Below, an abridged translation from the third volume of
Karlheinz Deschner’s Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums.
Portrayals of the biblical female world
Among the singularities of the Old Testament lies the more or less strong opposition, that it always found a place in Christianity, about this section of the ‘Word of the Lord’: the most extensive. It not only was full of enormous warlike cruelty, but also consecrated deceit, hypocrisy and treacherous murder. For example, the heroic deeds of Phinehas, who sneaks into the tent and pierces a couple of lovers with a sword; the bloodthirsty actions of Judith, who enters the camp of the Assyrians and treacherously murders General Holofernes; the fatal blow of Jael, who amicably attracts Sisera, the fugitive captain of the king of Hazor, who is exhausted, and murders him from the back.
These and other similar acts have more than two thousand years and not only do they appear in the Bible: they have been justified and exalted through the ages. Even in the 20th century the cardinal archbishop of Munich and expert in the Old Testament, Michael Faulhaber, military prior of the emperor, follower of Hitler and post festum of resistance, pompously praises ‘the act of Judith’: the action of a woman that, according to Faulhaber, has ‘lied’ first, then ‘woven a network of conscious lies’ and finally ‘killed a sleeper in a treacherous way’. However, ‘as a warrior of the Most High, Judith felt she was the depository of a divine mission. The struggle for the walls of Betulia was ultimately a war of religion’.
If something ‘sacred’ is at stake, the Church hierarchs always consider any diabolical action valid provided that it is in the interest of the Church; that is, of their own. Consequently Christian Friedrich Hebbel, a vehement detractor of Christianity (‘the root of all discord’, ‘the smallpox virus of mankind’) with his Judith (1840), which made him famous, is disqualified for presenting only one ‘sad caricature of the Biblical Judith’.
Another poet deserved a much more favourable opinion from the same ecclesiastical prince. After Faulhaber reminded us the feat of Jael with the words of the Bible (‘Her right hand to the workman’s hammer, And she smote Sisera; she crushed his head, She crashed through and transfixed his temples’), he says nonetheless that this is ‘unworthy, perfidious, hypocritical and murder’. But the Bible glorifies this woman as a ‘national heroine’ through the hymn of the prophetess and Judge Deborah. And so the entire Catholic world celebrates her for two millennia and also her most famous author, Calderón de la Barca:
In one of his sacramental plays he provided Judge Deborah with the allegorical figures of prudence and justice; and Jael the other two cardinal virtues, temperance and strength. Jael, who destroys the head of the enemies of the revelation, becomes a projection of the Immaculate, who, according to the words of the Latin Bible, crushes the head of the old serpent. Hence Calderón’s words while destroying the head of Sisera: ‘Die, tyrant, to arms’. Under the pen of Calderón the whole story of Deborah becomes a little Marian doctrine.
Nice expression that of the ‘little Marian doctrine’!
At least for those who know—because the great mass of Catholics are ignorant—, Mary is not only the Immaculate, the caste, the queen, the triumphant dominator of the impulses: but the successor in the head of Janus of her ancient predecessor, Ishtar, the virgin Athena, the virgin Artemis, also the great Christian goddess of blood and war; not only ‘our beloved Lady of the Linden’, ‘of the green forest’ but also of murder and massacres, from the beginning of the Middle Ages until the First World War.
Faulhaber published on August 1, 1916, ‘the day of commemoration of the mother of the Maccabees’, in ‘war edition’, the 3rd revised edition of his Charakterbilder der biblischen Frauenweit (Portrayals of the Biblical Female World) to ‘bring to the German feminine world in bloody and seriousness the days and the examples still alive of biblical wisdom: the sources that still emanate spiritual strength and altars still flaming above-earthly consolations’. Women could ‘learn much war wisdom’ from these biblical women; ‘much sense of courage’, ‘much spirit of sacrifice’. ‘Even in the days of the war the Word of the Lord is still a light in our path’. And in the 6th edition, Cardinal Faulhaber presents his Portrayals in 1935, the Hitler era, and praises Deborah as ‘a heroine of ardent patriotism’, ‘which makes in her people a rebirth of freedom and a new national life’.
______ 卐 ______
Liked it? Take a second to support this site.
8 replies on “Christianity’s Criminal History, 78”
The moral of the cardinal Faulhaber story is that you cannot use the folklore of the Enemy’s Book for pan-Germanic purposes: precisely the sin that WNsts continue to commit. As I pointed out last Friday, Mason recently wrote this gem: ‘The entire Bible is OUR BOOK, dealing with OUR origins, OUR history and OUR destiny…’
If the Bible is the Aryan epic poem par excellence, why should whites read Pierce’s or Kemp’s histories of the white race (the real history of the white race I mean)? Isn’t the Jewish Bible, so beautifully illustrated by Doré, more than enough? (Keep in mind that Doré et al just Nordicized their engravings and paintings: the Semites did not look like Aryans.)
“The moral of the cardinal Faulhaber story is that you cannot use the folklore of the Enemy’s Book for pan-Germanic purposes…”
Why not? If, say, Unity Mitford, instead of shooting herself in the head, had instead returned to England and, by deceitfully insinuating herself into his confidence, shot Churchill, and then cited as her example Judith or Jael, why would it be wrong?
Your example is hypothetical. In real life, today’s Xtians use the OT to admire Jews and the NT to love non-whites. The Bible is good for the Jews and ungood for us.
True. But then here your quarrel isn’t with the Bible in itself, but only in the way it’s used today. In turn, this is similar to the argument — which I think some around here have made — that technology isn’t bad in itself, but only in the way it’s sometimes used. Yet if Hitler had won the war, perhaps with the assistance of a hypothetical Unity Mitford assassination of Churchill, then Faulhaber’s use of Biblical exemplars for women would have been vindicated.
So now the shoe is on the other foot. Aren’t you arguing that the Bible, because of its semitic origins, is a technology that is inherently going to produce bad results for Aryans?
Yeah, and curiously, Nietzsche liked those biblical stories. (By the way, those women look like the heroine of Covington’s Freedom’s Sons: a latter-day Jael who killed US president Hunter Wallace with a pencil.)
It seems that Nietzsche only rejected the suicidal role of NT compassion—see for example what I said yesterday about Greggy Johnson’s neo-Christianity.
Well, I have to disagree with you, in that I think Christianity would be toxic even if Christ had been non-Jewish, as Hitler thought. It’s toxic simply because it’s wrong in its worldview; it’s conception of the world and man’s place in it is preposterous and its moral prescriptions are opposed to Nature. But Christianity isn’t bad just because a Jew thought of it and popularized it, any more than relativity theory is wrong because the Jew Einstein thought of it and popularized it.
As far as these OT stories about warrior women, I see it as a kind of proto-feminism. Like the activities of Hanna Reitsch and Countess von Stauffenberg during WWII, both of whom were winners of the Iron Cross, it’s a bad effect of technology, but one that is forced simply by the structure of reality. Using women effectively can make a difference in war, which is the ultimate technological proving ground. That’s just a fact, whether it’s Judith and Jael, or our hypothetical Unity Mitford, or those two very real and heroic aviatrices. That this can have the unintended consequence of promoting feminism is an example of why technology has, in itself, destructive effects quite apart from the intentions of its users or inventors. From this proposition also follows a corollary: The more powerful a technology is, the more destructive it will be to both race and culture.
What Nietzsche believed is not necessarily what I believe.
Since I was 17, I hated Xtianity simply because it destroyed my life. N was always unconscious of the devastating role that his father’s Xtianity played in his early childhood (cf. Alice Miller’s The Untouched Key) or at least he didn’t write about it.
Off Topic: Saw this on gab. Rabbi Saul swindles money from the Macedonians and sends it to the “saints” or Jewish Christians in Jerusalem. He tells us that because gentiles are endebted to Jews for “spiritual things” that we ought to give them our money.
So because of the Jews’ mystical mumbo-jumbo – which costs them nothing! – we ought to give them our money.
“26for it pleased Macedonia and Achaia well to make a certain contribution for the poor of the saints who [are] in Jerusalem; 27for it pleased well, and their debtors they are, for if in their spiritual things the nations did participate, they ought also, in the fleshly things, to minister to them.”
Young ‘s literal translation. An exerpt from Romans chapter 15.
Again, remember that the pre-christian Macedonians slaughtered a pig in the Temple to IHVH, erected a statue to Zeus, there, and tried to exterminate the Jews.
This perfectly illustrates why the Bible – both testaments – should be totally rejected.