Yeah I don’t think this is an argument the NS can win (or even wants to win). There are many NS that love ‘dolf *because* he was so anti Christian.
One important thing to remember is that the words of a politician, even an “honest” one (I don’t think he was), mean little compared to their actions. An excellent example is Napoleon. Napoleon was probably an atheist, but he shapeshifted to pragmatically adopt whatever religion was dominant in the theater he operated in. In Egypt, he sung the praises of Muhammad and opened institutes for Islamic studies. In Europe, he was a strong Catholic. Among the French intellectual elite, he had doubts about theism at all.
This is exactly what Hitler did. Speeches (none of the ones you quoted come from within 5 years of the 1939 invasion, nor does Mein Kampf) mean very little. He was addressing a majority Christian nation, what do you want him to say? We also know from his private remarks that he despised Christianity because of its “meekness and flabbiness” compared to Islam.
So what about his actions? Well, he surrounded himself with people who rabidly hated Christianity (Himmler), and at the very least did nothing to stop the Holobunga (which happened) that industrialized persecution of Polish Catholics, Catholics in general, and clergy specifically. People like Bon Hoeffer made entire careers of opposing the Nazis as Christians. There’s a reason the Vatican hated him, despite being next door to his ally Mussolini. I mean, imagine how badly you must have to hate someone to agitate them when you’re surrounded by their ally.
He also allied with Stalin (or tried to before he betrayed him), the greatest genocide in human history, who exterminated Christians in the Soviet Union.
It’s pretty clear that he was ambivalent to Christianity and wanted a neutered, state-led church to use as a political vehicle. None of his actions indicate even surface level respect for Christianity. This cancels out any trace of positive feelings towards Christianity in his words, which are already not very relevant because he was a politician.
I don't think you read the article, Table Talks aren't a reliable source. Hugh Trevor-Roper's version as well as the German editions of the TT's are fake. Bormann Vermecke's is worthless, Swedish historian Mikael Nilsson goes in to this in his book.
Hitler's quotes from Otto Wagener's memoirs also contrast what is written in Table Talks. But really nothing you said is an argument other than "Hitler was a politician therefore he lied"
Upon reflection, I believe you will find that most Christians on the right themselves only view and treat their “faith” as a political vehicle. Just look at how they view and speak about it. It's clear there's not a bit of metaphysics to be found within any of what they say. It's merely a cultural institution and historical bell weather to these people. A “true north” as it were that serves as a cultural cornerstone for them to shill and defend. Very few of them ACTUALLY, deep down believe in and love the 1st century rabbi. This is why I don't even bother arguing with them. It's far better to humor them using what you know to be their pet concerns and them steering them using that. You know, pretty much like we both know The Fuhrer had to do.
He allied himself with Stalin not for his sympathy towards Stalin which is nonexistent but because it is diplomacy and strategy all the countries of the West warned Hitler if he invaded Poland so if in addition he shoots himself in the foot by having to attack all of Eastern Eurasia well it would have been impossible for him to succeed in defending himself for this cause that he made a pact and in addition it is not a pact of alliance but just a pact of mutual non-aggression still it does not show friendship it is just so that he makes sure that he is not has a front in the East while he is already fighting the West, for all these things he asked for the non-aggression of the USSR then it is the USSR itself which asked to join the Axis this was refused by Hitler, then his anti-Judeo-Bolshevik policy had already been in place since 1919 This is not new during Operation Barbarossa and know that German soldiers were seen as liberators in Ukraine women began to bless them and bless their tanks the 27 million dead on the USSR side is the fault of Stalin's policy and not that of Hitler
Comparatively Hitler was an honest politician. Napoleon is more similar to Stalin than Hitler.
Hitler talks about Providence repeatedly post 1939, his private remarks are respectful of Jesus Christ but opposed to certain Church traditions, to say he had anti Christian remarks making him non Christian would be like saying Calvin was anti Christian. His comparison to Islam is not opposition to Christianity.
Himmler's family insisted he was Catholic and realistically Himmler was a massive autist, but either way he had no anti Catholic actions himself. I won't go deep because it's besides the point but the Polish government has admitted to lying about millions of causalities they suffered. The Vatican did not hate him, at least not under Pope Pius, complete nonsense to even suggest that. Hitler's successor was Donitz who was staunchly Lutheran.
He allied with Stalin when it was clear the Allies would go to war with him, a war Catholic Hitler begged for peace during. He invaded after Stalin broke the non aggression pact. When he did he opened Churches back up in the territory he occupied. You know who allied with Stalin through the entire war even as he butchered the Poles? The Allies.
It's clear he's a Nicene Christian since he was a Catholic, loved Jesus, cited an active Providence and Holy Spirit, who opened up Churches and shut down degenerates at every opportunity. You have a lot to learn.
“Hitler loved Christ because every major source on his life written during his life is biased/fake, but none of the sources saying otherwise which were written after his death are biased/fake” what a ridiculous article. Hitler and his ilk had essentially the same view as Spengler, that Christ had been Europeanized, which is why they aren’t rabidly against Europe’s Christian past. Myth of the 20th century is blatant about eventually desiring to return to paganism or maybe something more Eastern. Anything written with the intent of wooing the public, including MK, does not tell us much as Hitler had to gain the support of Christians and this is precisely the reason he wasn’t a fan of Bormann/Himmy/Alf’s anti-Christian activities, because it was bad optics. I wouldn’t say Hitler “hated” Christ so much as he just had mixed feelings on the entire religion
>Myth of the 20th century is blatant about eventually desiring to return to paganism or maybe something more Eastern.
Hitler did not like Myth of the 20th century, he didn't even want it published. But since you want to use that as a source I'll use it against you.
"This unity also holds for German history – for its people, its
values, for the very old and new Myth, and for the supporting ideas of German folkhood. One form of Odin is dead: that is, the Odin who was the highest of the many gods and who appeared as the embodiment of a generation still given up to natural symbolisms. But Odin as the eternal mirror-image of the primal spiritual powers of Nordic man lives today, just as he did over 5,000 years ago. Hermann Wirth finds traces of decline also in the ancient world of gods and influences of the Eskimo race. This may be so, but it does not influence what is actually Germanic. The true German embodies himself in honor and heroism, in the creation of song and or art, in the protection of law, and in the eternal search for wisdom. Odin learned that, through the guilt of the gods, through the breaking of the bond to the builders of Valhalla, the race of the gods must perish." - Alfred Rosenberg, Myth of the 20th century
"The German faith overlooks that Wotan (Wodan, Odin) is dead as a religious form. He did not die at the hands of Bonifacius, but of himself. He completed the decline of the Gods during a mythological epoch, a time of serene nature."
Incredibly blasphemous to modern day odinists/pagans. It's a very hard book to read and it isn't pragmatic.
>Hitler did not like Myth of the 20th century, he didn't even want it published. But since you want to use that as a source I'll use it against you.
Hitler didn't even want it published, which is why he assigned Rosenberg to be chief ideologue of the Nazi party... Actions speak louder than words!
Nothing about what you quoted contradicts Rosenberg being Pagan. Only a geist of Odin died, and only a geist of Odin ever dies. There is an eternal underlying Odinic principle which is the wellspring from which every Odin flows. The question of whether or not gods "die" is split between Pagans, it isn't a done deal. The Hellenists tend to consider the gods to be completely immortal, as do the Mazdans. The Germanic and Dharmic traditions include more mortal gods.
>Hitler didn't even want it published, which is why he assigned Rosenberg to be chief ideologue of the Nazi party... Actions speak louder than words!
This was pure tactics from Hitler, Cardinal Faulhaber (Archbishop of Munich) in his diary said Hitler kept people like Rosenberg and other fanatics around to avoid accusations that he was a stooge of the Vatican which would've divided Germany.
Rosenberg explained in a written 1931 clarification of his Myth of the 20th century book that he despised the German Faith Movement and never wanted a pagan revival in Germany. That's why he deemed Odin a dead concept.
"The GREAT RESPECT which is shown the founder of Christianity in the work was overlooked. It was deliberately concealed that MY RELIGIOUS OBSERVATIONS HAVE THE CLEAR INTENTION of viewing his GREAT PERSONALITY without the eternal distortions by various churches. It was omitted that I rendered Wotanism as a DEAD religious form (but naturally have respect for the Germanic character which gave birth to Wotan as well as Faust) and, in an unscrupulous manner, the FANTASY was concocted that I wished to reintroduce the pagan cult of Wotan. In short, there was nothing which was not distorted and falsified; and what appeared correctly expressed in a literal sense received a completely different colouring by being taken out of context." - Alfred Rosenberg, Myth of the 20th Century 1931
> This was pure tactics from Hitler, Cardinal Faulhaber (Archbishop of Munich) in his diary said Hitler kept people like Rosenberg and other fanatics around to avoid accusations that he was a stooge of the Vatican which would've divided Germany.
Have you ever considered that Hitler told the Archbishop what he wanted to hear? Hitler could have avoided such accusations by assigning a Protestant to such a position.
As far as Rosenberg’s statements, he was not attempting to revive the Wotanic religion in its original form but was trying to revive the essence of it in a new form. Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire!
“I REJECT THE CHARGES that the Party and the so-called "minority of deluded and bewitched followers of neo-paganism" can use official NSDAP events for anti-Christian demonstrations as an unfounded challenge. National Socialism, which defeated Bolshevism in Germany at a time when the Church was not in able to overcome it, DID MORE FOR CHRISTIANITY than all other parties in Germany combined! There has never been a single anti-Christian demonstration on the part of the National Socialist Party. The most terrible anti-Christian demonstrations that you can imagine were the alliances of the prelates of the Center Party with the atheistic Marxist leaders.”
Almost 100 years later, we must not confuse Hitler's fantasies with reality. In 1930, the National Socialists were excommunicated, in 1938 the German encyclical “Mit brennender Sorge” was published, then only repression and persecution. Anything other than “Hitler loved Christ”, let alone Hitler loved the Christians and their Churches ....
Mit Brennender Sorge is not an infallible encyclical and no it didn't excommunicate the National Socialists or Hitler. It's already explained in this subtstack post the real reason it was sent out.
In realty, based on the unconditional validity of natural law, the Catholic Church was the most fundamental opponent of the Nazi racial theory. It was not without reason that the encyclical MIt brenennder Sorge was regarded by the Nazis and Hitler as an ‘open declaration of war’.
I can appreciate the effort put into this, but the entire argument of whether or not he "loved Christ" is useless. Hitler did not live up to venerable standards and was condemned by the Apostolic Churches, also Positive Christianity is heresy and bordering Marcionism with its racial consciousness nonsense.
1. That's not my full claim. 2. Also, yes the church is guided by the Holy Spirit of course its a valid contention against AH; are we seriously going to go down the schizoid church hijacked nonsense? Aren't you papist too? Why would you imply that lol.
God used the Germans to give one of the Beasts heads a deadly head wound, the Bolshevik head, those who rule over the nations for the beast, are those who say they are Jews but are not and do lie.
In other words the Germans are the good guys who fought one of the many headed beasts organizations, the Bolshevik head, the Germans stalled the spread the communism, another head of the beast, throughout Europe, this is the deadly head wound given by the Germans to communism.
The Jews who rule over the nations for the beast have taken over the world by a great deception, as they await their Mashiach who will be the Christians AntiChrist, they now literally own the world in every way possible through great deception.
I don't really see the connection with Napoleon who was Catholic, he made a whole thesis affirming that Jesus Christ was God and the Pope commended him by granting him a last mass. Napoleon didn't think a single one of the praises he gave in Egypt, he clearly discredited Islam in his writings of Saint Helena, he just had quarrels with the papal cabinet for multiple reasons because it was war but Napoleon remained Catholic.
Yeah I don’t think this is an argument the NS can win (or even wants to win). There are many NS that love ‘dolf *because* he was so anti Christian.
One important thing to remember is that the words of a politician, even an “honest” one (I don’t think he was), mean little compared to their actions. An excellent example is Napoleon. Napoleon was probably an atheist, but he shapeshifted to pragmatically adopt whatever religion was dominant in the theater he operated in. In Egypt, he sung the praises of Muhammad and opened institutes for Islamic studies. In Europe, he was a strong Catholic. Among the French intellectual elite, he had doubts about theism at all.
This is exactly what Hitler did. Speeches (none of the ones you quoted come from within 5 years of the 1939 invasion, nor does Mein Kampf) mean very little. He was addressing a majority Christian nation, what do you want him to say? We also know from his private remarks that he despised Christianity because of its “meekness and flabbiness” compared to Islam.
So what about his actions? Well, he surrounded himself with people who rabidly hated Christianity (Himmler), and at the very least did nothing to stop the Holobunga (which happened) that industrialized persecution of Polish Catholics, Catholics in general, and clergy specifically. People like Bon Hoeffer made entire careers of opposing the Nazis as Christians. There’s a reason the Vatican hated him, despite being next door to his ally Mussolini. I mean, imagine how badly you must have to hate someone to agitate them when you’re surrounded by their ally.
He also allied with Stalin (or tried to before he betrayed him), the greatest genocide in human history, who exterminated Christians in the Soviet Union.
It’s pretty clear that he was ambivalent to Christianity and wanted a neutered, state-led church to use as a political vehicle. None of his actions indicate even surface level respect for Christianity. This cancels out any trace of positive feelings towards Christianity in his words, which are already not very relevant because he was a politician.
I don't think you read the article, Table Talks aren't a reliable source. Hugh Trevor-Roper's version as well as the German editions of the TT's are fake. Bormann Vermecke's is worthless, Swedish historian Mikael Nilsson goes in to this in his book.
Hitler's quotes from Otto Wagener's memoirs also contrast what is written in Table Talks. But really nothing you said is an argument other than "Hitler was a politician therefore he lied"
Upon reflection, I believe you will find that most Christians on the right themselves only view and treat their “faith” as a political vehicle. Just look at how they view and speak about it. It's clear there's not a bit of metaphysics to be found within any of what they say. It's merely a cultural institution and historical bell weather to these people. A “true north” as it were that serves as a cultural cornerstone for them to shill and defend. Very few of them ACTUALLY, deep down believe in and love the 1st century rabbi. This is why I don't even bother arguing with them. It's far better to humor them using what you know to be their pet concerns and them steering them using that. You know, pretty much like we both know The Fuhrer had to do.
He allied himself with Stalin not for his sympathy towards Stalin which is nonexistent but because it is diplomacy and strategy all the countries of the West warned Hitler if he invaded Poland so if in addition he shoots himself in the foot by having to attack all of Eastern Eurasia well it would have been impossible for him to succeed in defending himself for this cause that he made a pact and in addition it is not a pact of alliance but just a pact of mutual non-aggression still it does not show friendship it is just so that he makes sure that he is not has a front in the East while he is already fighting the West, for all these things he asked for the non-aggression of the USSR then it is the USSR itself which asked to join the Axis this was refused by Hitler, then his anti-Judeo-Bolshevik policy had already been in place since 1919 This is not new during Operation Barbarossa and know that German soldiers were seen as liberators in Ukraine women began to bless them and bless their tanks the 27 million dead on the USSR side is the fault of Stalin's policy and not that of Hitler
Wrong, on every point.
Comparatively Hitler was an honest politician. Napoleon is more similar to Stalin than Hitler.
Hitler talks about Providence repeatedly post 1939, his private remarks are respectful of Jesus Christ but opposed to certain Church traditions, to say he had anti Christian remarks making him non Christian would be like saying Calvin was anti Christian. His comparison to Islam is not opposition to Christianity.
Himmler's family insisted he was Catholic and realistically Himmler was a massive autist, but either way he had no anti Catholic actions himself. I won't go deep because it's besides the point but the Polish government has admitted to lying about millions of causalities they suffered. The Vatican did not hate him, at least not under Pope Pius, complete nonsense to even suggest that. Hitler's successor was Donitz who was staunchly Lutheran.
He allied with Stalin when it was clear the Allies would go to war with him, a war Catholic Hitler begged for peace during. He invaded after Stalin broke the non aggression pact. When he did he opened Churches back up in the territory he occupied. You know who allied with Stalin through the entire war even as he butchered the Poles? The Allies.
It's clear he's a Nicene Christian since he was a Catholic, loved Jesus, cited an active Providence and Holy Spirit, who opened up Churches and shut down degenerates at every opportunity. You have a lot to learn.
“Hitler loved Christ because every major source on his life written during his life is biased/fake, but none of the sources saying otherwise which were written after his death are biased/fake” what a ridiculous article. Hitler and his ilk had essentially the same view as Spengler, that Christ had been Europeanized, which is why they aren’t rabidly against Europe’s Christian past. Myth of the 20th century is blatant about eventually desiring to return to paganism or maybe something more Eastern. Anything written with the intent of wooing the public, including MK, does not tell us much as Hitler had to gain the support of Christians and this is precisely the reason he wasn’t a fan of Bormann/Himmy/Alf’s anti-Christian activities, because it was bad optics. I wouldn’t say Hitler “hated” Christ so much as he just had mixed feelings on the entire religion
>Myth of the 20th century is blatant about eventually desiring to return to paganism or maybe something more Eastern.
Hitler did not like Myth of the 20th century, he didn't even want it published. But since you want to use that as a source I'll use it against you.
"This unity also holds for German history – for its people, its
values, for the very old and new Myth, and for the supporting ideas of German folkhood. One form of Odin is dead: that is, the Odin who was the highest of the many gods and who appeared as the embodiment of a generation still given up to natural symbolisms. But Odin as the eternal mirror-image of the primal spiritual powers of Nordic man lives today, just as he did over 5,000 years ago. Hermann Wirth finds traces of decline also in the ancient world of gods and influences of the Eskimo race. This may be so, but it does not influence what is actually Germanic. The true German embodies himself in honor and heroism, in the creation of song and or art, in the protection of law, and in the eternal search for wisdom. Odin learned that, through the guilt of the gods, through the breaking of the bond to the builders of Valhalla, the race of the gods must perish." - Alfred Rosenberg, Myth of the 20th century
"The German faith overlooks that Wotan (Wodan, Odin) is dead as a religious form. He did not die at the hands of Bonifacius, but of himself. He completed the decline of the Gods during a mythological epoch, a time of serene nature."
Incredibly blasphemous to modern day odinists/pagans. It's a very hard book to read and it isn't pragmatic.
>Hitler did not like Myth of the 20th century, he didn't even want it published. But since you want to use that as a source I'll use it against you.
Hitler didn't even want it published, which is why he assigned Rosenberg to be chief ideologue of the Nazi party... Actions speak louder than words!
Nothing about what you quoted contradicts Rosenberg being Pagan. Only a geist of Odin died, and only a geist of Odin ever dies. There is an eternal underlying Odinic principle which is the wellspring from which every Odin flows. The question of whether or not gods "die" is split between Pagans, it isn't a done deal. The Hellenists tend to consider the gods to be completely immortal, as do the Mazdans. The Germanic and Dharmic traditions include more mortal gods.
>Hitler didn't even want it published, which is why he assigned Rosenberg to be chief ideologue of the Nazi party... Actions speak louder than words!
This was pure tactics from Hitler, Cardinal Faulhaber (Archbishop of Munich) in his diary said Hitler kept people like Rosenberg and other fanatics around to avoid accusations that he was a stooge of the Vatican which would've divided Germany.
Rosenberg explained in a written 1931 clarification of his Myth of the 20th century book that he despised the German Faith Movement and never wanted a pagan revival in Germany. That's why he deemed Odin a dead concept.
"The GREAT RESPECT which is shown the founder of Christianity in the work was overlooked. It was deliberately concealed that MY RELIGIOUS OBSERVATIONS HAVE THE CLEAR INTENTION of viewing his GREAT PERSONALITY without the eternal distortions by various churches. It was omitted that I rendered Wotanism as a DEAD religious form (but naturally have respect for the Germanic character which gave birth to Wotan as well as Faust) and, in an unscrupulous manner, the FANTASY was concocted that I wished to reintroduce the pagan cult of Wotan. In short, there was nothing which was not distorted and falsified; and what appeared correctly expressed in a literal sense received a completely different colouring by being taken out of context." - Alfred Rosenberg, Myth of the 20th Century 1931
> This was pure tactics from Hitler, Cardinal Faulhaber (Archbishop of Munich) in his diary said Hitler kept people like Rosenberg and other fanatics around to avoid accusations that he was a stooge of the Vatican which would've divided Germany.
Have you ever considered that Hitler told the Archbishop what he wanted to hear? Hitler could have avoided such accusations by assigning a Protestant to such a position.
As far as Rosenberg’s statements, he was not attempting to revive the Wotanic religion in its original form but was trying to revive the essence of it in a new form. Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire!
Stop coping. He couldn't of been more clear:
“I REJECT THE CHARGES that the Party and the so-called "minority of deluded and bewitched followers of neo-paganism" can use official NSDAP events for anti-Christian demonstrations as an unfounded challenge. National Socialism, which defeated Bolshevism in Germany at a time when the Church was not in able to overcome it, DID MORE FOR CHRISTIANITY than all other parties in Germany combined! There has never been a single anti-Christian demonstration on the part of the National Socialist Party. The most terrible anti-Christian demonstrations that you can imagine were the alliances of the prelates of the Center Party with the atheistic Marxist leaders.”
—Alfred Rosenberg, in his book "Gestaltung der Idee (https://archive.org/details/Rosenberg-Alfred-Gestaltung-der-Idee-Blut-und-Ehre/page/n363/mode/2up?view=theater)", pp. 354-355
TLDR:
"All the sources I dislike are fake and Nazi paganism wasn't as widespread as people think"
Meaning you got proven wrong
Insane cope
Almost 100 years later, we must not confuse Hitler's fantasies with reality. In 1930, the National Socialists were excommunicated, in 1938 the German encyclical “Mit brennender Sorge” was published, then only repression and persecution. Anything other than “Hitler loved Christ”, let alone Hitler loved the Christians and their Churches ....
Mit Brennender Sorge is not an infallible encyclical and no it didn't excommunicate the National Socialists or Hitler. It's already explained in this subtstack post the real reason it was sent out.
In realty, based on the unconditional validity of natural law, the Catholic Church was the most fundamental opponent of the Nazi racial theory. It was not without reason that the encyclical MIt brenennder Sorge was regarded by the Nazis and Hitler as an ‘open declaration of war’.
Did Hitler love his enemies?
This is a strong and cohesive argument. Anyone opposed to this has the burden of disproving the mountains of evidence you have presented.
I can appreciate the effort put into this, but the entire argument of whether or not he "loved Christ" is useless. Hitler did not live up to venerable standards and was condemned by the Apostolic Churches, also Positive Christianity is heresy and bordering Marcionism with its racial consciousness nonsense.
It's useless because the (((churches))) condemned Hitler, wow, what an argument.
1. That's not my full claim. 2. Also, yes the church is guided by the Holy Spirit of course its a valid contention against AH; are we seriously going to go down the schizoid church hijacked nonsense? Aren't you papist too? Why would you imply that lol.
Hitler was publicly pro Christian because he had to be, but privately anti. It's evident in the table talks.
Okay, I also believe that Hitler was a Christian... But what about Liebenfels' influence on Hitler? Wasn't Liebenfels anti-Catholic?
Hitler was a 5’7 manlet.
It was Germany that gave one of the beasts heads, the Bolshevik head, a deadly head wound, as in Revelation 13:3-4
Marx was a jew who happened to live in Germany, please don't blame the host for the actions of the parasite.
Since you misunderstood I will elaborate:
God used the Germans to give one of the Beasts heads a deadly head wound, the Bolshevik head, those who rule over the nations for the beast, are those who say they are Jews but are not and do lie.
In other words the Germans are the good guys who fought one of the many headed beasts organizations, the Bolshevik head, the Germans stalled the spread the communism, another head of the beast, throughout Europe, this is the deadly head wound given by the Germans to communism.
The Jews who rule over the nations for the beast have taken over the world by a great deception, as they await their Mashiach who will be the Christians AntiChrist, they now literally own the world in every way possible through great deception.
I see, I misread that. My apologies.
Well, this is material appropriate for the immediate present!
I don't really see the connection with Napoleon who was Catholic, he made a whole thesis affirming that Jesus Christ was God and the Pope commended him by granting him a last mass. Napoleon didn't think a single one of the praises he gave in Egypt, he clearly discredited Islam in his writings of Saint Helena, he just had quarrels with the papal cabinet for multiple reasons because it was war but Napoleon remained Catholic.
He was a norse pagan like our ancestors in his heart
Good article.
Lies.