|
Christianity and Religion in Mein Kampf: An Analysis
“I am absolutely convinced of the great power and deep significance of the Christian religion, and consequently will not permit any other founders of religion. Therefore I have turned against Ludendorff and separated myself from him; therefore I reject Rosenberg’s book. That book is written by a Protestant. It is not a party book. It is not written by him as a member of the party. The Protestants can settle matters with him.
“My desire is that no confessional conflict arise. I must act correctly to both confessions. I will not tolerate a Kulturkampf….I stand by my word. I will protect the rights and freedom of the church and will not permit them to be touched. You need have no apprehensions concerning the freedom of the church” (Adolf Hitler, quoted by Helmreich, p. 241).
“These Men…”
Hitler (1999) had dictated, “…These men rejected everything: the nation as an invention of the ‘capitalistic’…classes; the fatherland as an instrument of the bourgeoisie for the exploitation of the working class; the authority of law as a means for oppressing the proletariat; the school as an institution for breeding slaves and slaveholders; religion as a means for stultifying the people and making them easier to exploit; morality as a symptom of stupid, sheeplike patience, etc. There was absolutely nothing which was not drawn through the mud of a terrifying depth” (p. 40).
Clearly, as evidenced in this passage alone, Hitler had taken a deriding view of this apparently ‘liberal’ mind-set, which he believed was tearing down every element of the then current European ethos. “These men”, in Hitler’s view, attacked everything—from the consoling and reassuring precepts of European religion, to the very concept of nationhood.
Now, had Hitler not taken an interest in these issues then he certainly would not have addressed them in his monumental dictation, Mein Kampf. Hitler was greatly concerned with the breaking-down of both religion and morality in Europe—under liberal and Jewish influence; hence, he gave a great deal of attention to both of these issues in Mein Kampf. This is very important, because one of Hitler’s greatest hatreds was atheism. This becomes very clear and obvious when one reads any number of his recorded speeches, conversations, dictations, or notes on the subject.
Hitler consistently equated ‘Marxism’, ‘Jewry’, and ‘Communism’ with ‘atheism’, ‘evil’, and ‘godlessness’, respectively. This certainly, at minimum, implies that Hitler viewed himself as a ‘god-believer’ and ‘religious’—at least to some degree, even if minute. We can be fairly certain of this, because Marxism declared war on religion—most notably Christianity and Buddhism—as noted by Solzhenitsyn and Muñoz. Indeed, Hitler had emphasized the two key words, ‘Marxism’ and ‘Jewry’ (p. 21), in the same sentence, thus, equating the two. In Hitler’s mind, these two entities were causally linked. Without Jewry, there never would have been Marxism and vice versa—the idea that Marxism created the Jewish ethos; the precept of the “evolutionary group strategy” of “Yahweh’s Chosen,” as discussed in MacDonald’s CofC. Hitler thought very much along these lines.
Solzhenitsyn has written about the Jewish-Soviet razing and destruction of the Russian and Eastern European Christian churches—and the actual faith itself—which occurred during and after the Bolshevik Revolution. Muñoz wrote about the Soviet genocide against the Kalmuck nation and the razing and burning of their Buddhist temples. Their Buddhist priests were murdered en masse, as well.
Hitler had also said, “…Just as a man’s denominational orientation is the result of upbringing, and only the religious need as such slumbers in his soul, the political opinion of the masses represents nothing but the final result of an incredibly tenacious and thorough manipulation of their mind and soul” (p. 85).
Passages like this one are so often taken out of context and utilized to build fraudulent and flawed cases against Hitler’s Christian faith, that I feel I must address them quite often.
This passage does not at all indicate that Hitler had rejected denominational faith, nor does it even remotely suggest that he wished to manipulate the masses. He was simply trying to point out what was actually being done to the German people, by their Jewish and liberal masters, in order to get them to start thinking about these things. No person can possibly argue that if they had been born unto Moslem parents, that they would not, in all probability, be Moslem themselves. Moreover, if a Moslem individual had happened to be born unto Christian parents, more than likely, that person would be a Christian and not a Moslem. That is all Hitler was trying to say in this passage; though, he was referring specifically to Catholicism and Protestantism. He compares this denominational conditioning to the political conditioning of the masses of voters. But, notice he still defends the natural spiritual inclination of the human being when he states, “religious need as such slumbers in his soul”? Hitler never rejected the natural religio of man, but rather, the institutionalization and exploitation of this natural urge. He had discussed these concepts at length with both Wagener and Bormann.
Hitler Condemns the Clergy, Not the Faith
Hitler went on to say, “…Czech pastors were appointed to German communities; slowly but surely they began to set the interests of the Czech people above the interests of the churches, becoming germ-cells of the de-Germanization process” (p. 109).
Hitler did not want to see Germany “de-Germanized.” I would hope that this would be self-explanatory, but, for those who are slow to understand, would India or China allow the “de-Indianization” or “de-Sinofication” of India or China, respectively?
I didn’t think so.
Moving right along, Hitler went on to say, “The German clergy did practically nothing to counter these methods. Not only were they completely useless for carrying on this struggle in a positive German sense; they were even unable to oppose the necessary resistance to the attacks of the adversary. Indirectly, by the misuse of religion on the one hand, and owing to insufficient defense on the other, Germanism was slowly but steadily forced back” (Ibid.).
Hitler had deeply rebuked the misuse of religion on numerous occasions. This indicates that he respected religion, and believed that those involved in religion ought to respect the religion itself, as well as its followers.
Did Hitler ever exploit religion for his own political ends? Certainly he did, just as numerous other politicians had done before him and have done since. There can be no doubt that numerous politicians in Moslem countries are exploiting the Islamic faith for their own political ends, however, this does not at all indicate that they are insincere in their own views regarding the faith. It simply means they are utilizing the faith to assist their political agendas. There is nothing wrong with that, but one would do well to recognize that this does occur. It would be no different than a Christian individual bringing up his or her Christianity during a job interview with a Christian company. Just because the Christian applicant is bringing up his or her faith as a means to increase his or her hiring potential does not mean that he or she is insincere about his or her personal Christian faith.
Hitler continued by saying, “Here, too, the anti-German efforts of the Habsburgs did not encounter the resistance they should have, especially on the part of the high clergy, while the defense of German interests sank completely into the background.
“The general impression could only be that the Catholic clergy as such was grossly infringing on German rights.
“Thus the Church did not seem to feel with the German people, but to side unjustly with the enemy. The root of the whole evil lay, particularly in Schönerer’s opinion, in the fact that the directing body of the Catholic Church was not in Germany, and that for this very reason alone it was hostile to the interests of our nationality” (Ibid.).
I would like to interject for just a moment, and force you to reflect upon the following postulation:
How would you feel, as either a Christian or Secular American, if Iranian Islamic Imams began forcing all Americans to abide by Islamic law, culture, custom and faith—forcibly, if needs be? Most of you would answer, “I wouldn’t like that at all and I would resist it with everything I’ve got.”
This is how many Germans felt towards the Roman Catholic Church of Italy. It was a foreign, indeed Roman, rendition of Christianity, which had infringed upon the Germanic culture, faith, customs, and laws. Catholicism was not German; Protestantism was. And, if you would please recall, for just a moment, that Protestantism was a rejection of Catholicism—the Lutherian sect a revisionist conception of Christianity specifically suited to the Germanic Weltanschauung.
Hitler went on: “The so-called cultural problems, in this as in virtually every other connection in Austria at that time, were relegated almost entirely to the background. The attitude of the Pan-German movement toward the Catholic Church was determined far less by its position on science, etc., than by its inadequacy in the championing of German rights and, conversely, its continued aid and comfort to Slavic arrogance and greed” (Ibid.).
If the Catholic Church was so interested and concerned with human welfare and social ills, then why did they relegate these issues “almost entirely to the background,” as Hitler had suggested? It certainly makes one wonder as to the true motives and agendas of the so-called “churches.”
Hitler’s Early Thoughts on Protestantism
Hitler had believed that “Protestantism as such is a better defender of the interests of Germanism, insofar as this is grounded in its genesis and later tradition; it fails, however, in the moment when this defense of national interests must take place in a province which is either absent from the general line of its ideological world and traditional development, or is for some reason rejected.
Thus, Protestantism will always stand up for the advancement of all Germanism as such, as long as matters of inner purity or national deepening as well as German freedom are involved, since all these things have a firm foundation in its own being; but it 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” (pp. 112-113).
Hitler believed that any attempt at a revolutionary reawakening was moot in light of the Jewish Problem—that problem had to be addressed and resolved first and foremost. Hitler did not condemn the Protestant faith for its conciliatory attitude towards the Jews; rather, he indicted its dogmatic approach to the Jews.
Essentially, the criticism and questioning of Jewry was as unacceptable in Hitler’s day as it is currently. According to Dietrich Eckart, many Protestants and Protestant pastors were in fact Jewish. This greatly compounded the problem, because these particular Protestants and pastors were essentially the historical equivalents of the false “Christians-Zionists” of today. It angered Hitler that the Protestants would not condemn their greatest enemies, the Jews, simply because of biblical dogmatism—i.e., Jews are “chosen”—when it was the Jews themselves who were actively attempting to destroy the Christian religion and the German people. This dilemma befuddled him.
Hitler Defends Christianity
Hitler succinctly dictated that, “Concerning the moral value of Jewish religious instruction, there are today and have been at all times rather exhaustive studies (not by Jews, the drivel of the Jews themselves on the subject is, of course, adapted to its purpose) which make this kind of religion seem positively monstrous according to Arian conceptions. The best characterization is provided by the product of this religious education, the Jew himself. His life is only of this world and his spirit is inwardly as alien to true Christianity as his nature two thousand years previous was to the great founder of the new doctrine. Of course, the latter made no secret of His attitude toward the Jewish people, and when necessary He even took to the whip to drive from the temple of the Lord this adversary of all humanity, who then as always saw in religion nothing but an instrument for his business existence. In return, Christ was nailed to the cross, while our present-day party Christians debase themselves to begging for Jewish votes at elections and later try to arrange political swindles with atheistic Jewish parties—and this against their own nation” (p. 307).
Once again, we see Hitler’s derision of atheism and his equating Jewry with godlessness. We also see that Hitler has clearly made a distinction between—what Michael Hoffman has characterized as “Churchianity”—and his own views of what might constitute “true Christianity.” Hitler also defends Jesus Christ in this passage, which is quite notable. He could very easily have left this out of his dictation entirely; however, it is clear that his revisionist views of Christianity were important to him; so, he was sure to address his own religious views in Mein Kampf.
Socio-political Benefits of the Christian Clergy
Hitler went on to declare: “…As long as leadership from above was not lacking, the people fulfilled their duty and obligation overwhelmingly. Whether Protestant pastor or Catholic priest, both together contributed infinitely in maintaining for so long our power to resist, not only at the front but also at home. In these years and particularly at the first flare, there really existed in both camps but a single holy German Reich, for whose existence and future each man turned to his own heaven.
We may deduce from this particular passage Hitler’s affirmation of personalized, or better characterized as, individualized religious faith. He asserts that “each man” has his own conception of what may constitute the precept of “heaven.” Furthermore, Hitler expresses a marked favorable tone towards the idea of a single faith when he alludes to the “single holy German Reich.” His desire was to see the fruition of a single Reich Church where Germanic Protestants and Catholics would once again unite as a common people of a single God and faith. The denominations never allowed that dream of Hitler’s to become a reality.
Hitler went on… “The Pan-German movement in Austria should have asked itself one question: Is the preservation of German-Austrianism possible under a Catholic faith, or is it not? If yes, the political party had no right to concern itself with religious or denominational matters; if not, then what was needed was a religious reformation and never a political party.”
This quotation indicates that Hitler disliked the intermingling of the religious sphere with that of the political, and vice versa. Germany did not necessarily have a solid foundation, as that of America, when it came to the issue of “separation of church and state”; however, Hitler began to model his approach to the Church in the same fashion as that of the United States. He realized how dangerous the Church had been to the populace—i.e., the Thirty Years’ War and the Spanish Inquisition. I do not believe that any historian could argue against the fact that Hitler did a very good job balancing the power between church and state. He always tried to remain aloof from religious affairs.
Also, notice how he says, “the political party had no right to concern itself with religious matters”? Hitler never changed in this regard, as he kept his word and never attacked the churches. Pastor Niemöller, among others, had repeatedly refused to respect the sovereignty of the political sphere of the state, which was clearly set out before the German people in numerous speeches and proclamations, so he and others were ultimately interned in concentration camps—for repeat offenses against the state. These priests and pastors were never interned for their religious faith; nor were the Jews. Moreover, these men of the cloth could always sign a release form promising not to interfere in politics in future. All they had to do was confine themselves to their spiritual sphere, which they simply refused to do.
“Anyone who thinks he can arrive at a religious reformation by the détour of a political organization only shows that he has no glimmer of knowledge of the development of religious ideas or dogmas and their ecclesiastical consequences.
“Verily a man cannot serve two masters. And I consider the foundation or destruction of a religion far greater than the foundation of or destruction of a state, let alone a party.”
First things first, Hitler has started this statement with a biblical allusion to Christ’s words. Also, this particular statement once again reveals Hitler’s agitation for the unification of church and state. But, even more importantly, it shows us the depth of Hitler’s respect for religion. He clearly understood that religion was much more powerful than a state or party could ever be. Religions have transcended decades and ages, whereas, states and parties come and go like the wind. Indeed, in the final table talks, Hitler had declared that Christianity was a hundred times more powerful than even Marxism.
“And let it not be said that these attacks are only a defense against the attacks from the other side!”
Here we can see that Hitler was not attacking “the other side” merely because they had attacked his side; no, he is attacking from an offensive point-of-view, because he believes fervently in what he is saying and arguing.
“It is certain that at all times unscrupulous scoundrels have not shunned to make even religion the instrument of their political bargains (for that is what such rabble almost always and exclusively deal in): but just as certainly it is wrong to make a religious denomination responsible for a number of tramps who abuse it in exactly the same way as they would probably make anything else serve their low instincts” (pp. 114-115).
We can see from this passage that Hitler did not appreciate nay; he loathed and reviled those who might use religion as a means for political gain. Hitler never used religion for his political agenda; rather, he was a true believer himself and he incorporated the Christian religion into his political agenda. Hitler was not a swindler, unlike the Jews, as he was clearly alluding to St. Paul’s swindling of Christianity when he had stated, “unscrupulous scoundrels have not shunned to make even religion the instrument of their political bargains.” Hitler had even donned Christ the “centrum of National Socialism” in a few of his private and public proclamations, as well.
Hitler has also condemned “the tramps” who simply used religion—specifically Christianity—to serve their own “low instincts.” But, notice how Hitler says that “they would use anything else to serve their…instincts”? Hitler knew that religion was not to blame for the atrocities or crimes of particular groups and/or individuals of unscrupulous origin; rather, the groups and individuals were the ones to blame, because, according to Hitler, they simply would have used something else as their criminal “front” had religion not been available to them. He said, “…And in another sense it would be unjust to make religion as such or even the Church responsible for the failings of individuals…To be sure, even among the priests themselves there are those to whom their holy office is only a means of satisfying their political ambition, yes, who in political struggle forget, in a fashion which is often more deplorable that they are supposed to be the guardians of a higher truth and not the representatives of lies and slander—but for one such unworthy priest there are a thousand and more honorable ones, shepherds most loyally devoted to their mission, who, in our present false and decadent period, stand out of the general morass like little islands” (p. 115).
This is such a lovely quote that any additional commentary is unnecessary. I will let Hitler speak for himself on this one. I would however like to reiterate the point that Hitler clearly did not condemn Christianity or religion for priestly shortcomings; rather, he indicted the individuals guilty of the crimes. Hitler did not persecute the churches or men of the cloth. That is simply an historical lie.
Hitler Discusses the Three Taboos: Religion, Politics and Jewry
Hitler went on to say, “No more than I condemn, or would be justified in condemning, the Church as such when a degenerate individual in a cassock [a full-length, usually black, robe worn by priests] obscenely transgresses against morality, do I condemn it when one of the many others besmirches and betrays his nationality at a time when this is a daily occurrence anyway. Particularly today, we must not forget that for one such Ephialtes there are thousands who with bleeding heart feel the misfortune of their people and like the best of our nation long for the hour in which Heaven will smile on us again” (Mein Kampf, pp. 115-116).
Notice that Hitler believed in some form of “Heaven”? How and why do the ‘mainstream’ historians always overlook these decisive words, phrases, and passages in this document? How anyone can possibly examine Mein Kampf and construe Hitler’s atheism or paganism is beyond comprehension. That is noticeably a thesis riddled with omissions and distortions.
[“…Ephialtes ‘persuaded the Assembly to vote to curtail the power of the Council of the Areopagus and to destroy the renowned customs which their fathers had followed. Nevertheless, he did not escape the punishment for attempting such lawlessness, but he was done to death by night and none ever knew how he lost his life’ (Diod. 11.77.6).”]
Here again, we can unmistakably see that Hitler made a very precise distinction between condemning criminal or corrupt men of the cloth versus condemning the Church itself. Hitler had not attacked the Christian faith even one time in his entire personal account; nor did he ever criticize or disown Jesus Christ in Mein Kampf, or anywhere else for that matter.
Hitler went on…“Political parties have nothing to do with religious problems, as long as these are not alien to the nation, undermining the morals and ethics of the race; just as religion cannot be amalgamated with the scheming of political parties.”
Once again, Hitler has displayed a marked dislike for the integration of the spiritual realm with that of the political. Observe that he had also expected the religion to oppose the “scheming of political parties.” Hitler understood that the political and religious served as checks upon one another and, in his view, neither was to be allowed to abuse or disrespect the other. Was that unreasonable of him?
“When Church dignitaries make use of religious institutions or doctrines to injure their nation [i.e., Judeo-Christians or Zionist Christians, both of whom are not only fomenting anti-Americanism around the world, but, who are also causing great injury to the Christian religion on the whole], we must never follow them on this path and fight with the same methods.”
This makes perfect sense as no nation that wishes to remain strong and intact would allow for such dissension amongst its spiritual class. The churches have an obligation to uphold the virtues, morals, and ethics of the nation that supports and provides for them. The question must be asked, Why do the vast majority of churches in America support gay and lesbian rights, as well as illegal immigration—into the very nation that allows for and secures the collective existence of said churches? Are the Mexicans in Mexico paying for American churches, or are American citizens paying for American churches? Are gays and lesbians now the majority of whom support church-going, Christian-based family values, and church-life?
I doubt it.
This is essentially what Hitler was trying to address here in this passage. The churches ought not seek to destroy the very people that made them what and who they are. To do so would lead to their demise, which is what is currently happening to the churches in Germany and America today. Church attendance is plummeting to all-time lows in the majority of Christian countries. The Catholic influence is also greatly declining throughout Europe today.
As an aside, Islam will undoubtedly fill the spiritual void. I myself would prefer Islamic fundamentalism over secular Jewish humanism any day of the year. There is nothing bad about Islam in my opinion. I think the Moslems are filling the shoes of the pacified and feminized Whites. Whites have lost their will and manhood, or so it seems. It would not surprise me at all if White women started looking to non-White men as future marriage partners. I myself am considering this option, as White men have decided to reject family, Christianity, and morality in favor of lust, binge-drinking, partying, drugs, lifted trucks, and childlessness. None of them seem to value marriage or children anymore. It will most certainly be the demise of their race. But, if the men don’t care, how are the women going to do anything about it?
“For the political leader the religious doctrines and institutions of his people must always remain inviolable [secure from violence or attack]; or else he has no right to be in politics, but should become a reformer, if he has what it takes (pp. 116-117)!
Notice how Hitler absolutely condemned any and all political attacks against the religion of his people? So, why do Americans and Europeans allow foreigners, as well as their own leaders, to attack their religious faith and institutions? Hitler was more tolerant and understanding of religious matters than the alleged “democracies” of today. The Jews in America are especially intolerant towards Christianity, that is, unless it is false “Zionist-Christianity,” which serves their political interests and war agenda in the Mid-East. The Jews hate Christians and refer to them as Goyim, or “cattle,” in their Talmud.
Hitler had even mentioned this:
“Slowly the Marxist weapon of Jewry descends like a nightmare on the mind and soul of decent people.
“They begin to tremble before the terrible enemy and thus have become his final victim.
“The Jew’s domination in the state seems so assured that now not only can he call himself a Jew again, but he ruthlessly admits his ultimate national and political designs [the Mid-East agenda of the Jewish Neocons and the Paul Wolfowitz [Jew] Doctrine both come to mind at this point]. A section of his race openly owns itself to be a foreign people, yet even here they lie. For while the Zionists try to make the rest of the world believe that the national consciousness of the Jew finds its satisfaction in the creation of a Palestinian state, the Jews again slyly dupe the dumb Goyim. It doesn't even enter their heads to build up a Jewish state in Palestine for the purpose of living there; all they want is a central organization for their international world swindle, endowed with its sovereign rights and removed from the intervention of other states; a haven for convicted scoundrels and a university for budding crooks” (Ibid., pp. 324-325).
Hitler’s views on Jewry are truly renowned; he evidently had foresight as no other. Hitler’s statements have all come to be the truth about Jewry, Zionists, and the illegitimate headquarters of Israel. Uncanny! Is it really any wonder as to why Hitler had called the Jews “the scourge of God” (p. 310)? They plainly are! Jesus Himself called them “the children of Lucifer.”
Hitler had referred to the German leadership collaboration with Jewry in the following statement: “They made a pact with the devil and landed in hell” (p. 311).
This sounds like what has happened to and all of the Gentiles who have been swindled by the Jewish Neocon regime running America into the straits of economic and military hell today. Jews do not change, which should actually be advantageous, as opposed to detrimental, to the Gentiles. Indeed, the Goyim have proven themselves to be extremely “dumb,” in this regard.
“…The practical result of the Austrian Kulturkampf was next to nil” (p. 117). Hitler was referring to the struggle between Bismarck and the Catholic Church here. Hitler had always tried very hard to stay away from church and religious matters because he understood how fruitless they could prove to be.
The Nazi-German Concordat with the Holy See
One of the first and most important things Hitler had done to express his tolerance and respect towards institutional Christianity was to “enhance the friendly relations existing between the Holy See and the German Reich,” by signing the Catholic Concordat (Concordat Between the Holy See and the German Reich, 20 July 1933). Had Adolf Hitler been even remotely akin to the atheistic Jews running Russia into Bolshevik hell, he never would have even considered signing this document. Vlad Lenin declared, with his own pen, that “all priests and pastors were pogromists,” as documented by historian Alexander Solzhenitsyn (Strauss, 2003); thus, they were worthy of death without trial. They could simply be “shot out of hand” (Ibid.). Josif Visarionovich Dzhugashvili [Josef Stalin] declared that “God must be out of Russia in five years” (Rivera, n.d.). Both Lenin and Stalin were—at least partially—ethnically Jewish.
Article 1 of the Concordat guaranteed “freedom of profession and public practice of the Catholic religion.” Notice that the article states, “freedom of profession and public practice of the…religion”? It does not state, “freedom to commit espionage and treason against the state under the cloak of Catholicism.”
Priests and pastors were never interned in concentration camps for their faith or their religious beliefs; they were interned for crimes against the state. Many of these so-called “priests” and “pastors” were aiding and abetting Marxist-Communists. How can believers of God—the clergy, nonetheless—help atheists, haters of God, and cold-blooded murderers [i.e., purveyors of the Ukrainian Famine, the Great Purges of Stalin, collectivized farming, the Gulag, and the Bolshevik Revolution]? It certainly makes one question the sincerity of their religious faith.
Article 17 guaranteed the protection of Catholic churches and other religious property. Hitler never demolished churches, unlike the Jewish Bolsheviks who razed Christian churches to the ground. The Bolsheviks were sure to protect the Jewish synagogues though (Makow, 2007). Hitler had even scolded Martin Bormann and Alfred Rosenberg for their extreme levels of anticlericalism and apostasy. For example, when Bormann printed anti-Christian materials and had distributed them, Hitler forced him to recover all of them and cease further distribution of said material. When particular Gauleiters removed Christian crosses from the school houses, Hitler ordered that they all be put right back from whence they came. Hitler had also respected Article 23 of the Concordat in that he allowed Catholic educational institutions to remain sovereign and intact. In fact, he had even endorsed them—in public and private.
Lastly, Hitler had told Heini Hoffmann to enroll his son in a convent school. Hoffmann was a bit surprised at Hitler’s suggestion, as he had mistakenly believed that Hitler was not fond of the Catholic educational institutions. It might be worthy to note that Hitler did not recommend one of the “Adolf Hitler” schools. So much for Hitler the ‘egomaniac’.
According to a National Christian News article sent to me, courtesy of historian Christine Miller, in 1936, Hitler ordered the rebuilding of the Evangelical Church in Silesia after it had burned down. To quote from this same article, “[Hitler] rebuilt 27 new miscellaneous Church Buildings at a cost of 684,000 Marks. TOTAL NEW BUILDINGS: 146 AT A COST OF 6,901,500 Marks. Hitler remodeled and renovated 377 churches at a cost of 5,679,500 Marks. He did the same to 65 Church Community Halls at a cost of 372,000 Marks and to 8 Cemetery Chapels at a cost of 38,000 Marks. TOTAL RENOVATIONS: 450 at a cost of 6,901,500 Marks. TOTAL NUMBER OF CHURCH PROJECTS BY ADOLF HITLER IN THE YEAR 1938 ALONE….596 AT A COST OF 12,990,000 MARKS! …Hitler built churches and hospitals for his people. [Pertaining to a few of the photos in the article]…Notice the soldiers attending services at the Gamison Church in Berlin. The stained glass window presented by Adolf Hitler to the church in Wismar, Mecklenburg. The picture of Goering’s nephews at Confirmation. The Altar of Christ Church in Rheinfelden, Baden, built with the support of Dr. Josef Goebbels” (National Christian News, n.d.).
In this same article, there are also two photos of churches that Hitler had built in 1937 and 1938, one of which had a mural of The Last Supper on the wall. There is also a photo of Léon Degrelle attending a field service—he was a devout Catholic and National Socialist his whole life—as well as a few photos of the churches that the Allies bombed. Yes, the Americans and Britons bombed churches and civilians during WWII. Hitler never once targeted civilians or churches. The American and British ‘waste matter’ are non-peoples of inexcusable past and present war crimes; nothing more. Neither of these Jewish nations has changed at all since the end of that war.
According to Christine Miller (2005), “…Subsequent to the secularization, the German states instituted a church tax, a small percentage of the income tax. The monies from this tax paid the salaries of priests and ministers and supported their education. The Nazis kept this system and dutifully paid their church tax, including Adolf Hitler. The youngster, Joseph Ratzinger [the current Pope] benefited from this system.”
There are a total of thirty-four articles of the Concordat, as well as a Supplementary Protocol, so I am not going to address all of them in this piece, but, let it be known, that Hitler respected each and every article. Indeed, Pius XII had “excommunicated the members of the Communist party, but not the members of the Nazi party” (Miller, 2005). It might also be relevant to note that, as of 2005, “…Germans are quitting the Catholic and Protestant churches in droves” (Ibid.).
The Hakenkreuz
According to Aguilar and Asensi (1973):
The book, Christentum im Nazionalsocialismus whose author was J. Kuptsch, was published long before Hitler was Chancellor of the Reich and in the preface to the third edition of 1932 we read: “With regard to religion, National Socialism adheres with all its strength to Christianity and returns to the divine foundation, the origin itself of all Christian faiths: to Christ, Son of God, and to His word. With that, it does in the religious sphere, something similar to what it does in the political sphere. Placing itself above all political parties, it adheres with complete resolve to the German people, returning to its racial and popular foundations. It calls its policy Germany and its political ideology the German People. Its religion, however, is Christianity and its religious belief, Christ.”
“The Swastika,” says Kuptsch, “is the symbol of the physical German man, as God has wished him. In this sense, National Socialism unites the Swastika Cross with the Christian Cross. That is why we wear the Swastika on our breast and the Christian Cross within us.”
Remarkably, I had actually written something extremely similar to this in a previous essay. Here is the excerpt:
The Swastika, the Cross, and Socialism
“We find it not only in the records of the old Germanic people, to whom it can be attributed, probably correctly. For it must be the Nordic sun wheel, with four spokes but with a broken rim, the preliminary stage of the correct, common wagon wheel. But we also find it in Russia, in the Ukraine, in Asia Minor—to this day it is knotted into Persian rugs—in the Near East in general, down into the interior of India, and finally, we encounter it in ancient Egypt, and, later on, in Crete and Greece. … And the same holds true for the swastika. It is the wheel of the sun that rolls from east to west—around the surface of the earth, which is inhabited by humans. That is why it seems wrong to you at once when the swastika’s hooks point to the right rather than the left” (Wagener, Memoirs of a Confidant, pp. 78, 82).
Most people are so ignorant when it comes to the Nazi-Sozi usage of the swastika, that I find it necessary to constantly address this misconception. Hitler was not some Illuminist pagan sort who adopted a satanic swastika.
The swastika was an ancient Nordic symbol that was later adopted as a “good luck” and even Christian symbol; it was utilized by Christian groups throughout the Western world during Hitler’s day and in America in the late 1800s through the mid-1900s. One can only guess as to why it was suddenly dropped as a Christian symbol (Hitler was elected in 1933). The swastika quickly became the symbol of “evil,” as per the Jewish circus press throughout Britain, Russia, many parts of Europe, and of course, America; hence, Christians wanted nothing to do with the ancient Indo-European symbol any longer.
Hitler chose to utilize the Christian-adapted swastika with the hooks pointing towards the right. He had seen this swastika every time he had attended his local Catholic monastery as a young boy. It is possible that a member or members of the early NSDAP Party who were not Christians had suggested using the swastika, but, Hitler still chose the Christianized version. Furthermore, Hitler relied heavily upon the continued usage of the imbalanced Christian Cross [Latin Cross], as well as, the balanced Iron Cross. All of the war medals were Iron Crosses, which were ultimately Christian symbols. The Cross of the Deutsche Christen Movement was the Cross of Christ, which was an orthodox Christian symbol.
Hitler felt that the worship of the unbalanced Cross was an insult to Christ and His incredible sacrifice. He viewed it as a murder weapon, so he preferred to refer to the resurrected Christ and His transcendental teachings, as documented by Eckart, Wagener, and Bormann.
Also, notice that the swastika is always placed within the unbalanced Cross, on it, or underneath it and within the Iron Cross most of the time. I am referring to the medals and pins of the Third Reich era. NoBeliefs.com has numerous photos of these artifacts in their “Hitler’s Christianity” section of their web site. This may have been a spiritual representation symbolically suggesting to people that the swastika was subordinate to the Cross. Hitler had even donned Christ the “centrum of National Socialism,” so I am not simply inventing this analysis.
Hitler may have viewed the worship of the unbalanced Cross as spiritual defeatism, and believed that the priests paraded it with this notion in mind. After all, the priests had for many thousands of years condoned the murder of millions in Christ’s name. Hitler did not fail to point this out on a few occasions in private, which can be verified in the Eckart, Wagener, and Bormann records.
Wagener had recalled Hitler as saying:
I am astonished at all that has been made of these teachings of these divinely inspired men, especially Jesus Christ, which are so clear and unique, heightened to religiosity. … But the communities that called themselves Christian churches did not understand it! Or if they did, they denied Christ and betrayed him! For they transformed the holy idea of Christian socialism into its opposite! They killed it, just as, at that time, the Jews nailed Jesus to the cross; they buried it, just as the body of Christ was buried. But they allowed Christ to be resurrected (insinuating through his followers), instigating the belief that his teachings, too, were reborn!
It is in this that the monstrous crime of these enemies of Christian socialism lies! With the basest hypocrisy they carry before them the cross—the instrument of that murder which, in their thoughts, they commit over and over—as a new divine sign of Christian awareness, and allow mankind to kneel to it. They even pretend to be preaching the teachings of Christ. But their lives and deeds are a constant blow against these teachings and their Creator and a defamation of God” (p. 140)!
The Jew: Making a Mockery of Religion
Interestingly enough, Hitler seems to have taken offense at the Jewish mockery of all things spiritual and divine. In Moses to Lenin, he laments with Eckart the depravity of the Jewish Talmud and Torah and the fact that both were devoid of anything resembling Gentile spiritualism or religious belief.
In Mein Kampf he had said something quite similar. He concluded, “Religion is ridiculed, ethics and morality represented as outmoded, until the last props of a nation in its struggle for existence in this world have fallen” (p. 326). He then goes on to discuss his idea of the “blood Jew” of Bolshevik Russia.
We can get a sense that Hitler believed Jewry to be completely devoid of spirituality and all things of beauty when he discusses the “religion” “ethics” and “morality” of the Gentiles just before addressing the “inhuman tortures” and “fanatical savagery” of the “blood Jew” during this continuous train of thought. Remember, this book was dictated. It appears as though he has once again equated Gentile with godliness and Jew with ungodliness. Eckart and Goebbels had felt this way about Gentiles and Jews too.
Religious Education: Never Take It Away
Hitler had always greatly respected religious education even though he talked as though he had despised it on occasion. He recommended a convent school for Hoffmann’s boy and he asked that teachers be true believers of religious education. In fact, he said that “secular schools must never be tolerated.” Hence, we may safely assume that Hitler spoke negatively of most of his early religious instruction only because he had disliked or hated one or more of his religious instructors.
As an example of this association, if one was to receive one or several terrible or mean math teachers, it might just ruin the subject for that particular person—at least until they become wise enough to understand what had happened. Perhaps that person’s negative feelings towards math would change if that person later attained good marks with nice, quality teachers.
Even though Hitler had disliked learning about religion in school, and lamented this in Mein Kampf, he still defended religious belief in the same tract.
He said:
“The concept ‘folkish’ seems as vaguely defined, open to as many interpretations and as unlimited in practical application, as, for instance, the word ‘religious,’ and it is very hard to conceive of anything absolutely precise under this designation, either in the sense of intellectual comprehension or of practical effects. The designation ‘religious’ only becomes tangibly conceivable in the moment when it becomes connected with a definitely outlined form of its practice. It is a very lovely statement and usually apt, to describe a man’s nature as ‘profoundly religious.’ Perhaps there are a few people who feel satisfied by such a very general description, to whom it can even convey a definite, more or less sharp, picture of that soul-state. But, since the great masses consist neither of philosophers nor of saints, such a very general religious idea will as a rule mean to the individual only the liberation of his individual and action, without, however, leading to that efficacy which arises from religious inner longing in the moment when, from the purely metaphysical infinite world of ideas, a clearly delimited faith forms. Assuredly, this is not the end in itself, but only a means to the end; yet it is the indispensably necessary means which alone makes possible the achievement of the end. This end, however, is not ideal, but in the last analysis also eminently practical. And in general we must clearly acknowledge the fact that the highest ideals always correspond to a deep vital necessity, just as the nobility of the most exalted beauty lies in the last analysis only in what is logically most expedient.
“By helping to raise man above the level of bestial vegetation, faith contributes in reality to the securing and safeguarding of his existence. Take-away from present-day mankind its education-based, religious-dogmatic principles—or, practically speaking, ethical-moral principles—by abolishing this religious education, but without replacing it by an equivalent, and the result will be a grave shock to the foundations of their existence” (p. 379).
Most would agree that secularism, humanism, atheism, Marxism, communism, capitalism, and all the various other “isms” have destroyed the religious-based moral-ethical fabric of the Western empires in the world today. They obviously are not “equivalents” of religion. The so-called “West” is almost ruined beyond repair. This is why more and more Europeans and Asians are looking to Islam for answers. There is a famous saying that goes something like this: “Take away what people believe in and they will believe in anything.”
There will be a substitute for Christianity and it will more than likely be Islam. That isn’t to say that there is anything wrong with Islam, but Europeans, especially European women, must be prepared for serious cultural change.
Ultimate Sin: Genocide of the Aryan Race
Hitler declared, “…Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise” (p. 383).
Hitler was specifically referring to the “Aryan” in this passage but that probably only refers to the German Volk, or perhaps even the European Volk. I do not believe Hitler felt this connection with all of the ethnic variances within the white race itself. Later on he would dispel the notion that he fought on behalf of the white race—the Bormann and Wagener memoirs address his private feelings in this regard. Furthermore, Hitler did not at all respect Jews, American whites, and some European whites, like the Poles and Slavs. He would have tolerated them, but he definitely did not feel any real compassion for them. He also disliked the arrogant nature of the French and British whites.
Concluding Thoughts
Hitler had even claimed that “the Jew cannot possess a religious institution” because “he lacks idealism in any form, and hence a belief in a hereafter is absolutely foreign to him” (Ibid.). In fact, Hitler goes so far as to defend the Arian concept of the afterlife in an almost hostilely defensive tone. Most people who defend their beliefs with a certain air of hostility are quite serious about the particular beliefs that they are, in fact, defending. This is a natural human reaction to an either apparent or definite threat.
In Mein Kampf and elsewhere, Hitler had consistently defended Christianity against the Jews, as though they were a direct threat to its very existence. If Hitler did not care about the Christian religion, then why did he continue to defend it with such glaring conviction?
“Secular schools can never be tolerated because such a school has no religious instruction and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith. From our point of view as representatives of the state, we need believing people. A dark cloud threatens from Poland. We have need of soldiers, believing soldiers. Believing soldiers are the most valuable ones. They give their all. Therefore we will maintain the confessional schools in order to train believing people through the schools, but this depends upon having truly believing teachers, not by chance Marxists who do not stand fully by their religious faith, as teachers” (Adolf Hitler, quoted by Helmreich, p. 241).
References
Aguilar, J., & J.M Asensi. (1973). Hitler and the Catholic Church: The Lie that Hitler was an Atheist. An edited and condensed translation of Hitler y la Iglesia. (Unknown, Ed.). (Unknown, Trans.). Editorial NOS.
Eckart, D. (1999). Bolshevism from Moses to Lenin: A Dialogue Between Adolf Hitler and Me. (W. Pierce, Trans.). West Virginia: National Vanguard Books. (Original work published 1923)
Helmreich, E. (1980). The German Churches Under Hitler: Background, Struggle, and Epilogue. Detroit: Wayne State University Press. (Original work published 1979)
Hitler, A. (1999). Mein Kampf. (Ralph Mannheim, Trans.). New York: Houghton Mifflin Company. (Original work published 1927)
Hoffmann, H. (1955). Hitler Was My Friend. (Lt.-Col. R.H. Stevens, Trans.). London: Burke Publishing Company, Ltd.
Lang, J. V. (1979). The Secretary: Martin Bormann—The Man Who Manipulated Hitler. (Christa Armstrong & Peter White, Trans.). Ohio: Ohio University Press. (Original work published 1977)
Wagener, O. (1985). Hitler—Memoirs of a Confidant (Henry Ashby Turner, Jr. Ed.). (Ruth Hein, Trans.). London: Yale University Press. (Original work published 1978)
|