that said, let us discuss Hitler and Nazism in terms of Christianity.

Did Adolf Hitler package some of his public remarks as “Christian”?  There is no doubt that he did precisely that at different times his rise to power, and even during his regime.  But that hardly means that Adolf Hitler was a Christian believer.  Politicians often have had clear and obvious reasons to say things that they didn’t really believe for political expedience.  And it is obvious on its face that Adolf Hitler was a liar and the worst demagogic political opportunist in human history, and that Nazism was utterly evil and based almost entirely on lies. Thus, to cite the propaganda of such a regime as evidence that Hitler or Nazism were somehow “Christian” is itself both sick and evil.

Germany had at one time been the seat of the Protestant Reformation.  But by the late 19th century Christianity in Germany had devolved into a near meaningless official state religion.  And Germany was the LEAST Christian nation in all of Europe.  The most prominent German theologians embraced a form of theological liberalism that disconnected the foundational elements of Christianity from historical fact, in what amounted to a sustained attack on the Holy Bible.  The school of “higher criticism” attempted to undercut traditional views about the authorship, composition and legitimacy of the Bible.  This project weakened biblical authority by assuming that the Biblical text and the events described were to be explained entirely in naturalistic terms, and rejected completely the possibility of supernatural revelation.  And it was almost entirely an undertaking of German scholarship (just look at the names: Eichhorn, De Wette, Wellhausen).

The Germany that voted for Adolf Hitler was influenced by an academic elite that had a total hatred for orthodox Christianity.

Given the state of our own university intelligentsia, one of Hitler’s more terrifying comments is this:

“Nothing makes me more certain of the victory of our ideas than our success in the universities” – Adolf Hitler, 1930

And so, yes, Hitler tried to package his Nazism in a way that superficially “Christian” Germany would accept, just as the Marxist Sandinistas deceitfully packaged their godless communism into “liberation theology” in order to deceive the overwhelmingly Catholic population of Nicaragua to support them.  As to the latter, the Catholic church said from the start that it wasn’t legitimate Christianity; but that it was a heresy. And the Cardinal Ratzinger who went on to become Pope Benedict even called the movement “demonic”.

Quote:

“…it would be illusory and dangerous to ignore the intimate bond which radically unites them (liberation theologies), and to accept elements of the Marxist analysis without recognizing its connections with the (Marxist) ideology, or to enter into the practice of the class-struggle and of its Marxist interpretation while failing to see the kind of totalitarian society to which this process slowly leads.
— (Author: Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect, now Pope Benedict XVI; written in 1984)

Quote:

“Wherever politics tries to be redemptive, it is promising too much. Where it wishes to do the work of God, it becomes not divine, but demonic.” — Pope Benedict XVI

And Hitler also packaged his hard-core of Nazism with a candy-coating of lies in order to fool the people. And the people were fooled indeed:

….Any opposition to Hitler is ruthlessly eradicated.  Tens of thousands are imprisoned.  Journalist Stephan Laurent dared to criticize The Fuehrer…..

“I am writing this from cell 24. Outside a new Germany is being created. Many millions are rejoicing.  Hitler is promising everyone precisely what they want. I think when they wake to their sobering senses, they will find they have been led by the nose and duped by lies.”

Soon, the next wave of profoundly anti-Christian German scholarship took the next logical step in their attack against Judeo-Christian ideals which had stood for two millennium.  Friedrich Delitzsch, a biblical scholar from the University of Berlin, published a work arguing that the Old Testament published a book arguing that the entire Old Testament was dependent upon Babylonian culture and mythology.  Delitzsch concluded that:

“the Old Testament was full of deceptions of all kinds – a veritable hodge-podge of erroneous, incredible, undependable figures, including those of Biblical chronology…. in short, a book full of intentional and unintentional deceptions (in part, self-deceptions), a very dangerous book in the use of which the greatest care is necessary.”

But it soon becomes clear that the reason that Delitzsch believed the Old Testament was “a very dangerous book” was because it was Jewish, and Delitzsch was an anti-Semite first, and a scholar second.  Delitzsch went so far as to argue the plain historical fraud that Jesus was not Jewish, arguing that there was some difference between “Jews” and “Galileans.”  He also maintained an equally bogus distinction between Jesus as a warm humanitarian versus Jewish moral intolerance.  Thus Delitzsch “de-Judaized” Christianity, and “contended that Christianity was an absolutely new religion, totally distinct from that of the Old Testament” [See Gene Edward Veith, Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview, p. 53-54].

And so it became an easy next-step for Nazi propagandists such as Ezra Pound (who is also known as the godfather of modernism) to state that the Jewish religion began when Moses, “having to keep a troublesome rabble in order, scared them by inventing a disagreeable bogie, which he called a god.”  And Pound concluded “the greatest tyrannies have arisen from the dogma that the theos is one, or that there is a unity above the various strata of theos which imposes its will upon the substrata, and thence upon human individuals.”

And Adolf Hitler could then state in his Mein Kampf that:

“The objection may very well be raised that such phenomena in world history [the necessity of intolerance] arise for the most part from specifically Jewish modes of thought, in fact, that this type of intolerance and fanaticism positively embodies the Jewish nature” [Hitler, Mein Kampf, p. 454].

The chain began by German scholars was complete: Hitler argued that it was okay to be intolerant of intolerant people, and that the Jews literally epitomized intolerance.

And none of this was “Christian”; it was a project straight from hell.

Friedrich Nietzsche – a patron saint of Nazism – correctly pointed out the fact that:

“Christianity, sprung from Jewish roots and comprehensible only as a growth on this soil, represents the counter-movement to any morality of breeding, of race, of privilege: it is the anti-Aryan religion part excellence” [Nietzsche, “The Twilight of the Idols”].

And so, a good Nazi was a Gottglaubiger.  Rather than putting “Christian” on personnel forms they wrote down “Gottlaubig” – representing a “vague pseudo-philosophical religiosity” – to indicate that, while they were not “godless communists,” they were most certainly not “Christian.”

So Hitler publicly said what he needed to say in speeches to deceive a mass population who had been bombarded with anti-Christian heresy and anti-Christian anti-Semitism, to bend them to his will.  But to his inner circle he said very different things than what he said publicly.  Hitler described to them that “after difficult inner struggles I had freed myself of my remaining childhood religious conceptions. I feel as refreshed now as a foal on a meadow” (Ernst Helmreich, “The German Churches Under Hitler,” p. 285).

What else did those closest in Hitler’s inner circle say about his “Christianity”?

From Joseph Goebbels’ diary, dated 8 April 1941 (Tue):

The Fuhrer is a man totally attuned to antiquity. He hates Christianity, because it has crippled all that is noble in humanity. According to Schopenhauer, Christianity and syphilis have made humanity unhappy and unfree. What a difference between the benevolent, smiling Zeus and the pain-wracked, crucified Christ. The ancient peoples’ view of God was also much nobler and more humane than the Christians’. What a difference between a gloomy cathedral and a light, airy ancient temple. He describes life in ancient Rome: clarity, greatness, monumentality. The most wonderful republic in history. We would feel no disappointment, he believes, if we were now suddenly to be transported to this old, eternal city.”

Goebbels also notes in a diary entry in 1939 a conversation in which Hitler had “expressed his revulsion against Christianity. He wished that the time were ripe for him to be able to openly express that. Christianity had corrupted and infected the entire world of antiquity.” [Elke Frölich. 1997-2008. Die Tagebücher von Joseph Goebbels. Munich: K. G. Sauer. Teil I, v. 6, p. 272].

Hitler also said, “Our epoch will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.” [Hitler’s Table Talk, Enigma Books; 3rd edition October 1, 2000, p. 343].

Author Konrad Heiden quoted Hitler as stating, “We do not want any other god than Germany itself. It is essential to have fanatical faith and hope and love in and for Germany.” [Heiden, Konrad A History of National Socialism, A.A. Knopf, 1935, p. 100].

Albert Speer – another Nazi who worked extremely closely with Hitler – reports in his memoirs of a similar statement made by Hitler:

You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?” [Albert Speer. 1971. Inside the Third Reich Translated by Richard Winston, Clara Winston, Eugene Davidson. New York: Macmillan. p 143; Reprinted in 1997. Inside the Third Reich: Memoirs. New York: Simon and Schuster. p. 96. ISBN 0-684-82949-5].

Adolf Hitler sounds like an atheist to me. Certainly, Hitler was absolutely not a Christian. He cynically used Christianity like he cynically used everything else that was good; he took ruthless advantage of it as simply another means by which to package his lies to the German people.

The fact of the matter is that Fascism and Nazism were quintessentially hostile to Christianity, and even to monotheism.

Hannah Arendt describes Nazi spirituality in her book Eichmann in Jerusalem:

When convicted Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann went to the gallows, “He was in complete command of himself, nay, he was more; he was completely himself. Nothing could have demonstrated this more convincingly than the grotesque silliness of his last words. He began by stating emphatically that he was a Gottglaubiger, to express in common Nazi fashion that he was no Christian and did not believe in life after death” [p. 252].

One of the leading experts on fascism, Ernst Nolte, defined fascism as “the practical and violent resistance to transcendence” [Nolte, Three Faces of Fascism: Action Francaise, Italian Fascism, Nazi Fascism, 1965, p. 429].  Fascism was anti-God, anti-supernatural and anti-transcendence.

Gene Edward Veith says:

It is particularly important to know, precisely, why the Nazis hated the Jews. Racism alone cannot explain the virulence of Nazi anti-Semitism. What did they see in the Jews that they thought was so inferior? What was the Jewish legacy that, in their mind, so poisoned Western culture? What were the Aryan ideals that the Nazis sought to restore, once the Jews and their influence were purged from Western culture?

The fascists aligned themselves not only against the Jews but against what the Jews contributed to Western civilization. A transcendent God, who reveals a transcendent moral law, was anathema to the fascists” [Gene Edward Veith, Jr., Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview, p. 13].

By killing the Jews, Hitler intended to kill the God of the Bible.

Of Protestant Christianity, Hitler wrote:

Protestantism… combats with the greatest hostility any attempt to rescue the nation from the embrace of its most mortal enemy, since its attitude toward the Jews just happens to be more or less dogmatically established. Yet here we are facing the question without whose solution all other attempts at a German reawakening or resurrection are and remain absolutely senseless and impossible” (Hitler, Mein Kampf, p. 113).

Hitler talked about solving the “church problem” after he’d solved the “Jewish problem.” He said:

“The war is going to be over. The last great task of our age will be to solve the church problem. It is only then that the nation will be wholly secure” (Hitler’s Tabletalk, December 1941).

Hitler boasted that “I have six divisions of SS composed of men absolutely indifferent in matters of religion. It doesn’t prevent them from going to their deaths with serenity in their souls.”

Martin Bormann, head of the Party Chancellery and private secretary of the Fuhrer, said pointedly:

National socialist and Christian concepts cannot be reconciled. The Christian churches build on the ignorance of people and are anxious so far as possible to preserve this ignorance in as large a part of the populace as possible; only in this way can the Christian churches retain their power. In contrast, national socialism rests on scientific foundations” (cited in Ernst Helmreich, The German Churches Under Hitler, p. 303).

At a Nazi rally a speaker proclaimed: “Who was greater, Christ or Hitler? Christ had at the time of his death twelve apostles, who, however, did not even remain true to him. Hitler, however, today has a folk of 70 million behind him. We cannot tolerate that another organization [i.e., the church] is established alongside of us that has a different spirit than ours. We must crush it. National socialism in all earnestness says: I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt have no other gods before me.”

Nazism was pagan to its very core. Carl Jung (a onetime fascist sympathizer himself) described Nazism as the revival of Wotan, who had been suppressed by Christianity but now was released. Germany was being possessed by its archetypal god. (Odajnyk, Jung and Politics, p. 87-89). The Farmer’s Almanac of 1935, published by the Ministry of Agriculture, replaced the Christian holidays with commemoration days for Wotan and Thor. And Good Friday was replaced with a memorial for those killed by Charlemagne in his efforts to convert the Saxons.

In addition, at the very heart of the Nazi’s race programs and at the center of the Holocaust was the belief in atheistic Darwinian evolution. The principle rationale for the Holocaust was that the Jews were biologically inferior, and interfered with the Nazi scientists’ efforts to aid evolution by creating a master race.

Listen to these words and tell me who wrote them:

“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.”

It was none other than Charles Darwin himself (Darwin, C.R., “The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex,” [1871], John Murray: London, 1874, Second Edition, 1922, reprint, pp.241-242).  Charles Darwin literally predicted that someone would come along and extend his Darwinism to its logical conclusion – and thus literally predicted both the Holocaust AND the motivations FOR the Holocaust.

Charles Darwin spake as a prophet, and Adolf Hitler was the messiah who fulfilled the demonic prophecy.

But it wasn’t just the Jew that Hitler was willing to exterminate as being “biologically inferior.”  Adolf Hitler – who had made the Holocaust of the “biologically unfit” and “sub human” Jew the centerpiece of his campaign to create a “Master” Aryan race – ultimately made his “master race” the victim of his hateful Darwinian views:

“If the German Volk is not strong enough and is not sufficiently prepared to offer its own blood for its existence, it should cease to exist and be destroyed by a stronger power.”

How is that not the World War II that Adolf Hitler started not being explained into a test of Darwinism that the German people had to pass to justify their existence?  The simple FACT of the matter is this: that Adolf Hitler thought in entirely Darwinian terms.  He decreed the Jew had failed the test of Darwinism, and believed that if the German people could not prevail in his war that THEY TOO should be exterminated.

Why is this so?

Gene Edward Veith points out that Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection had implications far beyond biology.  What must be true for nature must likewise be true for the individual and society.  If nature progresses by competition, struggle, and the victory of the strong over the weak, then clearly all progress must come the same way (unless we are not part of the natural system, which would mean that we were the product of divine Creation).  According to Zeev Sternhall, social Darwinism in Nazi Germany “stripped the human personality of its sacramental dignity.  It made no distinction between the physical life and the social life, and conceived of the human condition in terms of an unceasing struggle, whose natural outcome was the survival of the fittest” [Sternhall, “Fascist Ideology,” in Fascism: A Reader’s Guide: Analyses, Interpretations, Bibliography, p. 322].

Similarly, Sternhall pointed out how scientific positivism “felt the impact of social Darwinism, and underwent a profound change.  In the latter half of the [19th]century its emphasis on deliberate and rational choice as the determining factor in human behavior gave way to new notions of heredity, race, and environment” [Sternhall, 322].

“Nazism was ‘applied biology,’ stated Hitler deputy Rudolf Hess.”

Nazism was also a direct attack against Christianity and Christian humanity.

Friedrich Nietzsche blamed Christianity, which he described as a creation of the Jews, for the denial of life that was represented in Christian morality.  Gene Edward Veith points out that, in his attack on Judeo-Christian morality, Nietzsche:

“attacked the Christian value of love.  Notions of compassion and mercy, he argued, favor the weak and the unfit, thereby breeding more weakness.  Nature is less sentimental, but ultimately kinder, in allowing the weak to die off.  The ideals of Christian benevolence cause the unfit to flourish, while those who are fit are burdened by guilt and are coerced by the moral system to serve those who are beneath them” [Veith, Modern Fascism, p. 82].

Nietzsche, epitomizing the spirit of Darwinism as applied to ethics, wrote:

We are deprived of strength when we feel pity … Pity makes suffering contagious….  Pity crosses the law of development, which is nature’s law of selection.  It preserves what is right for destruction; it defends those who have been disinherited and condemned by life; and by the abundance of the failures of all kinds which it keeps alive, it gives life itself a gloomy and questionable aspect” [Nietzsche, “The Antichrist”].

In short, the Christian ethic of compassion is a kind of sentimentality that violates the laws of nature, in which the strong thrive and the weak die out.

Speaking of this new, Nazi, anti-Christian, Darwinian view of morality and ethics, Reichmaster Alfred Rosenberg said:

“Justice is what the Aryan man deems just.  Unjust is what he so deems” [Alfred Rosenberg, as quoted in Victor Farias, Heidegger and Nazism, 1989, pp. 205-206].

“Justice” for the Jew according to the Aryan mind possessed by Darwinism meant extermination as racially inferior and biological unfit to exist.

Thus, whatever you might want to say about whether Hitler was an atheist or not, his Nazism was inherently opposed to Judeo-Christianity, opposed to Judeo-Christian monotheism, and opposed to Judeo-Christian transcendent morality. The spirituality that resulted was intrinsically pagan, and inherently anti-Christ and anti-Christian.

And in stark contrast to Adolf Hitler’s big government totalitarian Nazi atheism, here’s what our religious founding father’s believed:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

A 1954 Air Force Training Manuel had this commentary on these great words which founded the greatest nation in the history of the world:

The idea uppermost in the minds of men who founded the United States was that each and every human being was important. They were convinced that the importance of the individual did not come from any grant of the state, that the importance of the individual did not come from any position that he had achieved nor from any power he had acquired nor from any wealth he had amassed.

They knew that the importance of man came from the very source of his life. Because man was made in the image and likeness of God, he had a destiny to achieve. And because he had a destiny to achieve, he had the inalienable right and the inherent freedom to achieve it” (FTAF Manual 50-1).

Thus the question, “If God doesn’t exist, who issues rights to man?” becomes profoundly important.  Because the answer is, “Whoever has the power to issue those rights.”

It becomes the State which issues rights to man. And, welcome to come and crush the human spirit, next dictator.

Postscript: you can go here to see how this question about who issues rights to man is becoming increasingly important right here in the USA.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

42 Responses to “Hitler Wasn’t ‘Right Wing’, Wasn’t ‘Christian’; And Nazism Was Applied Darwinism”

  1. shane Says:

    http://lxoa.wordpress.com/2010/09/23/catholicism-and-socialism/

  2. Michael Eden Says:

    Thanks for the link, Shane.

    I can’t read through these Catholic thinkers’ denunciation of socialism now, but I took a quick skim and it looks really interesting and informative.

    I copied and pasted the article(s) to a word file, but intend to come back to your site and read when I have the time.

    There was too much timidity all around (the Church was in the bind of either excommunicating Hitler and losing any influence over him, or allowing him to remain in the fold in hopes of influencing him and saving lives), but there were great Catholics, and there were great Protestants alike (e.g. Dietrich Bonhoeffer comes to mind) who relied upon Scripture and Christian tradition to denounce the evils of socialism and Nazism.

  3. The Dauntless Conservative Says:

    MichaelE: I was in a lively discussion with a Canadian liberal who so adamantly insisted Hitler was right wing. His logic went something like this: Martin Luther hated Jews and because he was the Protestant church reformer and Hitler admired Luther for hating Jews. That is how he and his ilk link Christians to Hitler.

    I explained that Hitler was raised Catholic(?) and that Luther changed his views on Jews later in life. I read somewhere he suffered some sort of mental breakdown/depression/otherwise some illness toward the end of his life. If that is true, that could explain his irrational attacks to Jews later in his life from what I read about. He tried to evangelize Jews with little success. What is your take on it?

    http://www.luther.de/en/kontext/juden.html

  4. Michael Eden Says:

    Dauntless,

    One of the things that might swing the equation as to whether Hitler was on the side of Luther or not is Hitler’s “The Triumph of the Will” versus Luther’s “The Bondage of the Will.”

    Hitler made a mockery of Luther’s Bondage of the Will, which was a central part of Luther’s theology. Luther embraced the doctrine of original sin, and the idea that sin incapacitates man from working out his own salvation; it must be God who saves man. Taking the opposite (existentialist) view, Hitler embraced human will as an end-all, and even virtually made himself a God-replacement.

    So I would submit that the Hitler-Luther thing is way off base. If Hitler was going to follow Martin Luther, the place to start would have been Luther’s most famous doctrine. Instead, Hitler made a mockery of it.

    As for the Jews, many amillennialist Christians have struggled to correctly understand the theological importance of the Jews. In short, there is a doctrine that can be called “replacement theology,” in which the Church is seen as replacing the Jews. And the Jews are all the more blameworthy (as the murderers of Christ) for being such a wicked people that God would totally turn away from them. This theology doesn’t NECESSITATE anti-Semitism, but it sure doesn’t hurt.

    I am premillennial, and believe that God has a special place for the Jews in His prophetic plan. And, in fact, premillennialism is the most ancient view of the Church. In short, we believe that God will weave the Jews back into His salvation plan. As Zechariah records, “They will look at Him whom they have pierced…” (Zechariah 12:10). And, of course, there are the 144,000 Jewish Christian witnesses (Revelation 7).

    That aside, early in his career, Luther wrote:

    The Jews are blood-relations of our Lord; if it were proper to boast of flesh and blood, the Jews belong more to Christ than we. I beg, therefore, my dear Papist, if you become tired of abusing me as a heretic, that you begin to revile me as a Jew.

    So you’re right. Luther originally embraced the Jews. It was later in life, possibly embittered that the Jews refused to embrace him after he had “put himself out on a limb” for them, that he turned on them. We don’t know exactly why Luther later on manifested such hostility. It seems personal.

    Hitler was never religious. He was raised in a nominal (in name only) Catholic home. His mother may have been more devout, but it never rubbed off on little Adolf. His father clearly wasn’t religious. And after Adolf left home, he never once attended Mass or received the sacraments for the rest of his life.

    Hitler actually favored the Catholic Church because he saw the emotional power in the elaborate rituals of the Church, and copied them in his Nazi rituals. Otherwise, Hitler literally talked about a “final solution” for the Protestant Church.

    The other thing to say is that Hitler might have used Luther’s anti-Semitism as a proof-text, but let me put it this way: he would have found whatever “proof” he needed from whatever source worked for him at the time.

  5. The Dauntless Conservative Says:

    Indeed, Michael. One of your opening paragraphs at the beginning:

    “To put it briefly, the communist Soviet intellectuals – and all leftist Western intellectuals influenced by them – created a false dichotomy between fascism and communism.”….

    I think this is a missing link in history classes these days. I also explained that Luther lived 500 years ago and true there was antisemitism in Europe then and for some time. Also, modern Christianity and Christian community as a whole in USA in WW2 did not endorse Nazism, and he knew that. Furthermore, he used the age old liberal argument about the Crusades to discount modern Christianity. I have heard that a million times. Nothing more than rhetoric. And, he was such a hardcore atheist to the bone and Darwinist that he stated anyone who rejected evolution was anti-science. Anyway, those references you posted earlier, Veith was excellent.

  6. Michael Eden Says:

    It is almost impossible to have a legitimate discussion/argument with such a person because these people simply live in a realm of lies. Their souls swim in lies.

    I have found a book by Rodney Stark titled “For the Glory of God” very useful to deal with the historic lies against Christianity. Stark does not present himself as a “Christian,” but rather as a sociologist who explores the historical data, and just flat-out exposes many of the “facts” atheists and secular humanists love to cite as sheer myths.

    God has always used the Jews (justifiably called “His people”) as His canary in the mines. Of course, miners used canaries to tell if the oxygen level had decreased, or if poisonous gases were entering the mine. In the same way, God uses the Jews to demonstrate the moral state of the nations. If a nation or group mistreats the Jews, they have ALWAYS received judgment.

    And as I said before, God has NOT given up on the Jews. Soon, as the Book of Revelation makes clear, God will return to the Jews, and bring them back. And if you believe that, you will treat them VERY differently than if you don’t.

    Further, as I try to bring out in this article and others I have written, it was the center of the Nazi project to destroy “Judeo-Christianity,” the common link of worldview uniting Jews and Christians as people of the Book. It was THIS “Judeo-Christianity” that true Christian Lutherans such as Dietrich Bonhoeffer discovered in the ancient Lutheran liturgies.

    Veith’s book “Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview” is magnificent.

  7. The Dauntless Conservative Says:

    Yes, it is impossible to have legitimate discussion with them. A more accurate description is they are drowning in self-deception. You posted(?), I think, an article from the American Thinker “The American Left Slides into Psychosis” (???) Anyway, great article. Yes, I will try to read those books by Veith and Stark. Sounds like a couple good reads. Personally, I have always supported Israel, despite the diplomatic disagreements at times. I have personally toured Israel; Haifa, Bethlehem, Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Netanya and more. I once went to Herod’s Wall and had a photo of me and a few Israeli soldiers armed to the teeth with Uzis! They were very friendly to us US sailors and marines. Great trip. Anyway, Israel has been in a literal war of survival since it became a nation in 1948…kinda understand their offensive/aggressive nature/disposition. They are a wonderful people/country to visit, but don’t cross them.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/10/the_american_left_slides_into.html

    From the producers of FrontPage Magazine:
    http://terrorismawareness.org/
    Click on “What really happened in the Middle East”

  8. Michael Eden Says:

    I had a particularly slimy troll say this to me on another article:

    You’re a moron if you think the NAZI party was socialist. That’s a common tactic of right-wingers… to use an name for political gain.

    I thought that was useful to cite here, simply to show 1) how incredibly wrong and ignorant creeps like this fellow are; and 2) to show just how close we have come and are still coming to the policies of National Socialism.

    To begin with, it was called the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (A.K.A The National Socialist German Workers Party) for a damn good reason. Hoffman is a moral idiot, who warps the truth just because he prefers lies.

    “Communism and fascism were rival brands of socialism. Whereas Marxist socialism is predicated on an international class struggle, fascist national socialism promoted a socialism centered in national unity. Both communists and fascists opposed the bourgeoisie. Both attacked the conservatives. Both were mass movements, which had special appeal for the intelligentsia, students, and artists, as well as workers. Both favored strong centralized governments and rejected the free economy and the ideals of individual liberty.”

    Some memorable Nazi slogans:

    Public need before private greed

    Everything must be different” (I.e., Hitler’s version of “fundamental transformation”)

    People’s community!

    We socialize human beings

    And here were the major platforms of the National SOCIALIST German WORKERS Party:

    Universal Education (“The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education … We demand the education at the expense of the State of outstanding intellectually gifted children of poor parents without consideration of position or profession.”)

    Guaranteed Employment (“We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens.”; “)

    Welfare for the Elderly (Social Security) (“We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.”)

    Nationalization of Industry (“We demand the nationalisation of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).”; “We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.”; “we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.”; We demand the … immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms”; “We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility”)

    Nationalized Health Care (“The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.”)

    Abolition of market-based lending (“Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of rent-slavery.”)

    You can find all of this in the Nazi (that is, the National SOCIALIST German WORKERS PARTY) platform.

    Hitler was also:

    Anti-smoking

    Anti-Capitalist

    Pro Gun Control

    Pro Abortion

    Pro Euthanasia

    Pro Animal Rights and a Vegetarian.

    Which is to say, anyone who thinks that the Nazis weren’t SOCIALIST are liars and historical revisionist of the very worst sort.

    Adolf Hitler was a socialist. Don’t be like him.

  9. Michael Eden Says:

    My Army unit participated in Operation Bright Star in Egypt in 1983, and we were given enough time so that I, too, got to go to Israel and tour the Holy Land.

    It means a lot more to me now than it did at the time.

    And, yeah, the Israelis were VERY friendly to and supportive of US soldiers. They regarded us as brothers in arms.

    We had a lot of love when we were in Germany in 1982 for Reforger, too. At that time, there were still a lot of German people who remembered how good we were in victory from WWII. I’m sure there were Germans who hated us, but all I saw was support and gratitude.

    Israel is in a pressure cooker, just as they have been all along, surrounded as they are by nations that hate them, and which dwarf them in size/population.

    I wouldn’t mind having one of those Uzis, or one of their Galil assault rifles. They do their own manufacturing, and make the best stuff in the world.

    I remember the American Thinker article, and recall citing it somewhere. It is amazing, the unrealistic fairy tales the left tries to tell itself as they shove their crap down our throats…

  10. The Dauntless Conservative Says:

    Michael: Good discussion. Can’t disagree much here with you. I wish I could go back to Israel to visit too. The PLO controls Bethlehem now. I spent a weekend in Munich once. Toured the old city and the Haufbrahaus. Part of the tour was Dachau and the concentration camp there. I actually saw the furnaces where bodies were burned, an ash grave and a old brick wall where some were shot execution style here:
    http://www.kz-gedenkstaette-dachau.de/index-e.html
    It was a sobering experience to say the least.

    The Israelis has some top notch aviators as well. You can see most if not all of the Dogfights Series here:

    You may have already seen these, but here is Desert Aces

  11. The Dauntless Conservative Says:

    When John Adams said:

    ““Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence; nor is the law less stable than the fact…”

    …I thought about “dictates of our passions”…liberals let the “dictates of there passions” blind the facts.

  12. Michael Eden Says:

    I never went to any of the death camps. I could have visited Dachau, as we were in Bad Tolz, which is in the same region as Dachau. But at the time, I was more interested in getting drunk than in the ultimate lesson in sobriety.

    I regret that now.

    There are things you can read about, or see in pictures, which don’t have the same impact as seeing it with your own eyes; such as the rooms filled with suitcases, or eyeglasses, or human hair.

    But I was a nineteen year old kid at the time – and not one celebrated for his wisdom.

    The IDF soldiers I talked with almost invariably brushed aside their own competence as soldiers and pointed to the Arab INCOMPETENCE. To a degree that I found it strange (versus saying, ‘Oh yeah, man, we good!’). But they always managed to pull of a pretty darned impressive aura of competence.

    In the world of light infantry, a small unit of highly skilled men can drive back a huge force of untrained “soldiers.” And I would be surprised if that doesn’t apply to “pilots” as well.

    But when you’re the smaller force, you sure better be a lot more skilled.

  13. Michael Eden Says:

    Jonah Goldberg writes about “passion” in his Liberal Fascism (another VERY good read). And one of the tenets of postmodernism, from which fascism and liberalism flow, is the abandonment of reason and the embrace of emotionalism.

    On my view, the ultimate problem with progressive liberalism is that it amounts to seeing the world through a shockingly distorted and depraved view of the world. I go back to the “God’s-eye-view,” which these people dismiss (except for rhetorical purposes, and even then only when it suits them to cite “religion”). When you see through the eyes of a believer, you are (at least to a degree) seeing things through the eyes of God – who alone truly comprehends reality.

    Liberals don’t see anything through God’s perspective. Rather, they embrace a universe of theories, which serve to justify pretty much whatever the hell they want to do. And the bottom line is that they cannot even possibly understand the world as it actually is.

    So their theories (e.g. Marxism) fail again and again and again. But since they can’t see or understand the real world, they never see how their theories never correspond to that world. And they just keep making the same horrible mistakes over and over.

  14. The Dauntless Conservative Says:

    Michael said” But at the time, I was more interested in getting drunk than in the ultimate lesson in sobriety.”

    chuckle, chuckle!

    Ever heard the saying “drunk as a sailor”!? LOL

    Any, I like Jonah Goldberg too. I remember when he came out with the book “Liberal Fascism”…yet another book in my stack I’d like to read.

    Liberals stand on their head and tell the world it is upside down.

  15. Michael Eden Says:

    “Liberals stand on their head and tell the world it is upside down.”

    That is a very good way to put it. I’ll add that one to my arsenal.

    Turns out that soldiers don’t run away from liquor any more than sailors do. Especially when its October, and when you’re in Germany.

  16. The Dauntless Conservative Says:

    The last boat I was on was a carrier, port call in Trieste, Italy twice during deployment. The first time, we missed Octoberfest by a week! LOL!

  17. Michael Eden Says:

    Compared with you fleet Navy guys, we Army guys didn’t get out much.

    Even if we were stationed overseas, we didn’t get to “float around the world” like you. For example, when we went to South Korea for the SATO “Team Spirit” exercise, I talked to some 2nd Division guys stationed there. And the only country they’d seen other than S. Korea had been Japan. And only for the duration of a refueling stop. They basically didn’t even get off the tarmac.

    I went to a total of eight countries in my four years of active duty (I count Japan in my eight countries not because of our own refueling stop, but because we also also trained with Marines in Okinawa following the Team Spirit exercise). And that was probably a lot bigger number than most soldiers, at that.

    We didn’t get to see anywhere near as much of the world as you Navy guys. But they made you wear those silly dixie cup hats. So I guess it all evens out…

    A complaint and diatribe from one who never got to go to Italy :)

  18. The Dauntless Conservative Says:

    I’ve been to about 25 countries or thereabouts…Rome, Athens, London…my favorite was Sorento, Italy….took a commuter train from Naples, Italy and spent a day there. A few of us went to a restaurant beside the Hotel Tramontano…an experience I won’t forget.

    http://www.hoteltramontano.it/

    With Nov 2 coming up, it is “Liberal Season” a la Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck…hilarious:

  19. Michael Eden Says:

    Too bad Bugs Bunny isn’t the RNC chairman.

    The way it usually ends up, it’s usually Republicans who end up getting shot in the face as “journalists” scream “It’s Republican season!” And then Democrats amass such power that suddenly there’s no one for them to demonize, and the people reject them. And Republicans take over, dig the country out of the mess, and the cycle begins anew as Democrats keep up the demonizing.

    25 countries. Wow! But you didn’t say whether it was worth it to have to wear that funny hat…

    Speaking of the Navy, you know what I would have most enjoyed seeing? I’d like to have been sitting on a lawn chair on the deck of the USS New Jersey as its big guns gave Saddam hell.

  20. The Dauntless Conservative Says:

    “Too bad Bugs Bunny isn’t the RNC chairman.”

    Yeah, too bad!! lol!

    “The way it usually ends up, it’s usually Republicans who end up getting shot in the face as “journalists” scream “It’s Republican season!” And then Democrats amass such power that suddenly there’s no one for them to demonize, and the people reject them. And Republicans take over, dig the country out of the mess, and the cycle begins anew as Democrats keep up the demonizing.

    How many times have you heard odumbo stomp around saying something like this: “we have to clean up the Republicans mess”. Ok, I would like to ask odumbo, if you are so intelligent as your worshipers claim you are, then why can’t you clean it up? Double digit unemployment, grossly high deficits since democrats took Congress, on and on and on.

    “25 countries. Wow! But you didn’t say whether it was worth it to have to wear that funny hat…”

    Yes, I kept a journal and wrote down all the places I toured. About the white hats, never wore them much, except on watch, formal ceremonies, inspections, that kind of thing. Every day work on a ship did not require a hat all the time. Wearing hats were relaxed while at sea, unless out on weather decks, standing a watch on the bridge or something like that. While station at a shore command, you wore hats more often commuting to and from your command. At sea, you wore something like this:
    http://www.soldiercity.com/uss-ronald-reagan-cvn-76-ballcap.html?utm_source=googlebase&utm_medium=csc&utm_term=2054

    I figured you would like a USS Ronald Reagan CVN76 command ball cap.

    “Speaking of the Navy, you know what I would have most enjoyed seeing? I’d like to have been sitting on a lawn chair on the deck of the USS New Jersey as its big guns gave Saddam hell.”

    I was in Desert Storm, and quite frankly, I don’t remember if the Navy used the big guns back then, they may have used them some. They used mostly Tomahawk cruise missiles and many other SS type missiles, laser guided type missiles, etc.

    USS Ronald Reagan Tiger Cruise

  21. Michael Eden Says:

    The “dixie cup” hat thing is all I’ve got to counter the sailor’s tales of global travel, so, naturally, I have to go with it.

    My father was a fleet navy guy, serving tours on the Wasp and then the Hornet. As much as I love my Ronnie, I’d go with those caps.

    I’m not sure if the New Jersey actually opened up its 16-inch guns (I wrote that from my memory), but the Wisconsin and the Missouri certainly did:

    The next year, WISCONSIN was in the Persian Gulf as part of
    the force assembled for Operation Desert Storm. When the
    counteroffensive began in January, WISCONSIN fired 24 of her 32
    Tomahawk missiles against targets in Iraq, some as far as 800 miles
    away from the ship. The missiles were accurate in hitting their targets
    thus demonstrating that the battleship had a reach its designers never
    would have dreamt. WISCONSIN also served as the Tomahawk
    strike-warfare center during the opening of Desert Storm.
    In February, WISCONSIN along with MISSOURI began to
    engage targets in Iraq and Kuwait with their 16-inch guns
    . Targets
    included artillery batteries, bunkers and boats used by the Iraqis to raid
    the Saudi coast. Of particular significance, WISCONSIN used her
    guns to support the Marines’ liberation of Kuwait City, breaking up
    pockets of heavy resistance and destroying fortifications that were
    impeding the Marines’ advance.
    Having demonstrated their effectiveness, the two battleships were
    decommissioned not long after they returned home.

    Tomahawk missiles are cool and all; but they’re not as cool as a battleship’s big guns. I mean, WHAT IS?

    There’s just something about a battleship hitting an enemy position with shells the weight of Volkswagens that sends chills up the spine.

    Bugs Bunny for President – HE’LL figure out a way to get us out of Obama’s mess!!!

  22. The Dauntless Conservative Says:

    Well, you’re right…my memory has faded…I knew some of the battleships were with us, but did not know if they were close enough to shoot the big guns…they have to be real close to shore. Honestly, I hated the dixie cups. I wish the Navy would change back to a beret type hat…something like they wore in WW2 and before.

    The USS Wisconsin is moored in Norfolk Va. I took the family there once. My sone was about 6 or 7 yr old and he loved it! You need to go there sometime:

    http://www.nauticus.org/exhibits/battleship-wisconsin

    or USS North Carolina BB55 @ Wilmington, NC
    http://www.battleshipnc.com/

    USS New Jersey is in Camden NJ as a memorial as well.
    http://www.battleshipnewjersey.org/

  23. Michael Eden Says:

    Battleships are awesome memorials to a bygone age. And I’m not sure why they decommissioned them, given their effectiveness. WWII proved that ships need air support, but with that support, battleships – which can be fitted with more modern weaponry, too (as they have) could still be effective. And, I mean, we HAD them.

    Personally, I think they were victims of a mindset that forced the Navy to get rid of its old toys so they could claim they needed new toys. All the services are constantly trying to get more funds for more projects.

    The Army had some stupid headgear as well. Thank God I didn’t have to wear one for long, but we had enlisted headgear that we called (and excuse my language) “cunt caps” with our dress green uniforms.

    Go Dreadnoughts!

  24. The Dauntless Conservative Says:

    MichaelE: There are probably many reasons why they were decommissioned(not that I agree or disagree). When a Navy ship is built, by design, it has serviceable life of X years. The welding and and some of the ship fitting and the sort are outdated. The cost to keep an outdated frame design exceeds its worth. Missile technology has reached a level that is far less costly and easier to maneuver and manage than 16in guns. Powder charges are stored separately and more dangerous to manage and store than missiles. An Aegis class cruiser can do the same damage and more with deadly accuracy. There’s more reasons I am sure, but based on my experience, that is what I can conclude. Yes, they are a majestic symbol of American resolve, weapons technology, like anything else, keeps getting better.

  25. Michael Eden Says:

    All that sounds good and true.

    But 16-inch guns go “boom” really well. Surely that should count for something.

    At least the battleships you linked to are museums, instead of scrap iron.

  26. The Dauntless Conservative Says:

    Yeah, I know, I know! lol!

    Notice the powder bags rammed behind the shell.

  27. Michael Eden Says:

    THAT’S a good video. Shivers down the spine (i.e., “Shiver me timbers!”).

    I sent the youtube link to my father and my brother. Thanks for letting me see that.

    You think of those guns, think of the men who fired them, and think back to the days when America was in safe hands…

  28. The Dauntless Conservative Says:

    Those two men loading the powder bags, etc are called Gunner’s Mate, a type of MOS as you would call it in the Army. Back in the days of wooden ships and sail, they were called “powder monkeys”. Here:
    http://www.twogreens.co.uk/wakeup/peopleonboard/pdrmnky.htm
    Remember “Master and Commander”?
    http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/fox/master_and_commander/large.html

  29. Michael Eden Says:

    I hope Navy guys aren’t just as confused with Army MOSs as Army guys are with Navy rates.

    I’m sure it sounds pretty weird to you: I was an 11 Bravo Charlie 2 (light infantry, M47 Dragon anti-tank gunner). And, of course, there are lots of such designations that make perfect sense to soldiers. But we’re left scratching our heads over boatswain’s mates and coxswain’s mates yeoman’s mates and whatnot.

    I suppose I can understand “gunner’s mate.” But “powder monkey” is a lot better. I’D sign up to be a powder monkey…

  30. The Dauntless Conservative Says:

    LOL!, yeah, the Navy has its own terminology. Much of it was borrowed from the British Navy, and many other traditions even the cracker jack uniforms.

  31. Michael Eden Says:

    It is amazing how the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines have entirely separate cultures from one another – and how those cultures complement one another when America needs their unity.

  32. meh@meh.com Says:

    First, Hitler was, and is to this very day, a Christian and a Fascist. Second, just because your party uses the word “Socialist” doesn’t make you representative of “Socialism” (Seriously, do you even know the difference between ‘doxy’ and ‘praxis’? Probably not, because all us intellectuals are just Leftists and, of course, what do Leftists know…). This could be applied to other parties around the world, like Japan’s conservative party, the Liberal Democratic Party, and the current Germany’s main conservative party, the Christian Democratic Union, uses terms that, if you define EVERYTHING in American political buzzlabels (Big mistake, because Rupert Murdoch, conservative capitalist extroadinaire, who couldn’t care about your religion so long as he can make money off it, is probably not the person you should let define political theory for you).

    Yes, quote Veith all you want, but its going to take more than Christian Apologism and Gonzo Journalism to cover-up the truth about Hitler as you so want. BTW, don’t ever associate the word “conserve” with “conservatism” again, it only makes you seem even more ignorant about the Right-Wing anti-environmentalist agenda, not only from the Atheistic Right (who worship Ayn Rand), but from the Christian Right as well.

    But, in the end, I suppose, like Ann Coulter and Linda Kimball, you’re going to believe whatever ‘story’ of history you decide write up; I guess that explains the existence of Conservapedia ;P

  33. Michael Eden Says:

    Probably not, because all us intellectuals are just Leftists

    Calling yourself an “intellectual,” are you, meh?

    What a sad state intellectuals are in, if you are in any way a representative. I look at sentences from you like this one –

    This could be applied to other parties around the world, like Japan’s conservative party, the Liberal Democratic Party, and the current Germany’s main conservative party, the Christian Democratic Union, uses terms that, if you define EVERYTHING in American political buzzlabels (Big mistake, because Rupert Murdoch, conservative capitalist extroadinaire, who couldn’t care about your religion so long as he can make money off it, is probably not the person you should let define political theory for you).

    – and “un-intellectual” rightwinger that I am, I realize that it is a rambling run-on sentence that goes absolutely nowhere and makes no argument whatsoever. You ought to be ashamed of yourself, passing your pathetic drivel off as intelligent.

    I presented a substantial body of quotations from firsthand sources immediately close to Hitler testifying that Hitler was most certainly NOT a Christian, even including Hitler himself. Here are just some of them again from the very article you comment to below. And I notice that while you call yourself an “intellectual,” you commit the most trivial of fallacies. You don’t have the intellectual honesty to even TRY to show that ANY of my facts are untrue; rather, you simply wave a gentic-fallacy-committing hand and denounce them all based on a lie about their source. Which makes you a hypocrite and a fraud:

    And so it became an easy next-step for Nazi propagandists such as Ezra Pound (who is also known as the godfather of modernism) to state that the Jewish religion began when Moses, “having to keep a troublesome rabble in order, scared them by inventing a disagreeable bogie, which he called a god.” And Pound concluded “the greatest tyrannies have arisen from the dogma that the theos is one, or that there is a unity above the various strata of theos which imposes its will upon the substrata, and thence upon human individuals.”

    And Adolf Hitler could then state in his Mein Kampf that:

    “The objection may very well be raised that such phenomena in world history [the necessity of intolerance] arise for the most part from specifically Jewish modes of thought, in fact, that this type of intolerance and fanaticism positively embodies the Jewish nature” [Hitler, Mein Kampf, p. 454].

    The chain began by German scholars was complete: Hitler argued that it was okay to be intolerant of intolerant people, and that the Jews literally epitomized intolerance.

    And none of this was “Christian”; it was a project straight from hell.

    Friedrich Nietzsche – a patron saint of Nazism – correctly pointed out the fact that:

    “Christianity, sprung from Jewish roots and comprehensible only as a growth on this soil, represents the counter-movement to any morality of breeding, of race, of privilege: it is the anti-Aryan religion part excellence” [Nietzsche, “The Twilight of the Idols”].

    And so, a good Nazi was a Gottglaubiger. Rather than putting “Christian” on personnel forms they wrote down “Gottlaubig” – representing a “vague pseudo-philosophical religiosity” – to indicate that, while they were not “godless communists,” they were most certainly not “Christian.”

    So Hitler publicly said what he needed to say in speeches to deceive a mass population who had been bombarded with anti-Christian heresy and anti-Christian anti-Semitism, to bend them to his will. But to his inner circle he said very different things than what he said publicly. Hitler described to them that “after difficult inner struggles I had freed myself of my remaining childhood religious conceptions. I feel as refreshed now as a foal on a meadow” (Ernst Helmreich, “The German Churches Under Hitler,” p. 285).

    What else did those closest in Hitler’s inner circle say about his “Christianity”?

    From Joseph Goebbels’ diary, dated 8 April 1941 (Tue):

    The Fuhrer is a man totally attuned to antiquity. He hates Christianity, because it has crippled all that is noble in humanity. According to Schopenhauer, Christianity and syphilis have made humanity unhappy and unfree. What a difference between the benevolent, smiling Zeus and the pain-wracked, crucified Christ. The ancient peoples’ view of God was also much nobler and more humane than the Christians’. What a difference between a gloomy cathedral and a light, airy ancient temple. He describes life in ancient Rome: clarity, greatness, monumentality. The most wonderful republic in history. We would feel no disappointment, he believes, if we were now suddenly to be transported to this old, eternal city.”

    Goebbels also notes in a diary entry in 1939 a conversation in which Hitler had “expressed his revulsion against Christianity. He wished that the time were ripe for him to be able to openly express that. Christianity had corrupted and infected the entire world of antiquity.” [Elke Frölich. 1997-2008. Die Tagebücher von Joseph Goebbels. Munich: K. G. Sauer. Teil I, v. 6, p. 272].

    Hitler also said, “Our epoch will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.” [Hitler’s Table Talk, Enigma Books; 3rd edition October 1, 2000, p. 343].

    Author Konrad Heiden quoted Hitler as stating, “We do not want any other god than Germany itself. It is essential to have fanatical faith and hope and love in and for Germany.” [Heiden, Konrad A History of National Socialism, A.A. Knopf, 1935, p. 100].

    Albert Speer – another Nazi who worked extremely closely with Hitler – reports in his memoirs of a similar statement made by Hitler:

    You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?” [Albert Speer. 1971. Inside the Third Reich Translated by Richard Winston, Clara Winston, Eugene Davidson. New York: Macmillan. p 143; Reprinted in 1997. Inside the Third Reich: Memoirs. New York: Simon and Schuster. p. 96. ISBN 0-684-82949-5].

    Adolf Hitler sounds like an atheist to me. Certainly, Hitler was absolutely not a Christian. He cynically used Christianity like he cynically used everything else that was good; he took ruthless advantage of it as simply another means by which to package his lies to the German people.

    The fact of the matter is that Fascism and Nazism were quintessentially hostile to Christianity, and even to monotheism.

    Hannah Arendt describes Nazi spirituality in her book Eichmann in Jerusalem:

    When convicted Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann went to the gallows, “He was in complete command of himself, nay, he was more; he was completely himself. Nothing could have demonstrated this more convincingly than the grotesque silliness of his last words. He began by stating emphatically that he was a Gottglaubiger, to express in common Nazi fashion that he was no Christian and did not believe in life after death” [p. 252].

    One of the leading experts on fascism, Ernst Nolte, defined fascism as “the practical and violent resistance to transcendence” [Nolte, Three Faces of Fascism: Action Francaise, Italian Fascism, Nazi Fascism, 1965, p. 429]. Fascism was anti-God, anti-supernatural and anti-transcendence.

    And I can go on:

    Of Protestant Christianity, Hitler wrote:

    Protestantism… combats with the greatest hostility any attempt to rescue the nation from the embrace of its most mortal enemy, since its attitude toward the Jews just happens to be more or less dogmatically established. Yet here we are facing the question without whose solution all other attempts at a German reawakening or resurrection are and remain absolutely senseless and impossible” (Hitler, Mein Kampf, p. 113).

    Hitler talked about solving the “church problem” after he’d solved the “Jewish problem.” He said:

    “The war is going to be over. The last great task of our age will be to solve the church problem. It is only then that the nation will be wholly secure” (Hitler’s Tabletalk, December 1941).

    Hitler boasted that “I have six divisions of SS composed of men absolutely indifferent in matters of religion. It doesn’t prevent them from going to their deaths with serenity in their souls.”

    Martin Bormann, head of the Party Chancellery and private secretary of the Fuhrer, said pointedly:

    National socialist and Christian concepts cannot be reconciled. The Christian churches build on the ignorance of people and are anxious so far as possible to preserve this ignorance in as large a part of the populace as possible; only in this way can the Christian churches retain their power. In contrast, national socialism rests on scientific foundations” (cited in Ernst Helmreich, The German Churches Under Hitler, p. 303).

    At a Nazi rally a speaker proclaimed: “Who was greater, Christ or Hitler? Christ had at the time of his death twelve apostles, who, however, did not even remain true to him. Hitler, however, today has a folk of 70 million behind him. We cannot tolerate that another organization [i.e., the church] is established alongside of us that has a different spirit than ours. We must crush it. National socialism in all earnestness says: I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt have no other gods before me.”

    Nazism was pagan to its very core. Carl Jung (a onetime fascist sympathizer himself) described Nazism as the revival of Wotan, who had been suppressed by Christianity but now was released. Germany was being possessed by its archetypal god. (Odajnyk, Jung and Politics, p. 87-89). The Farmer’s Almanac of 1935, published by the Ministry of Agriculture, replaced the Christian holidays with commemoration days for Wotan and Thor. And Good Friday was replaced with a memorial for those killed by Charlemagne in his efforts to convert the Saxons.

    In addition, at the very heart of the Nazi’s race programs and at the center of the Holocaust was the belief in atheistic Darwinian evolution. The principle rationale for the Holocaust was that the Jews were biologically inferior, and interfered with the Nazi scientists’ efforts to aid evolution by creating a master race.

    Last I heard, Chrisitanity wasn’t based on Darwinism. Rather, the Darwinism that drove Hitler’s eugenics program is the same garbage that you and YOURS are full of, meh.

    And in addition to the explicict denials that I offer from a wide variety of sources immediately close to Hitler, there is also the abundant evidence that not only was Hitler and Nazism very definitely NOT Christian, but it was in fact pagan to its core:

    http://www.american-buddha.com/lit.godsbeasts.3.htm
    http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/articles/fascism/Nazi5Poewe1.html
    http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/roots(n)-1.htm

    “Gods and beasts, that is what our world is made of.”
    — Hitler, quoted in The Voice of Destruction by Hermann Rauschning

    And what do YOU have, meh? You’ve got nothing but your idiotic “intellectual” denial of the clear record of history, based on nothing more than your own sneering personal arrogance and vanity. Which makes the words of George Orwell – that some ideas are so foolish that only an intellectual could believe them, for no ordinary man could be such a fool – so fitting for you.

    Recently, we have learned that Adolf Hitler – your “Catholic” “Christian” – gave orders kidnap the Pope. The general did not obey because he rightly believed Hitler would have murdered the Pope. Because he was such a devout Catholic, after all.

    But there’s still more. And I need only copy and paste. And the only thing I need to change is the name of the fool I’m responding to. You make the factless and groundless assertion that just the Nazis called themselves “Socialists” because they were actually somehow the opposite of “socialists.” Bullcrap, just bullcrap:

    Tell me, meh: in precisely what sense was Adolf Hitler for “limited government”? What specific sphere of life did Hitler say, “I should have no authority to control this? Because I’m a limited government conservative, after all.”

    And further, just what was it that Adolf Hitler trying to “conserve” as a “conservative”?

    Please don’t bother to post back unless you have an answer to those questions. Because you are a complete waste of time.

    You demonize the Republican Party merely because your hollow skull is full of demons. It is the DEMOCRATS who are socialist; it is the DEMOCRATS who constantly advertise themselves as the “workers party.” And if there were a “National Socialist American Workers Party” today, it would be filled completely and entirely by the left.

    From this point I shall merely copy and paste a previous response to a previous idiot:

    Since you point out Nazism was fascist, let’s look at some history as to WHICH side of the American political divide recognized literally ITSELF as fascist in America.

    Fascism sought to eliminate class differences and to destroy/replace capitalism and laissez-faire economics.

    H.G. Wells, a great admirer of FDR and an extremely close personal friend of his, was also a great liberal progressive of his day. He summed it up this way in a major speech at Oxford to the YOUNG LIBERALS organization under the banner of “Liberal Fascism”: “I am asking for a Liberal Fascisti, for enlightened Nazis.” He said, “And do not let me leave you in the slightest doubt as to the scope and ambition of what I am putting before you” and then said:

    These new organizations are not merely organizations for the spread of defined opinions…the days of that sort of amateurism are over – they are organizations to replace the dilatory indecisiveness of democracy. The world is sick of parliamentary politics…The Fascist Party, to the best of its ability, is Italy now. The Communist Party, to the best of its ability, is Russia. Obviously the Fasicsts of Liberalism must carry out a parallel ambition on still a vaster scale…They must begin as a disciplined sect, but must end as the sustaining organization of a reconstituted mankind.”

    H.G. Wells pronounced FDR “the most effective transmitting instrument possible for the coming of the new world order.” And of course, we easily see that the new world order Wells wanted was a fascist one. In 1941, George Orwell concluded, “Much of what Wells has imagined and worked for is physically there in Nazi Germany.”

    You aren’t informing me of anything, and you CERTAINLY aren’t correcting me for any mistake I made, by saying that Nazism was a form of fascism. The problem you have is that fascism is such an inextricable part of the progressive movement that characterized Democrats between Woodrow Wilson and FDR. A quintessential element of fascism is mobilization, what is described as “the moral equivalent of war.” It is about an expert-driven unity, where our leaders mobilize society to solve whatever “crisis” they decide to focus upon. FDR in his inaugural address promised to seek the power to wage a war against the emergency, as great as the power that would be given to me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe… I assume unhesitatingly the leadership of this great army dedicated to a disciplined attack upon our common problems.” And he militarized society to deal with the emergency. And both Hitler and Mussolini BOTH had their own forms of the New Deal, and both pursued the same basic ends the same basic way.

    Mussolini and Hitler felt they were doing things along similar lines to FDR. Indeed they celebrated the New Deal as a kindred effort to their own. The German press was lavish in praise for FDR. In 1934 the Volkischer Beobachter (the national newspaper under Adolf Hitler) described Roosevelt as a “warmhearted leader of the people with a profound understanding of social needs.” The paper said that FDR, through his New Deal, had eliminated “the uninhibited frenzy of market speculation” by adopting “National Socialist strains of thought in his economic and social policies.”

    Mussolini reviewed FDR’s book Looking Forward saying in effect, “This guy’s one of us!” He wrote: “The appeal to the decisiveness and masculing sobriety of the nation’s youth, with which Roosevelt here calls his readers to battle, is reminiscent of the ways and means by which Fascism awakened the Italian people.” Mussolini further wrote that FDR understood that the economy could not be “left to its own devices” and went on to say, “Without question, the mood accompanying this sea change resembles that of Fascism.” And the Nazi newspaper paper Volkischer Beobachter wrote that “many passages in his [FDR’s] book Looking Forward could have been written by a National Socialist. In any case, one can assume that he feels considerable affinity with the National Socialist Philosophy.” For a source see Schivelbusch’s “Three New Deals,” pp. 23, 24, 19.

    Mussolini, in a famous interview with Emil Ludwig, reiterated his view that “America has a dictator” in FDR. In an essay, Mussolini marveled at how the forces of “spiritual renewal” were destroying the outdated notion that principles such as democracy were “immortal principles.” He wrote, “America is itself abandoning them. Roosevelt is moving, acting, giving orders independently of the decisions or wishes of the Senate or Congress. There are no longer intermediaries between him and the nation. There is no longer a parliament but an ‘etat majeur.’”

    What the Nazis pursued was a form of anticapitalist anti-conservative communitarianism encapsulated in the concept of Volksgemeinschaft, or “people’s community.”

    From the Nazi Party Platform:

    – The first obligation of every citizen must be to work both spiritually and physically. The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality, but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all Consequently we demand:

    – Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of rent-slavery.

    – In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

    – We demand the nationalization of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).

    – We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.

    – We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.

    – We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.

    – We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.

    – We demand struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to the general interest. Common national criminals, usurers, Schieber and so forth are to be punished with death, without consideration of confession or race.

    – We demand substitution of a German common law in place of the Roman Law serving a materialistic world-order.

    – The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education and subsequently introduction into leading positions. The plans of instruction of all educational institutions are to conform with the experiences of practical life. The comprehension of the concept of the State must be striven for by the school [Staatsbuergerkunde] as early as the beginning of understanding. We demand the education at the expense of the State of outstanding intellectually gifted children of poor parents without consideration of position or profession.

    – The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.

    – We demand abolition of the mercenary troops and formation of a national army.

    – We demand legal opposition to known lies and their promulgation through the press. In order to enable the provision of a German press, we demand, that: a. All writers and employees of the newspapers appearing in the German language be members of the race: b. Non-German newspapers be required to have the express permission of the State to be published. They may not be printed in the German language: c. Non-Germans are forbidden by law any financial interest in German publications, or any influence on them, and as punishment for violations the closing of such a publication as well as the immediate expulsion from the Reich of the non-German concerned. Publications which are counter to the general good are to be forbidden. We demand legal prosecution of artistic and literary forms which exert a destructive influence on our national life, and the closure of organizations opposing the above made demands.

    Ah, yes, the Nazis had their Fairness Doctrine before your liberals had theirs.

    Now, you read the Nazi Party Platform, and given what American liberals want and what American conservatism opposes, it is so obvious which party is “fascist” that it isn’t even silly. Then you ADD to that the fact that fascism and American progressivism (which is liberalism) were so similar that the great fascists of the age couldn’t tell the damn difference.

    Hitler was NOT a Christian, and you are a liar for saying otherwise. Further, Nazism was “socialist” to its core. It was a BIG-GOVERNMENT socialist in-the-name-of-the-people-style totalitarian government. Just like the Utopia the Marxists offered, only it was a Thousand Year Big Government Reich. It was virtually identical in nearly every respect to the communsim of Stalin because it was just a rival brand of socialism. And to the extent that fascists such as Hitler or Mussolini saw themselves in American government, it was in the massive big-government New Deal of FDR. And most certainly NOT in the small government conservativism of Calvin Coolidge.

    The funniest thing of all about you is that you denounce “Conservapedia” because it’s rightwing – which doesn’t have a whole lot to do with anything given that I don’t even think any of my quotes CAME from conservapedia, and having no straw man to attack you literally INVENT one to attack. But if you try to offer some feeble response to the massive body of evidence I offer to prove that you are just flat out wrong, what will you turn to? Some uber-leftwing source.

  34. The Dauntless Conservative Says:

    meh@meh.com: You said: “First, Hitler was, and is to this very day, a Christian and a Fascist. Second, just because your party uses the word “Socialist” doesn’t make you representative of “Socialism””

    Wrong.

    The German Worker’s Party was the precedent to the National Socialist German Worker’s Party, i.e. Nazi Party. The truth of the matter is the unions that existed in the previous Weimar government were united into the German Labor Front, Deutsche Arbeitsfront, DAF.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Labour_Front

    From “Mein Kampf”

    http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv2ch12.html

    Excerpt from Mein Kampf:

    “In the present state of affairs I am convinced that we cannot possibly dispense with the trades unions. On the contrary, they are among the most important institutions in the economic life of the nation. Not only are they important in the sphere of social policy but also, and even more so, in the national political sphere. For when the great masses of a nation see their vital needs satisfied through a just trade unionist movement the stamina of the whole nation in its struggle for existence will be enormously reinforced thereby.”

    The Nationalsozialistischen briefe

    http://www.ns-archiv.de/nsdap/sozialisten/sozialisten-verlassen-nsdap.php

    Dr. John Ray has researched very well the Hitler was not a Christian in the context of actual practicing it, despite the fact he was raised Catholic. Obviously he did not truthfully follow Christ. If he was a Christian as you claim, meh, then why did he murder millions of people including his own? He used religion as a political front.

    http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id2.html

  35. Michael Eden Says:

    Dauntless,

    Thanks for adding your two bits.

    I’ll have to check out your links.

    Also, Hitler was only KIND of “raised Catholic.” His mother was apparently a pretty devout Catholic; his father was an abusive atheist. And which side of the family tree did little Adolf inherit?

  36. Michael Eden Says:

    This section of Mein Kampf that you linked to was particularly interesting. It all sounds so “right wing,” so “conservative,” so “limited government” to me.

    NOT:

    Adolf Hitler on his National Socialism and the importance of National Socialist Unions in that Socialism:

    (1) Are trade unions necessary?
    (2) Should the German National Socialist Labour Party itself operate on a trade unionist basis or have its members take part in trade unionist activities in some form or other?
    (3) What form should a National Socialist Trades Union take? What are the tasks confronting us and the ends we must try to attain?
    (4) How can we establish trade unions for such tasks and aims?
    I think that I have already answered the first question adequately. In the present state of affairs I am convinced that we cannot possibly dispense with the trades unions. On the contrary, they are among the most important institutions in the economic life of the nation. Not only are they important in the sphere of social policy but also, and even more so, in the national political sphere. For when the great masses of a nation see their vital needs satisfied through a just trade unionist movement the stamina of the whole nation in its struggle for existence will be enormously reinforced thereby.
    Before everything else, the trades unions are necessary as building stones for the future economic parliament, which will be made up of chambers representing the various professions and occupations.
    The second question is also easy to answer. If the trade unionist movement is important, then it is clear that National Socialism ought to take a definite stand on that question, not only theoretically but also in practice. But how? That is more difficult to see clearly.
    The National Socialist Movement, which aims at establishing the National Socialist People’s State, must always bear steadfastly in mind the principle that every future institution under that State must be rooted in the movement itself. It is a great mistake to believe that by acquiring possession of supreme political power we can bring about a definite reorganization, suddenly starting from nothing, without the help of a certain reserve stock of men who have been trained beforehand, especially in the spirit of the movement. Here also the principle holds good that the spirit is always more important than the external form which it animates; since this form can be created mechanically and quickly. For instance, the leadership principle may be imposed on an organized political community in a dictatorial way. But this principle can become a living reality only by passing through the stages that are necessary for its own evolution. These stages lead from the smallest cell of the State organism upwards. As its bearers and representatives, the leadership principle must have a body of men who have passed through a process of selection lasting over several years, who have been tempered by the hard realities of life and thus rendered capable of carrying the principle into practical effect.
    It is out of the question to think that a scheme for the Constitution of a State can be pulled out of a portfolio at a moment’s notice and ‘introduced’ by imperative orders from above. One may try that kind of thing but the result will always be something that has not sufficient vitality to endure. It will be like a stillborn infant. The idea of it calls to mind the origin of the Weimar Constitution and the attempt to impose on the German people a new Constitution and a new flag, neither of which had any inner relation to the vicissitudes of our people’s history during the last half century.
    The National Socialist State must guard against all such experiments. It must grow out of an organization which has already existed for a long time. This organization must possess National Socialist life in itself, so that finally it may be able to establish a National Socialist State that will be a living reality.
    As I have already said, the germ cells of this State must lie in the administrative chambers which will represent the various occupations and professions, therefore first of all in the trades unions. If this subsequent vocational representation and the Central Economic Parliament are to be National Socialist institutions, these important germ cells must be vehicles of the National Socialist concept of life. The institutions of the movement are to be brought over into the State; for the State cannot call into existence all of a sudden and as if by magic those institutions which are necessary to its existence, unless it wishes to have institutions that are bound to remain completely lifeless.
    Looking at the matter from the highest standpoint, the National Socialist Movement will have to recognize the necessity of adopting its own trade-unionist policy.
    It must do this for a further reason, namely because a real National Socialist education for the employer as well as for the employee, in the spirit of a mutual co-operation within the common framework of the national community, cannot be secured by theoretical instruction, appeals and exhortations, but through the struggles of daily life. In this spirit and through this spirit the movement must educate the several large economic groups and bring them closer to one another under a wider outlook. Without this preparatory work it would be sheer illusion to hope that a real national community can be brought into existence. The great ideal represented by its philosophy of life and for which the movement fights can alone form a general style of thought steadily and slowly. And this style will show that the new state of things rests on foundations that are internally sound and not merely an external façade.
    Hence the movement must adopt a positive attitude towards the trade-unionist idea. But it must go further than this. For the enormous number of members and followers of the trade-unionist movement it must provide a practical education which will meet the exigencies of the coming National Socialist State.
    The answer to the third question follows from what has been already said.
    The National Socialist Trades Union is not an instrument for class warfare, but a representative organ of the various occupations and callings. The National Socialist State recognizes no ‘classes’. But, under the political aspect, it recognizes only citizens with absolutely equal rights and equal obligations corresponding thereto. And, side by side with these, it recognizes subjects of the State who have no political rights whatsoever.
    According to the National Socialist concept, it is not the task of the trades union to band together certain men within the national community and thus gradually transform these men into a class, so as to use them in a conflict against other groups similarly organized within the national community. We certainly cannot assign this task to the trades union as such. This was the task assigned to it the moment it became a fighting weapon in the hands of the Marxists. The trades union is not naturally an instrument of class warfare; but the Marxists transformed it into an instrument for use in their own class struggle. They created the economic weapon which the international Jew uses for the purpose of destroying the economic foundations of free and independent national States, for ruining their national industry and trade and thereby enslaving free nations to serve Jewish world-finance, which transcends all State boundaries.
    In contradistinction to this, the National Socialist Trades Union must organize definite groups and those who participate in the economic life of the nation and thus enhance the security of the national economic system itself, reinforcing it by the elimination of all those anomalies which ultimately exercise a destructive influence on the social body of the nation, damaging the vital forces of the national community, prejudicing the welfare of the State and, by no means as a last consequence, bringing evil and destruction on economic life itself.
    Therefore in the hands of the National Socialist Trades Union the strike is not an instrument for disturbing and dislocating the national production, but for increasing it and making it run smoothly, by fighting against all those annoyances which by reason of their unsocial character hinder efficiency in business and thereby hamper the existence of the whole nation. For individual efficiency stands always in casual relation to the general social and juridical position of the individual in the economic process. Individual efficiency is also the sole root of the conviction that the economic prosperity of the nation must necessarily redound to the benefit of the individual citizen.
    The National Socialist employee will have to recognize the fact that the economic prosperity of the nation brings with it his own material happiness.
    The National Socialist employer must recognize that the happiness and contentment of his employees are necessary pre-requisites for the existence and development of his own economic prosperity.
    National Socialist workers and employers are both together the delegates and mandatories of the whole national community
    . The large measure of personal freedom which is accorded to them for their activities must be explained by the fact that experience has shown that the productive powers of the individual are more enhanced by being accorded a generous measure of freedom than by coercion from above. Moreover, by according this freedom we give free play to the natural process of selection which brings forward the ablest and most capable and most industrious. For the National Socialist Trades Union, therefore, the strike is a means that may, and indeed must, be resorted to as long as there is not a National Socialist State yet. But when that State is established it will, as a matter of course, abolish the mass struggle between the two great groups made up of employers and employees respectively, a struggle which has always resulted in lessening the national production and injuring the national community. In place of this struggle, the National Socialist State will take over the task of caring for and defending the rights of all parties concerned. It will be the duty of the Economic Chamber itself to keep the national economic system in smooth working order and to remove whatever defects or errors it may suffer from. Questions that are now fought over through a quarrel that involves millions of people will then be settled in the Representative Chambers of Trades and Professions and in the Central Economic Parliament. Thus employers and employees will no longer find themselves drawn into a mutual conflict over wages and hours of work, always to the detriment of their mutual interests. But they will solve these problems together on a higher plane, where the welfare of the national community and of the State will be as a shining ideal to throw light on all their negotiations.
    Here again, as everywhere else, the inflexible principle must be observed, that the interests of the country must come before party interests.
    The task of the National Socialist Trades Union will be to educate and prepare its members to conform to these ideals. That task may be stated as follows: All must work together for the maintenance and security of our people and the People’s State, each one according to the abilities and powers with which Nature has endowed him and which have been developed and trained by the national community.

    So Hitler said unions were essential to his vision of a nation: Which party in America would say this, and which party in America would bitterly denounce this?

    Hitler said “The National Socialist Movement … aims at establishing the National Socialist People’s State.” And which party in America would love to see a “socialist people’s state,” and which party in America would have that happen over their dead bodies?

    Hitler sought “supreme political power.” Which party in America seeks to massively expand the power of the state, and which party in America is fighting for limited government?

    Hitler said unions should strike as long as their wasn’t a National Socialist super-state to take care of everyone. Which party in America would want such a system, and which party in America would fight and die rather than bear such a vile yoke around their necks?

    And I could go on and on like this, I dare say. Because Hitler’s socialism looks a whole hell of a lot like the American progressive vision of socialism, it turns out.

    Mind you, Dauntless, you and I have facts piled upon facts, documented by history. But Meh has something far more important than a BILLION facts.

    He’s an “intellectual,” you see. And therefore he’s brilliant. Facts flee in the face of intellectuals, such that whatever intellectuals say must certainly be true.

  37. Penumbra Says:

    Thoroughly written, Michael. I have only one thing to add regarding the German Nazis’ religious cults.

    Hitler was probably himself an atheist, but he believed in astrology and he was in constant contact with his astrologer. When he survived the bomb attack against him July 1944, he believed that he was rescued by a “higher power” and was destined to win the war. Maybe it was so, given how the war ended.

    But there was a cult, probably with Heinrich Himmler as “the high priest” believing in a supernatural power which they called Vril. They hoped to learn to master this force which will help them win the war. All the top Nazis are believed to have been members of this secret Vril Society. There is a lot of information on the Internet about the Vril Society. Good starting point perhaps is Wikipedia: “Nazism and occultism.”

    And the most ridiculous thing is that this Vril Society is inspired by a science fiction novel from 1871 – “Vril, The Power of the Coming Race”! … :-)

    The German Nazis in the 1930’s were Social Democrats with extreme nationalism on the agenda. Take a Communist and let him accept the need for a private market economy and you will get a Social Democrat. Add extreme nationalism and hatred of Jews, and you’ve got a real Nazi. It’s that simple.

    Today’s Nazis, at least those here in Northern Europe, also despise Christianity. Instead they believe in the old Germanic gods. It is difficult to understand how modern well educated people believe in all seriousness in Thor, Odin, Freyr, etc. (in our case here in Sweden). They sacrifice to their gods and one can only hope that there are no human sacrifices, as before Christianity. Again, Wikipedia is a good source of information: “Germanic neopaganism”

    Today’s Nazis hate black people and that is pure stinking racism. The hatred of Jews is also unchanged, but now they have other reasons. We have problems with too much immigration from North Africa and the Middle East, and now the Nazis blame the Jews for it. They see it as a Jew conspiracy against the white Europeans. In all seriousness! You do not know whether to laugh or weep.

    In fact, the Swedish Jews are those who suffer most from the Arab immigration. Good example is what happens in the Swedish city of Malmo, where we have a large group of ethnic Arabs. They persecute and harass Jews. Many Jews have seen themselves forced to move from Malmo for good, to live in peace. Go to YouTube and search with “Arab aggression in Sweden” and you will see what is happening here.

    The large immigration into Sweden creates problems and nourishes the Nazis. This is the result of a stupid policy by socialists and liberals. It’s a ticking bomb, not only in Sweden but all over Europe. We should give people protection from terrorism and war, but alongside these five times as many with little need of protection are coming in. They throw their passports before the border controls and lie to enter the country and get asylum.

    And I can see now, that you have the same problem with your socialist of a president, making illegal immigrants to U.S. citizens. “Congratulations!”

  38. Michael Eden Says:

    Penumbra,

    You make some very good points. Was Hitler an atheist? In his words: “Hitler described to his inner circle that “after difficult inner struggles I had freed myself of my remaining childhood religious conceptions. I feel as refreshed now as a foal on a meadow.”

    Hitler very definitely was NOT a Christian. In the words of inner circle member Joseph Goebbels (as expressed in his pesonal diary):

    “The Fuhrer is a man totally attuned to antiquity. He hates Christianity, because it has crippled all that is noble in humanity. According to Schopenhauer, Christianity and syphilis have made humanity unhappy and unfree. What a difference between the benevolent, smiling Zeus and the pain-wracked, crucified Christ. The ancient peoples’ view of God was also much nobler and more humane than the Christians’.

    Goebbels also notes in a diary entry in 1939 a conversation in which Hitler had “expressed his revulsion against Christianity. He wished that the time were ripe for him to be able to openly express that. Christianity had corrupted and infected the entire world of antiquity.”

    Albert Speer – another member of Hitler’s inner circle – reports in his memoirs that Hitler said, “You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?”

    Hitler also said, “Our epoch will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.”

    Martin Bormann, head of the Party Chancellery and private secretary of the Fuhrer, said pointedly, “National socialist and Christian concepts cannot be reconciled.”

    Which is why Hitler had a “final solution” for the Christians when he got through with the Jews:

    “The war is going to be over. The last great task of our age will be to solve the church problem. It is only then that the nation will be wholly secure” (Hitler’s Tabletalk, December 1941).

    Hitler boasted that “I have six divisions of SS composed of men absolutely indifferent in matters of religion. It doesn’t prevent them from going to their deaths with serenity in their souls.” Which is to say that he had in his Nazi death machine soldies who would murder Christians with as much brutal indifference as they murdered Jews.

    One of the things that Hitler said gets to the point of what you wrote that I’d like to comment on:

    “We do not want any other god than Germany itself. It is essential to have fanatical faith and hope and love in and for Germany.” [Heiden, Konrad A History of National Socialism, A.A. Knopf, 1935, p. 100].

    Basically, it comes down to this: in Hitler’s view, Germany was greatest in its pre-Christian pagan barbarian days. By returning to those pagan days, the Nazis believed that they could return Germany to its strength. As you point out, the Nazis in MANY ways tried to substitute paganism for Christianity. With Nietzsche, Hitler believed that Christianity had weakened his “master race,” and wanted to see it expunged in Germany and then in all the lands that Germany conquered. But nobody believes in “nothing“; it is the nature of man to believe in SOMETHING.

    Which is to say that it is perfectly compatible to a) be an atheist and b) erect a religious cult and see psychics, etc. And of course, what you ended up with was the most dangerous thing imaginable: morally depraved barbarians possessing the most powerful technology.

    I actually didn’t know about the Nazi involvement in the “Vril Society.” I’ll have to look more into that. But of course, it’s more of the same garbage that filled the Nazi soul.

    It all just goes to prove G.K. Chesterton’s adage:

    “When people stop believing in God, they don’t believe in nothing — they believe in anything.”

    Allow me to quote a former professor of mine, William Lane Craig:

    About the only solution which the atheists can offer is that we just face the absurdity of life bravely and live valiantly. Bertrand Russell, for example, wrote that “we must build our lives upon the firm foundation of unyielding despair. Only by recognizing that the world really is a terrible place can we successfully come to terms with life.” Camus said that we should honestly recognize life’s absurdity and then live in love for one another.” But the fundamental problem with this solution is that it is simply impossible to live consistently and happily within the framework of such a world view. If one lives consistently, he will not be happy. If he lives happily, it is only because he is not consistent. Francis Schaeffer explained this point well, saying, “Modern man lives in a two-story universe. In the lower story is the finite world without God. Here life is absurd (as we have seen). In the upper story are meaning, value, and purpose. Now modern man lives in the lower story because he believes that there is no God. But because he cannot live consistently and happily in such a world, he therefore makes leaps of faith into the upper story to affirm that life has meaning, value, and purpose, even though he has absolutely no right to since man and the lower story does not believe in God. Modern man is totally inconsistent to make this leap because these values cannot exist without God, and man and the lower story does not have God.”

    And of course the astrology and the Vril Society you cited was Hitler’s attempt to “make a leap of faith” to something that his worldview didn’t justify. Or, another way to look at it was that Nazism had no meaning, but they needed to create the illusion of meaning in order to get anywhere.

    Btw, I linked to that Craig piece so you could read it. It is magnificent and you will LOVE it, I guarantee you.

    Some PSs.

    A lot of communists, seeing the many similarities between Hitler’s Nazism and the communism that they preferred, joined the Nazi movement with the slogan, “First brown, then red” (German: “Erst braun, dann rot”).

    Today I learned that the largest and most loyal base of the Islamofascist organization aka “the Muslim Brotherhood” in Egypt is the poor. Which is to say the support base of Islamofascism is pretty much the same as the socialists and the same as the liberals. And it’s the SAME message that gains the following, too.

    Thank you very much for your congratulations. Liberals in America have always had an envy of Europe and wanted to be just like Europe. And what can I say but “We’ve come a long way, baby.” The common direction we’re all marching in is hell, but that won’t stop us from taking the trip!

  39. Penumbra Says:

    Michael, if you ask an atheist what he believes in, he will respond – in science. Darwinism is very much a part of the established science.

    Clearly, the fact is that the Nazis saw Christianity as a religion that has degenerated the Germanic peoples. That is why the modern Nazis have turned to the old Germanic gods. But in fact, they have condemned themselves to the eternal fire. To pray to other gods instead of the only living God is perhaps the worst sin of them all.

    There is also a pure political aspect why the Nazis and the Communists have opposed Christianity. The Christianity in the European countries was a strong political factor that they wanted to eliminate because they wanted all the power for themselves. Today it is still so, but now it’s about socialists and liberals who oppose Christianity as an idea, in order to be able to consolidate their reforms such as feminism, same sex marriage, free abortion rights, etc.

    P.S. Great quote from G. K. Chesterton! I’ll try to remember it. And thanks for the link! I have been involved in discussions with atheists in this subject and they have argued persistently that Hitler and the Nazis were believing Christians. This, because it serves their purposes. I wish I was aware of this site at the time.

  40. Michael Eden Says:

    Penumbra,

    There is absolutely zero question that both Nazism AND Marxism were fundamentally based in and grounded on DARWINISM. Both considered themselves to be the the most scientific approach to the political and economic condition of man. One of the biggest philosophical problems with Darwinism is that Darwinism entails Social Darwinism. Nature does NOT teach the animal that randomly evolved with no higher purpose from apes to be morally virtuous. Sorry. It doesn’t work that way. Nature is bloody and violent and the mother abandons her offspring the moment it becomes a liability to the herd or to the pack AND THAT’S WHAT NATURE TEACHES US TO DO JUST TO OUR FAMILIY MEMBERS. And strangers? Nature is rather clear that the only answer is the bloody answer. The circle of life is violent predators killing and eating in a giant endless loop. If you believe in “nature,” THERE’S your nature.

    And it most certainly isn’t just the Nazis and the communists that embrace Darwinism; as you point out, the left as a WHOLE embraces it and primarily does so for the exact same reasons.

    The Nazis and the Marxists were FAR more intellectually consistent than our liberals are today. These hateful secular humanist ideologies contemplated Darwinism and rightly saw the strong crushing the weak. Modern liberalism is a complete intellectual fraud that simultaneously teaches 1) we must abandon God and embrace evolution and 2) we must live as though 1) is a lie and instead of crushing the poor and the weak as 1) teaches we should subsidize them and force the strong to pay to prop them up.

    But don’t worry, our liberals are plenty murderous when they get the chance. In America alone, fifty-four MILLION innocent human beings have been ruthlessly exterminated in the Democrat abortion mills. Black mothers murder nearly two out of every three of their babies. Liberal Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said:

    “Frankly I had thought that at that time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of” — 7/2/09 Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

    She was merely echoing what progressive leftist heroine and Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger had earlier said:

    “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the negro population.”

    The Nazis “only” murdered six million Jews in the Holocaust. Democrats have murdered NINE TIMES that many human beings in the American abortion mills alone. And one day they will surely burn in the very hottest fire of hell for what they’ve done.

    But we’re not through. The Rev. D. James Kennedy prophetically said:

    “Watch out, grandpa, because the generation that survived abortion will one day COME AFTER YOU.”

    Here’s career Democrat and Obama adviser Robert Reich:

    “Thank you so much for coming this afternoon. I’m so glad to see you and I would like to be president. Let me tell you a few things on health care. Look, we have the only health care system in the world that is designed to avoid sick people. And that’s true and what I’m going to do is that I am going try to reorganize it to be more amenable to treating sick people but that means you, particularly you young people, particularly you young healthy people…you’re going to have to pay more.

    “Thank you. And by the way, we’re going to have to, if you’re very old, we’re not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple of years of your life to keep you maybe going for another couple of months. It’s too expensive…so we’re going to let you die.”

    Yeah, WATCH OUT, GRANDMA AND GRANDPA. Because liberals believe they have a “right to choose” to kill you off as a useless eater.

    That “party of death” mantra comes right out of the Obama White House and out of ObamaCare:

    Obama regulatory czar Cass Sunstein wrote:

    “I urge that the government should indeed focus on life-years rather than lives. A program that saves young people produces more welfare than one that saves old people.”

    He wrote:

    “Other things being equal, a program that protects young people seems far better than one that protects old people, because it delivers greater benefits.”

    Hey old people, hope you don’t mind if we slowly kill you by means of medical neglect. I know, I know, we promised you benefits for life and prevented you from being able to find your own private sector benefits. But now you’re old and weak and useless and you really should be considerate enough to drop dead now.

    It’s the exact same mindset. In Judeo-Christianity, human beings, be they babies or adults or ederly, are precious souls created in the image of God. The left – the Nazis, the communists, the liberals, the Democrats – have shredded that concept. Human dignity and worth are a) political and b) utilitarian. If you don’t vote for the left, or if you suffer from being too young or too old to contribute, it’s sayonara to you. You’re slowing the herd down, time to die.

    Just as the Marxists and the Nazis before them.

    Your third paragraph describing the Nazis as wanting power for themselves, right on. And again, surprise, surprise, that’s our liberal socialist state: Government as God, Government as Savior, Government as the resource and the provider of all human need and to HELL with God.

    Wherever you have abortion, you have a leftist society. And if you add up all the murders caused by abortion, you get more murder than resulted from all the wars in human history combined. And to make it worse, they got mommy to kill her own baby. Further, they forced daddy to stand by with no rights while his child was slaughtered. You want to know why fatherhood is such a thing of the past? Liberals ABORTED fatherhood because “fatherhood” didn’t comport with feminist ideology very well, now did it? And given that fatherhood means utterly NOTHING when it comes to mommy killing her baby, why on earth should it mean any more just because that same mommy flips her coin and decides she’ll let that same child live? Liberalism decided long ago that daddy doesn’t matter, and now we have a culture imbued with fatherlessness.

    But don’t you worry, kids don’t need their father. ‘Cause they’ve got Obama now. They’ve got the State. Government is their daddy and if a child isn’t slaughtered in the womb, he or she will be shaped by government education into a useful liberal peon until the day its time to kill him or her off when they are no longer productive.

    The beast is coming. He will be the ultimate big government global leader that the left has been dreaming of. They will worship him and follow him straight to the hell they richly deserve.

    Liberalism is the final, penultimate spirit of delusion. C.S. Lewis aptly put it this way:

    “We can always say we have been the victims of an illusion; if we disbelieve in the supernatural this is what we always shall say. Hence, whether miracles have really ceased or not, they would certainly appear to cease in Western Europe as materialism became the popular creed. For let us make no mistake. If the end of the world appeared in all the literal trappings of the Apocalypse, if the modern materialist saw with his own eyes the heavens rolled up and the great white throne appearing, if he had the sensation of being himself hurled into the Lake of Fire, he would continue forever, in that lake itself, to regard his experience as an illusion and to find the explanation of it in psycho-analysis, or cerebral pathology. Experience by itself proves nothing. If a man doubts whether he is dreaming or waking, no experiment can solve his doubt, since every experiment may itself be part of the dream. Experience proves this, or that, or nothing, according to the preconceptions we bring to it.” (God in the Dock, “Miracles,” pp. 25-26).

    In my experience liberals are people in visceral, pathological denial of the truth. And that denial will continue for all eternity. It is the quintessential element of their spirit of delusion from which they suffer so profoundly.

    It’s a soap box topic for me, Penumbra. And I’ll pull out that soapbox on any corner.

    You love evil more than good, Falsehood more than speaking what is right. — Psalm 52:3

    But he who sins against Me injures himself; all those who hate Me love death — Proverbs 8:36

    Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! — Isaiah 5:20

    You who hate good and love evil, Who tear off their skin from them And their flesh from their bones — Micah 3:2

    Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools – Romans 1:22

    For God’s wrath is being revealed from heaven against all the ungodliness and wickedness of those who in their wickedness suppress the truth – Romans 1:18

    In their case, the god of this world has blinded the minds of those who do not believe to keep them from seeing the light of the glorious gospel of the Messiah, who is the image of God. — 2 Corinthians 4:4

    Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron — 1 Timothy 4:2

    For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. — 2 Tim 4:3-4

  41. Penumbra Says:

    Well written, Michael, and great quotes from the Holy Bible! I saved the link to this site and will refer to it in some of my future posts on my blog. Now, I’ll take time off from the “blog-world” for the summer, to free up time for other things. But I will come back to you and your blog later this year. Go on with your good work for a better world! I’ll be back to you for exchanging views and gaining new strength and inspiration. Bless!

  42. Michael Eden Says:

    Penumbra,

    And bless you.

    After the election in November, I will be done with politics. If Obama wins, well, I tried to warn people. And if Romney wins, well, while he’s far, FAR better than the alternative, he’s still not someone I intend to spend the next four years fighting for.

    I’ll continue my blog, but I will turn to moral and religious matters rather than dealing so much with politics.

    Hope that you have a great summer and looking forward to hearing from you when you return to “blog-world.”

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: