web analytics
Ancient Rome Christendom Egalitarianism Emperor Julian Final solution Heinrich Himmler Monologe im Führerhauptquartier St Paul

Hitler on Christianity (1941)

From David Irving’s web page:

The Table Talks’ content [originally written in shorthand] is more important in my view than Hitler’s Mein Kampf, and possibly even more than his Zweites Buch (1928). It is unadulterated Hitler. He expatiates on virtually every subject under the sun, while his generals and private staff sit patiently and listen, or pretend to listen, to the monologues.

The first excerpt is taken from what Hitler said in a night of July of 1941 (ellipsis omitted between unquoted passages):

Hitler’s Table Talk, 1941-1944

His Private Conversations

Part I


When National Socialism has ruled long enough, it will no longer be possible to conceive of a form of life different from ours. In the long run, National Socialism and religion will no longer be able to exist together.

(On a question from C. S., whether this antagonism might mean a war, the Führer continued:)

No, it does not mean a war. The ideal solution would be to leave the religions to devour themselves, without persecutions. But in that case we must not replace the Church by something equivalent. That would be terrifying! It goes without saying that the whole thing needs a lot of thought. Everything will occur in due time. It is a simple question of honesty, that’s what it will finally boil down to.

The German people’s especial quality is patience; and it’s the only one of the peoples capable of undertaking a revolution in this sphere. It could do it, if only for the reason that only the German people have made moral law the governing principle of action.

The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity’s illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity. Bolshevism practises a lie of the same nature, when it claims to bring liberty to men, whereas in reality it seeks only to enslave them. In the ancient world, the relations between men and gods were founded on an instinctive respect. It was a world enlightened by the idea of tolerance. Christianity was the first creed in the world to exterminate its adversaries in the name of love. Its key-note is intolerance.

Without Christianity, we should not have had Islam. The Roman Empire, under Germanic influence, would have developed in the direction of world-domination, and humanity would not have extinguished fifteen centuries of civilisation at a single stroke.

Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things. The result of the collapse of the Roman Empire was a night that lasted for centuries.

The Romans had no dislike of the Germans. This is shown by the mere fact that blond hair was fashionable with them. Amongst the Goths there were many men with dark hair.

23rd September 1941, evening

To make death easier for people, the Church holds out to them the bait of a better world. We, for our part, confine ourselves to asking man to fashion his life worthily. For this, it is sufficient for him to conform to the laws of nature. Let’s seek inspiration in these principles, and in the long run we’ll triumph over religion.

10th October 1941, midday

Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure.

14th October 1941, midday

Special Guest: Reichsfuehrer Himmler

It may be asked whether concluding a concordat with the churches wouldn’t facilitate our exercise of power.

On this subject one may make the following remarks: Firstly, in this way the authority of the State would be vitiated by the fact of the intervention of a third power concerning which it is impossible to say how long it would remain reliable. In the case of the Anglican Church, this objection does not arise, for England knows she can depend on her Church. But what about the Catholic Church?

I’m convinced that any pact with the Church can offer only a provisional benefit, for sooner or later the scientific spirit will disclose the harmful character of such a compromise. Thus the State will have based its existence on a foundation that one day will collapse.

An educated man retains the sense of the mysteries of nature and bows before the unknowable. An uneducated man, on the other hand, runs the risk of going over to atheism (which is a return to the state of the animal) as soon as he perceives that the State, in sheer opportunism, is making use of false ideas in the matter of religion, whilst in other fields it bases everything on pure science.

That’s why I’ve always kept the Party aloof from religious questions. I’ve thus prevented my Catholic and Protestant supporters from forming groups against one another, and inadvertently knocking each other out with the Bible and the sprinkler. So we never became involved with these Churches’ forms of worship. And if that has momentarily made my task a little more difficult, at least I’ve never run the risk of carrying grist to my opponents’ mill. The help we would have provisionally obtained from a concordat would have quickly become a burden on us. In any case, the main thing is to be clever in this matter and not to look for a struggle where it can be avoided.

Being weighed down by a superstitious past, men are afraid of things that can’t, or can’t yet, be explained—that is to say, of the unknown. If anyone has needs of a metaphysical nature, I can’t satisfy them with the Party’s programme. Time will go by until the moment when science can answer all the questions.

So it’s not opportune to hurl ourselves now into a struggle with the Churches. The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death. A slow death has something comforting about it. The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science. Religion will have to make more and more concessions. Gradually the myths crumble.

Nobody has the right to deprive simple people of their childish certainties until they’ve acquired others that are more reasonable. Indeed, it’s most important that the higher belief should be well established in them before the lower belief has been removed. We must finally achieve this. But it would serve no purpose to replace an old belief by a new one that would merely fill the place left vacant by its predecessor.

It seems to me that nothing would be more foolish than to re-establish the worship of Wotan. Our old mythology had ceased to be viable when Christianity implanted itself. Nothing dies unless it is moribund. At that period the ancient world was divided between the systems of philosophy and the worship of idols. It’s not desirable that the whole of humanity should be stultified—and the only way of getting rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.

Science cannot lie, for it’s always striving, according to the momentary state of knowledge, to deduce what is true. When it makes a mistake, it does so in good faith. It’s Christianity that’s the liar. It’s in perpetual conflict with itself.

One may ask whether the disappearance of Christianity would entail the disappearance of belief in God. That’s not to be desired. The notion of divinity gives most men the opportunity to concretise the feeling they have of supernatural realities. Why should we destroy this wonderful power they have of incarnating the feeling for the divine that is within them?

I envisage the future, therefore, as follows: First of all, to each man his private creed. Superstition shall not lose its rights. We’ll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State. We shall continue to preach the doctrine of National Socialism, and the young will no longer be taught anything but the truth.

19th October 1941, night

The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity.

Christianity is a prototype of Bolshevism: the mobilisation by the Jew of the masses of slaves with the object of undermining society. Thus one understands that the healthy elements of the Roman world were proof against this doctrine.

Yet Rome to-day allows itself to reproach Bolshevism with having destroyed the Christian churches. As if Christianity hadn’t behaved in the same way towards the pagan temples!

21st October 1941, midday

When one thinks of the opinions held concerning Christianity by our best minds a hundred, two hundred years ago, one is ashamed to realise how little we have since evolved. I didn’t know that Julian the Apostate had passed judgment with such clear-sightedness on Christianity and Christians. You should read what he says on the subject.

Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism the destroyer. Nevertheless, the Galilean, who later was called the Christ, intended something quite different. He must be regarded as a popular leader who took up his position against Jewry. Galilee was a colony where the Romans had probably installed Gallic legionaries, and it’s certain that Jesus was not a Jew. The Jews, by the way, regarded Him as the son of a whore—of a whore and a Roman soldier.

The decisive falsification of Jesus’ doctrine was the work of St. Paul. He gave himself to this work with subtlety and for purposes of personal exploitation. For the Galilean’s object was to liberate his country from Jewish oppression.

On the road to Damascus, St. Paul discovered that he could succeed in ruining the Roman State by causing the principle to triumph of the equality of all men before a single God—and by putting beyond the reach of the laws his private notions, which he alleged to be divinely inspired. If, into the bargain, one succeeded in imposing one man as the representative on earth of the only God, that man would possess boundless power.

Nobody was more tolerant than the Romans. Every man could pray to the god of his choice, and a place was even reserved in the temples for the unknown god. Moreover, every man prayed as he chose, and had the right to proclaim his preferences.

St. Paul knew how to exploit this state of affairs in order to conduct his struggle against the Roman State. Nothing has changed; the method has remained sound.

The religious ideas of the Romans are common to all Aryan peoples. The Jew, on the other hand, worshipped and continues to worship, then and now, nothing but the golden calf. The Jewish religion is devoid of all metaphysics and has no foundation but the most repulsive materialism.

It’s since St. Paul’s time that the Jews have manifested themselves as a religious community, for until then they were only a racial community. St. Paul was the first man to take account of the possible advantages of using a religion as a means of propaganda. If the Jew has succeeded in destroying the Roman Empire, that’s because St. Paul transformed a local movement of Aryan opposition to Jewry into a supra-temporal religion, which postulates the equality of all men amongst themselves, and their obedience to an only god. This is what caused the death of the Roman Empire.

It’s striking to observe that Christian ideas, despite all St. Paul’s efforts, had no success in Athens. The philosophy of the Greeks was so much superior to this poverty-stricken rubbish that the Athenians burst out laughing when they listened to the apostle’s teaching. But in Rome St. Paul found the ground prepared for him. His egalitarian theories had what was needed to win over a mass composed of innumerable uprooted people.

Whilst Roman society proved hostile to the new doctrine, Christianity in its pure state stirred the population to revolt. Rome was Bolshevised, and Bolshevism produced exactly the same results in Rome as later in Russia.

Yesterday, the instigator was Saul: the instigator to-day, Mardochai. Saul has changed into St. Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea.

25th October 1941, evening

Special Guests: Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler and SS General (Obergruppenfuehrer) Heydrich

From the rostrum of the Reichstag I prophesied to Jewry that, in the event of war’s proving inevitable, the Jew would disappear from Europe. That race of criminals has on its conscience the two million dead of the First World War, and now already hundreds of thousands more. Let nobody tell me that all the same we can’t park them in the marshy parts of Russia! Who’s worrying about our troops? It’s not a bad idea, by the way, that public rumour attributes to us a plan to exterminate the Jews. Terror is a salutary thing. The attempt to create a Jewish State will be a failure.

The book that contains the reflections of the Emperor Julian should be circulated in millions. What wonderful intelligence, what discernment, all the wisdom of antiquity! It’s extraordinary.

With what clairvoyance the authors of the eighteenth, and especially those of the past, century criticised Christianity and passed judgment on the evolution of the Churches!

People only retain from the past what they want to find there. As seen by the Bolshevik, the history of the Tsars seems like a blood-bath. But what is that, compared with the crimes of Bolshevism?

There exists a history of the world, compiled by Rotteck, a liberal of the ’forties, in which facts are considered from the point of view of the period; antiquity is resolutely neglected. We, too, shall re-write history, from the racial point of view. Starting with isolated examples, we shall proceed to a complete revision. It will be a question, not only of studying the sources, but of giving facts a logical link. There are certain facts that can’t be satisfactorily explained by the usual methods. So we must take another attitude as our point of departure. As long as students of biology believed in spontaneous generation, it was impossible to explain the presence of microbes.

What a certificate of mental poverty it was for Christianity that it destroyed the libraries of the ancient world! Graeco-Roman thought was made to seem like the teachings of the Devil.

Christianity set itself systematically to destroy ancient culture. What came to us was passed down by chance, or else it was a product of Roman liberal writers. Perhaps we are entirely ignorant of humanity’s most precious spiritual treasures. Who can know what was there?

The Papacy was faithful to these tactics even during recorded history. How did people behave, during the age of the great explorations, towards the spiritual riches of Central America?

In our parts of the world, the Jews would have immediately eliminated Schopenhauer, Nietzsche and Kant. If the Bolsheviks had dominion over us for two hundred years, what works of our past would be handed on to posterity? Our great men would fall into oblivion, or else they’d be presented to future generations as criminals and bandits.

I don’t believe at all in the truth of certain mental pictures that many people have of the Roman emperors. I’m sure that Nero didn’t set fire to Rome. It was the Christian-Bolsheviks who did that, just as the Commune set fire to Paris in 1871 and the Communists set fire to the Reichstag in 1932.

5th November 1941, evening

Special Guests: SS Colonel (Standartenfuehrer) Blaschkeand Dr. Richter

The great trick of Jewry was to insinuate itself fraudulently amongst the religions with a religion like Judaism, which in reality is not a religion. Simply, the Jew has put a religious camouflage over his racial doctrine. Everything he undertakes is built on this lie.

The Jew can take the credit for having corrupted the Graeco-Roman world. We can live without the Jews, but they couldn’t live without us. When the Europeans realise that, they’ll all become simultaneously aware of the solidarity that binds them together. The Jew prevents this solidarity. He owes his livelihood to the fact that this solidarity does not exist.

Night of 1st December 1941

I’m convinced that there are Jews in Germany who’ve behaved correctly—in the sense that they’ve invariably refrained from doing injury to the German idea. It’s difficult to estimate how many of them there are, but what I also know is that none of them has entered into conflict with his co-racialists in order to defend the German idea against them.

Probably many Jews are not aware of the destructive power they represent. Now, he who destroys life is himself risking death. That’s the secret of what is happening to the Jews. Whose fault is it when a cat devours a mouse? The fault of the mouse, who has never done any harm to a cat?

This destructive rôle of the Jew has in a way a providential explanation. If nature wanted the Jew to be the ferment that causes peoples to decay, thus providing these peoples with an opportunity for a healthy reaction, in that case people like St. Paul and Trotsky are, from our point of view, the most valuable. By the fact of their presence, they provoke the defensive reaction of the attacked organism. Dietrich Eckart once told me that in all his life he had known just one good Jew: Otto Weininger, who killed himself on the day when he realised that the Jew lives upon the decay of peoples.

It is remarkable that the half-caste Jew, to the second or third generation, has a tendency to start flirting again with pure Jews. But from the seventh generation onwards, it seems the purity of the Aryan blood is restored. In the long run nature eliminates the noxious elements.

13th December 1941, midday

Special Guests: Ribbentrop, Rosenberg, Goebbels, Terboven and Reichsleiter Bouhler

The war will be over one day. I shall then consider that my life’s final task will be to solve the religious problem. Only then will the life of the German native be guaranteed once and for all. I don’t interfere in matters of belief. Therefore I can’t allow churchmen to interfere with temporal affairs. The organised lie must be smashed. The State must remain the absolute master.

But Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.

When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let’s be the only people who are immunised against the disease.

14th December 1941, midday

Special Guests: Rosenberg, Bouhler, Himmler

Kerrl, with the noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don’t believe the thing’s possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself.

I think I could have come to an understanding with the Popes of the Renaissance. Obviously, their Christianity was a danger on the practical level—and, on the propaganda level, it continued to be a lie. But a Pope, even a criminal one, who protects great artists and spreads beauty around him, is nevertheless more sympathetic to me than the Protestant minister who drinks from the poisoned spring.

Pure Christianity—the Christianity of the catacombs—is concerned with translating the Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics.

End of 1941

14 replies on “Hitler on Christianity (1941)”

A number of historians have cast doubt on the authenticity of Hitler’s “Table Talks,” and I believe this critique on Christianity can easily be
discredited by the Concordat (contract) between Germany and the Vatican, which was signed within days of the National Socialists being elected into political office.
If Adolf Hitler had had a genuine grievance against the Vatican or the Roman Catholic Church, he would not have entered into the Concordat (contract) with the Vatican.
The Concordat was a political contract between Germany and the Vatican as a political instrument against joo Bolshevism in Europe.
In the book:”The Kaiser’s Memoirs,” Kaiser Wilhelm 11 states that the pope said to him that: “We will have to re-establish the Holy Roman Empire,” and it was Cardinal Pacelli (later Pope Pius X11) who said to Kaiser Wilhelm11 that: “We will have to make Germany the Sword of the Catholic Church” against joo Bolshevism.
The “Sword of the Catholic Church” was National Socialism which was the re-established “Holy Roman Empire” mentioned by Kaiser Wilhelm11. This fact is also supported in the Youtube documentary:
“The Nazis and The Vatican, The Creation of The Vatican and The Nazis,” which documents the relationship (via the Concordat) between Germany and the Vatican.
Most American’s are simply too feeble minded and prejudiced against the Catholic Church to understand or appreciate the historical significance of the relationship between Germany and the Vatican.
Protestant joo controlled America, like Protestant Britain have jealously guarded their joo created Protestantism as a political weapon against the Catholic Church in Europe, and this in part, explains why Protestant Britain and America were the only two (Democrasies) that completely allied themselves to joo Bolshevik Communism during WW2.
There are joo controlled American web sites, for example, that promote the insane propaganda that the Holy Order of Jesuits were completely responsible for every war and conflict since the Reformation,and that the Jesuits were the instigators of the the American Civil War, and that the Jesuits were wholly complicit in the assassination of Catholic President John Fitzgerald Kennedy as well as dragging America into the Vietnam War in South East Asia.
It is almost certainly the case that the Jesuits masterminded 9/11, the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, and are at this very moment ploting a war against Iran in order to seize Iran’s vast oil supplies.
Please remember that Adolf Hitler was a devout Roman Catholic as were his mother and father, both of whom were buried in a Catholic cemetery in Austria.



The Jesuits masterminded 9/11?? Never heard of it. Others believe that George W. Bush and his henchmen masterminded it. Others, that the Mossad did it. And Scientologists believe that the psychiatrists are behind it! Which reminds me the conspiracy theories about John F. Kennedy assassination with some saying that the American Mafia orchestrated it. Others blame the US government, others blame the KGB, others the Israeli government, others Fidel Castro, others the Federal Reserve, others…

Never pay attention to conspiracy theories. It’s a mark of elemental intelligence to be skeptical of crank theories that strain our credulity far beyond its breaking point. This is one of the reasons why white nationalists who vigorously and persistently believe this kind of stuff are not taken seriously.

(And incidentally, I defer to Irving on this subject: the Table Talks are unadultered Hitler and he did not even write Mein Kampf with the exception of a few autobiographical passages.)

I’m impressed how straightforward and penetratingly Hitler speaks. There’s an honesty and insight worth studying.

Saintclair is a moron who has not read the book he hastily labels as a forgery. If he had done it, his judgment would be much less confident. The subject of the Concordat is notably lengthily explained.

Anybody intelligent enough can determine by himself if a document looks like a forgery or not. And I’m sorry, but there are simply too much coherence, truths and verifiable anecdotes in Table Talk to simply put a chaste veil on it and pretend it was that damn Bormann who invented it all.

I’m just going to give one example.

At one moment, Hitler says, “The best attitude to adopt towards Christianity is to let it die from natural death and the progress of science”.

Strange! The very same words that Leon Degrelle (before Table Talk was published) reported he heard personally from the Fuhrer in 1944. Degrelle who was a rare phenomenon of Christian Nazi and who had absolutely no interest in making his protege Hitler look like a heathen.

I always try to shorten my messages, but there is so much more that could be said on the subject of this book. Every single notable story and anecdote is notably verifiable, if you are sufficiently cultivated and curious to do it.

People who brand Table Talk as a forgery are always Christian traditionalists and white nationalists. They are butt-hurted that Hitler may not have been the anti-communist Christian messiah they had hoped, but rather a pagan, nietzschean and mendelian revolutionary. So they accuse Bormann of being a traitor or a forger, just like they accuse Darwin of being the spawn of Satan and the Jews of being the sole party responsible for the death of Christianity in the West. You can’t reason with adepts of the abrahamic religions. You should ban them from true White political movements like you should ban Jews and Mestizos. Everything in their body and attitude exhales semitism. It just takes courage to do it, to tell Christians to go f*** themselves. It’s not like they’re going to help us retake America anyway. Everything in conservatism and Christian Identity smells like defeat and weakness.

Thanks for the complement!!!
But before you accuse me of being a MORON, you should look a little closer to home if you are resident in what has been officially classed as: “The most functionally illiterate country on the planet.”
I admire your talent to put words into people’s mouths like:”Forgery,” “Anecdote,” “Butt-hurted,” “Adepts of the Abrahamic religions,” “Everything in their body and attitude exhales semitism,” and: “Everything in conservatism and Christian Identity smells like defeat and weakness.”
Spoken like a true patron of the synagogue.
PLEASE PAY PARTICULAR ATTENTION TO THE LETTERS: N-A-R-R-A-T-I-V-E :(A spoken or written account of something that may or may not contain a factual element, or factual elements.)
The British government narrative of WW1& WW2 is just a narrative which is promoted as the official British government account of WW1 & WW2, but the British government narrative constitutes 90/95% official British propaganda.
You say:”At one moment, Hitler says: “The best attitude to adopt towards Christianity is to let it die from natural death and the progress of science. Strange! The very same words that Leon Degrelle (before Table Talk was published) reported he heard personally from the Fuhrer in 1944.
Degrelle who was a rare phenomenon of Christian (Nazi) National Socialist and who had absolutely no interest in making his protege Hitler look like a heathen.”
Spoken like a true patron of the synagogue!!!
That Leon Degrelle had absolutely no interest in making his protege Hitler look like a heathen was because Adolf Hitler was, as I stated previous, a devout Roman Catholic, and 40% or more of the leadership of the National Socialist Party had close and/or intimate religious and political ties with the Jesuit Order.
I refer you to a statement made by the “Toilet” by reference to his initials W.C. : “You must understand that this war is not against Hitler or National Socialism, but against the strength of the German people, which is to be smashed once and for all, regardless of whether it is in the hands of of a Hitler or a Jesuit Priest.”
This socio-psychopathic drunkard spent the entire war, together with Soviet Communist America and Soviet Communist Russia, pursuing the complete extermination of Germany to the extent that Germany was to be reduced to a goat pasture.
It is my contention that the reference:”In the hands of a (A) Hitler or a (A)Jesuit Priest,” is a coded reference to Adolf Hitler as a Jesuit Priest. Adolf Hitler, possibly in “Mein Kampfe,” is alleged to have said that he had seriously considered joining the Catholic priesthood.
Please take into consideration that Adolf Hitler is the most mis-quoted politician and possibly the most hated figure in history.
Anybody who suggests that Adolf Hitler was anything but a Christian is clearly a patron of the synagogue.
I note that you and two other respondents have completely ignored my references to the historical political connection between Germany and the Vatican which reinforces my claim that there is considerable anti-Catholic prejudice in America, (which contributed a considerable effort in reducing Germany to rubble.)
I have a full copy of the Concordat between National Socialist Germany and the Vatican, which is a political contract signed by Cardinal Pacelli and Franz von Papen as the representative of the German National Socialist government.
I repeat what I stated previous, in case you have trouble understanding: It was Cardinal Pacelli who said to Kaiser Wilhelm 11 that:”We must make Germany the sword of the Catholic Church against Bolshevik Communism.” The sword of the Catholic Church was National Socialism, and National Socialist Europe was the Holy Roman Empire re-established.
Cardinal Pacelli’s statement is irrefutable confirmation that the German/Vatican Concordat was not structured to “improving” relations between Germany and the Vatican.
I should also draw your attention to the fact that: Germany, Italy and Japan were signatories to the “Anti Comintern Pact,” the anti communist pact.
That congenital retard Rosenvelt had declared war in all but name against these three countries before 1939; and it was his protege Harry Solomon Truman (again, another true patron of the synagogue) who gave the order to drop nuclear bombs on the only two Catholic cities in Japan, Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
One of the greatest contributions to civilisation by Soviet Communist America.

Have a nice day!!!


I do give you a point of approval on Roosevelt. That’s the single you’ll have from anyone serious on this blog though.

This man was weak and dumb; a perfect plaything for the Jews, like Wilson was. Promise them money, status and pussy, and they will sell their own kin out. They are irrelevant though. They did not hold any real power in the US at the time: puppets can be and are always replaced by new puppets. Hating them is ridiculous.

Churchill was more complex; less corruptible, I would say. He was the archetype of the old knight who does not grasp the evolution of the world around him. The best course of action with them is assassination. With Churchill dead, a Mosley-led Coup combined with a brutal military offensive would have given Hitler the reins of GB. King George wouldn’t have said anything. Like he always did.

As to Stalin, well, this guy was the true villain an the only real opponent for Hitler.

All others were puppets and semi-puppets for the Jews. Including De Gaulle.

Mister Sinclair,

I admire the connection you make between Hitler and the catholic Church, I have always asked myself “how can Hitler hate Christianity
when it is the one religion that has caused more death and suffering to the jews than any other religion?” I mean, in the Koran it usually shows admiration to the Jews for being “people of the book”, for being monotheist, only a few times in the Koran does it say that the jews earred, but it never shows the blind hatred you will find in Christianity, if you love to hate Jews, all you have to do is read the New Testament once, and you should be converted right?

Well Saintclair, I must tell you that you are not a real anti-semite, and hears why……..get ready as your whole stack of cards comes falling down!

You, Saint Clair are mearlly following in the footsteps of St. Paul, who was a Jew! I laughed my ass off when you accused Panina of being a patron of the synogoge! That is axactly the type of over emotional anit-semitism that was practiced by St. Paul! He was such a loser that the Jews thouroughly rejected him which is to their merit, and as we know the Greeks laughed at him as I laughed at you! Jesus, whose name was not Jesus, becuase that name is illegal in Judaism. In Greek Jesus means God in the flesh, and no Jew ever would have named there son God. Instead his name meant “the one who comes to save his people”, thus Yeshua was his historical name.

Christianity, or the new Testament started all that jews are the children of the devil stuff, and St. Paul was the one who invented religious anti-semitism which is why most Jews see him as a heretic who raised a Gentile army that persecuted jews, that is how Jews see St. Paul. The Jews this, and the jews that is rampent in the new testament, it is the only religion that does that, the only one.

So I wonder why Hitler hated St. Paul so much, but defended Jesus uncompromizingly.

Hitler was convinced that Jesus was not a Jew, and religously he belonged to The Nazirenes who had established their own settlement in Nazireth, and the town was named after the sect of Nazirenes, not the other way around, it is likely that they named the settlement themselves. As we know from 1st century historians the Nazirenes were very beautiful and women loved them so much that people did not want them around, they were accomplished musicians, and were vegetarians who did not participate in the bloody animal sacrifices in the temple, in fact jesus turning over the money tables was more likely to be the first animal rights act in history, rather than a hatred of money, and remember christianity was created to dupe the converted into hateing money so that the Catholic Church could fill their coffers with money.
“Blessed are the poor” really means give me your money!

So, when Hitler said “Jesus was leading a local movement of aryan opposition to Jewery” he did not mean that Yeshua was not of jewish blood, but we now know historicaly that the Nazirenes were a very special group of jews, much like the Essenes, their values were what most nazi would call “Aryan”, and actually there is much evidence to suggest that these Nazirenes were infact of the royal line of David, and as you know, the royal family is always more refined in looks and nature to the local population, you only need to read psalms and proverbs to know that David and Solomon were of a special bloodline, and this bloodline married into European families mostly the Franks, and established the Merovingians, who were great musicians, healers, and kept their hair long as Nazirites, they maintianed that they were of the line of David, and their looks and actions seem to indicate they were not lying. Charlamange married one of their daughters and formed the Carolingians.

Now the Nazirenes, as all Essene offshoots were not adherants of Phariseeic Judaism, and when Jesus James, and jude started their movemtn meny Pharisee’s feared they would make converts, so they saw them as enemies, Saul of Taursus was the most radical of them. To Nazirenes, he will always be a son of darkness, who started with Phariseeism, and finally graduated to full flegged paganism, for as you well know, in Judaism no person can be God, and God does not have a son, he did have “sons” who were the angles, the original darlings of his heart, but that is a entirely different matter and pertains to Jewish mysticism. Most Jews never thought about it.

What the Nazirenes were doing was extremly radical, convincing Jews to go vegetarian was a big deal, and I feel that if Hitler had known the historical truth regarding these Nazirenes, perhaps the holocaust never would have happened, and it was a holocaust, a “burnt offering” to the sadist God the Demiurge, who is not the true father of the Jews but non-angle gentiles, he hates the Jews, but uses them, he is a scumbag and every civilization in the universe knows it, it is no secret, but they left their original Essen God, and worshiped him, and he wanted many animal sacrifices, and so they performed him, and I’m sure that he did want them to stoop so low as for Abraham to sacrifice his own son, and it was most likely not a angle of the Demiurge who told him not to, but was most likely his own consience that stoped him.

If James the Just and the Nazirene movement succeeded, all Jews would be Nazirenes, what Saul did not get was that Nazirenes opposed animal sacrifice on moral grounds with nothing to do with “religion”. He never got them, he was always their adversary.

So, how does it feel to know that you have the emotional makeup of a un-intelegent anit-semetic Jew?

A true patron of the synogoge! You dummy! Plus the word synogoge did not exist in Yeshua’s day, only the word temple existed, that was all written in by hypocritical anti-semites in Rome, it is historical non-sense.

St. Paul is the one who said “the Jews killed jesus, the prophets, and are the enemies of mankind”, but Hitler still detested St. Paul, and Jews of his day did too, becuase back then they were nationalists, including the Jewish Christians lead by James, they wanted non-Jews out of their country. St. Paul was for race-mixing and for meat eating, and the Jewish Christians led by James were agianst race mixing and promoted vegetarians as they themselves were vegetarians, particuarly James the Just, this is all well documented, every historian from the first century on to the 3d says James did not eat meat, this a apart of the spiritual movement happening in Judea, and St. Paul tried to equate vegetarianism with kosher law, one has to do with light and comppasion, the other is just a rule, he was deffinaitly a foe of these nazirenes from the begining of his carrer all the way to the end.

Actually, you will find much more anti-semetic statements in the Old Testament Jewish scriptures themselves than in the Koran.
I mean the God of the old Testament is always punishing the Jews for something. The Bible as a whole is a very anti-semetic book, even though God chose the Jews, he has a ubsurd way of showing it, and never refrains from giving numerous stupid reasons why he hates the Jews. So, actually Islam always was the least anti-semetic of all the abramic religions! But Hitler seems to like the Muslims enough to invite them to Germany for tea and crumpits. In the Middle ages Islamic civilization guarded the Jews from attacks from Christians, allowed them to practice their religion, naming them the people of the Book, showing them unlimited respect, and many Muslim alcemists studied kabbalah the jewish mystism.
unfourchunatly Muslims still wanted Jews under their rule, and never suspected that they would ever want their land back enough to kill them for it. Well, the Jews have come along way, from stoning people to death for saying the wrong thing they now have a democracy where one is free to follow any religion of their choice, and freedom to be free from religion, they have built a paradise, can you imagine what a dream come true this is for them? After thousands of years, they not only have their own land, but have actually built a oasis their, as advanced as any western nation.
Personally I don’t think it was worth the death of one palestinian, and I hope that they make up for the damage they have cased these people by first saying sorry, and then they should build roads, schools, hospitals, and give free food to people who are struggling in poverty, also build new apartments for them to live in, this is the least they can do.


For anyone serious on this blog, I give you two book titles to massage your brains:”Behind the Dictators” (1941) by L.H. Lehman and “No Friend of Democracy” (1942) by Edith Moore.
(free PDF downloads)
I do hope that these books do not prove to be beyond the intellectual capabilities of anyone on this blog.
Happy reading!!!


“Bolshevism practises a lie of the same nature, when it claims to bring liberty to men, whereas in reality it seeks only to enslave them.”

This sentence can only be technically understood by people with an IQ over 120. It demands thinking. And 90% of the population in a given country is clinically unable and unwilling to do it. That’s why they elect leftist politicians and their banker backers.

Hitler understood that the masses were stupid, and that’s why he attained power. The circumstancies of the epoch are here irrelevant. Even with the best circumstancies, a political man who idealizes the common man and talks to him like he would talk to a scholar is condemned to fail.

The American and European modern far rights idealize democracy, and if they do not, they still idealize the people. It’s why they fail (read Linder on this). And it’s very funny to witness.

The English translation shows many errors. For example, Hitler didn’t say: “In the long run, National Socialism and religion will no longer be able to exist together.”

He said: “Auf die Dauer vermögen Nationalsozialismus und Kirche nicht nebeneinander zu bestehen.”

Kirche means church, not religion.

For all German speaking readers I recommend the following edition: Heinrich Heim – Monologe im Führerhauptquartier 1941-1944.

It’s the most authentic edition of the Table Talks.


[…] Anglin’s POV is right insofar as a pragmatic tactic for an exoteric site such as The Daily Stormer. The Nazis did about the same, especially Goebbels: sell the Jewish problem to the Aryan masses! But more esoteric NS leaders, such as Hitler and Himmler, in their inner circles also talked about what we might call the Christian problem, often as if it was a more elemental problem than the Jewish problem (see, e.g., here and here). […]

Comments are closed.