by Joseph Goebbels on Adolf Hitler
and the Christian Question
[Conversation] with the Führer
He also admires the courage of the Greeks in particular. Perhaps there is still a touch of the old Hellenic strain in them. The Serbs are fighting desperately. But once the first resistance has been broken, then the great retreat will begin. More detailed information on the progress of the operations is not yet available. Things must be given time to develop. Piraeus has been mined. The Führer forbids the bombing of Athens. This is right and noble of him. Rome and Athens are his Meccas [emphasis by Ed.]. He greatly regrets having to fight the Greeks. If the English had not established themselves there, he never would have gone to the Italians’ aid. It was their affair, and they should have been able to settle it alone.
The Führer is man totally attuned to antiquity. He hates Christianity, because it has crippled all that is noble in humanity. According to Schopenhauer, Christianity and syphilis have made humanity unhappy and unfree. What a difference between the benevolent, smiling Zeus and the pain-wracked, crucified Christ. The ancient peoples’ view of God was also more noble and more humane than the Christians’. What a difference between a gloomy cathedral and a light, airy ancient temple. He describes life in ancient Rome: clarity, greatness, monumentality. The most wonderful republic in history. We would feel no disappointment, he believes, if we were now suddenly to be transported to this old, eternal city.
The Führer cannot relate to the Gothic mind. He hates gloom and brooding mysticism. He wants clarity, light, beauty. And these are the ideals of life in our time. In this respect, the Führer is a totally modern man.
To him, the Augustinian period [Augustan Age of ancient Rome (27 b.c.e. to 14 c.e.) —Ed.] is the high point of history.[1]
Thank you, Martin Kerr, for bringing the above quote to my attention. I would like to add this one I saw yesterday on Twitter:
Hitler expressed agreement with Nietzsche’s rejection of Christianity. In January 1941, Goebbels recorded in his diary that Hitler was riled up against scholars, including philosophers, but he made an exception for Nietzsche, who, he asserted: “Only Nietzsche is an exception here. He proved in detail the absurdity of Christianity. In two hundred years it will only remain a grotesque memory. We must gradually undermine it in all areas. Above all, among the younger generation.”
Thus, Hitler approved of Nietzsche’s anti-Christian stance and predicted the ultimate demise of Christianity.[2]
___________
[1] Source: The Goebbels Diaires: 1939-1941. Translated and edited by Fred Taylor, Penguin Books, NY, 1982. Entry for April 8, 1941, pp. 304-305.
[2] Barch N 1118/13 Die Tagebücher von Joseph Goebbels, Eintrag vom 30. Januar 1941, p.64.
24 replies on “Commentary”
I was dwelling on Hitler’s words here: “We must gradually undermine it in all areas. Above all, among the younger generation.”
I completely agree (as even Lenin remarked on) that it is the youth – once suitably enthused and educated – that must be at the forefront of any change in society. It is a shame for us that no only do we still have that dying Christianity to content with among Aryans, but we also have the vast hordes of normies/neo-Christians, surely a consequence itself of the inability to defeat Christianity earlier (as much as a civilisation-wide product of the loss of the second world war to Savitri’s ‘death forces’) which, as we have agreed here, would have been more prudent for Hitler to have focused on and achieved. From what I gather he opposed it. He just did not oppose it quite enough; with enough prominence. Perhaps his shift was too gradual; too accommodating. For example, I have read about the gottgläubig principle (which in a principle I agree with), but I cannot imagine Hitler with his Sun personality, would have been able to bring himself to crucify unrepentant Christians, as we have remarked on ourselves on this site. I think our coming youth will have to be encouraged to be far fiercer than those of his generation; far more ruthless.
I see things differently.
Hitler did exactly the right thing regarding the CQ. As seen in his dinner table conversation, he wouldn’t wage open war against Christianity because that would be political suicide; instead, he pursued a gradual education process. Although several anti-Nazi preachers ended up in Dachau, that was very wise.
What wasn’t wise was believing that the JQ was the main problem! In that, the entire German National Socialist movement—like today’s white nationalists—failed miserably. My two previous posts, one a magnificent quote from William Gayley Simpson, argue that the main problem was (and still is) the CQ, although now in the form of atheistic hyper-Christianity.
Just for the record, “The Gottgläubig (literally believing in God) principle was a religious designation used in National Socialist Germany to describe citizens who left Christian churches but maintained a belief in a higher power or divine creator. It was a state-sponsored form of deism designed to replace traditional religious affiliations with a worldview rooted in Nazi ideology.”
Here we see also that the Nazis weren’t totally exempt from Jewish infection, since Gottgläubig implies monotheism: something foreign to the Aryan (before the Xtians took over the Roman Empire). A genuine transvaluation involves rejecting Jewish monotheism, which is why I, with poetic license, speak of “the Gods” and never of “God”.
Oh fair play. I didn’t know that. I interpreted Gottgläubig as allowing for pantheism/panentheism (and, as such, accommodating of Pagan monotheism/henotheism). I don’t necessarily speak with poetic license though – I’m agnostic over non-Christian God ideas.
I take it the problem then was not that he did not pursue the right course of action with regard to Christianity, but that he didn’t win the war, so was unable to continue the process to satisfaction (thus averting neochristianity – which seems to have a lot in common today with that was considered then as ‘Marxism’; also an atheistic development of Christianity).
But therein lies the problem.
Hitler didn’t win the war because he was unaware that the CQ, as William Gayley Simpson stated in the post preceding this one, is the primary cause of the Aryan decline.
Had he known this, he would have said in a soliloquy: “Oh Gods, we have a monumental problem before us: to eradicate every vestige of Judeo-Xtian infection from the German collective unconscious (and eventually, from the Nordic countries)! What shall I do? I will have to re-educate my people. It could take us a century to eradicate every trace… I cannot be distracted by more wars when I have a huge problem at home…!”
Hitler could have thought this after defeating England and France on the continent, in addition to occupying Czechoslovakia. He could have negotiated the Polish corridor without crossing the red line drawn by the British. The non-aggression pact with the USSR could have continued until Hitler had the bomb before Stalin did.
But the most important thing is, as I said last year on this site, on September 17, 1941 the Einsatzgruppe, already overwhelmed by the intensity of its genocidal task in the East, suggested that the extermination of the Jews would not solve all the problems:
Of course! Those doing the dirty work knew the infection went far beyond the Jewish problem. Notice that I’m criticising the project to holocaust Jews not out of love for them, but out of love for the Germans, who put the cart before the horse—and that’s why everything went wrong for them!
The correct thing would have been: “We have to put our own house in order (a century of Judeo-Christian deprogramming) and then we’ll see what to do.” It wasn’t possible any other way because the Americans were going to get the bomb before the Germans. The mistake of Hitler and his movement in general was not realising what an autobiographer, William Gayley Simpson, realised.
Do you see now why in-depth autobiography is so important for our cause? Potentially, it could remove the last vestiges of Semitic malware, at least among autobiographers…
________
[1] RSHA IV-A-1, Report on Operations in the USSR, No. 86, NO-3151.
From everything I’ve read, Hitler placed very little importance on the development of an atomic weapon. I think someone in his inner circle even asked him about the possibility of using a doomsday type weapon and he was quite dismissive of it.
I did a little more research on this. Apparently, Otto Skorzeny claimed in a book he wrote that he had a conversation with Hitler in 1944 regarding the possible use of a nuclear weapon. Skorzeny stated that Hitler said he was against the use of nuclear weapons as they would lead to the end of humanity or something to that effect. Of course, like a a lot of quotes attributed to Hitler, it can’t be proven that ge ever said such a thing.
Hitler was a man against Time. Even he hadn’t went along with Ribbentrop’s pact with the Bolsheviks, they would have soon fabricated justifications (Casus Belli) for a war with Germany.
Even if somehow the Germans had captured both the Kremlin and the Caucasus oil, the USA controlled more oil than every other country in the world combined. It was capable of waging two simultaneous intensive wars across opposite ends of the Atlantic and Pacific. Then it produced the atomic bomb.
Hitler, the Sun Avatar, should have protected the National Socialist seedling – a bastion of Anti-Judaism – in Central Europe for 25 years. Then, he should have been succeeded by an Anti-Christian Warlord, potentially Himmler, who would have, with Germany’s advanced rocket technology, combined with atomic energy, destroyed Moscow, London, New York and Washington DC.
Only then, under the banner of the Swastika, would Europe have remained free for another 50 to 100 years to cleanse it’s collective subconscious (and blood) from the rotten Cross.
None of this came to pass. This would have been the fastest and least painful way to cure our spiritual syphilis. No, we whites have proven we don’t deserve this cure. It’s going to be brutal, agonizing, cruel and long-lasting.
Precisely because the sins the Aryan committed against himself are so great, and because the relatively benign Third Reich was annihilated by them in WWII and vilified ever since, the punishment must now be of biblical proportions, and it’s not even clear that he will survive the apocalypse.
That is what white nationalists fail to understand by focusing on Jewry, as if it weren’t sinful to follow the New Testament morality developed by Jews (which every Aryan follows, including the nationalists).
@C.T.
Interested in hearing more about how you think Operation Barbarossa was a mistake. The Germans struck while the Soviets were still weak and building up their military industrial complex. There was a window and the Germans smashed it. It was their only chance. How would it have been beneficial to wait a few years for the Soviet military industrial complex to build up and then fight a defensive war against a much stronger opponent on your own territory?
@Mauricio
“Hitler, the Sun Avatar, should have protected the National Socialist seedling – a bastion of Anti-Judaism – in Central Europe for 25 years.”
How would he have accomplished this? Annihilation was coming for Germany in short order.
@Furious Hans
When Hitler was about to invade the USSR, an old German woman, something like a Cassandra, warned him against it because she had seen a lot of blood in her vision.
Hitler not only ignored her but also a friend who had lived in Russia and had warned him of what would happen; he also ignored the advice of his generals, who knew what had happened to Napoleon.
Imagine a scenario like the one in the movie It’s a Wonderful Life where an angel showed Hitler what would happen before he embarked on that operation…
Do you honestly think he would have invaded Russia after precognitively visualising the Hellstorm Holocaust?
I think it depends on what would have happened if he didn’t. Say he had a 5% probability of winning by launching Barbarossa when he did. That 5% being predicated on the longshot of the USA not entering the war (as they were unbeatable at the time). Alternatively, say he waited 3 years for the Soviets to invade as a much stronger force. America would likely have already intervened on behalf of Britain and France – 0.1% chance of winning. All this to say, Hellstorm appears to have been unavoidable. Germany was ticketed for destruction simply for rebuking international finance and proving the effectiveness of the autarkic template (beautifully Spartanesque of them, I must add).
I disagree.
Hitler should never have signed the pact with the Soviets. It was a trap. Ribbentrop was a naïve russophile. Wracked with guilt, he later in the war even volunteered to assassinate Stalin in a fake peace conference.
I agree that Germany was earmarked for destruction. I also agree with Suvorov’s work in which the Reds mobilized rapidly for an offensive war, ready to strike exactly two years after signing of the pact – late August 1941.
After the pact was signed, the only chance Germany had to survive was to disregard all flanks and capture Moscow before the rains of October. A scenario which I spent hundreds of hours researching multiple sources and gaming with maps to calculate different outcomes. In all iterations of possible Barbarossas, only 25% of campaigns succeed.
And even with Moscow captured, it doesn’t guarantee a Soviet armistice. It is merely the minimum requirement for a potential Red ‘truce’ by 1943…
Suvorov’s thesis that the Red Army had made extensive preparations for an offensive war in Europe, but was totally unprepared for defensive operations on its own territory, is controversial to say the least. Even assuming this author is right, it’s still a blunder to “sacrifice the queen” while chasing checkmate—as we chess players say—since that tactic turned out to be a miscalculation. The correct course of action would have been to develop the bomb from the outset (at that time, Germany was at the forefront of rocket technology).
In “The Enemy of Europe,” Francis Parker Yockey wrote concerning Adolf Hiter:
@C.T. all in on the bomb seems like it should have been at the core of the strategy, agreed. Options really open up with the ultimate weapon at your disposal.
I just wanted to say, I didn’t want to comment on this publicly, initially, as I sensed it might incense tempers but I regret slightly to say (and hope I do not cause offence) that I disagree with Martin Kerr (and Yockey).
How is one possibly to learn from Hitler’s errors if they place him on such a pedestal that it cannot even be recognised that yes – the greatest Aryan of all time to date though he was – he made errors?
From what you said (and the evidence you have shared in recent posts), we would do well not to heed Hitler’s example over his handling (or non-handling in fact) of the Christian Question. We are not journalists or big-mouths who think ourselves better, as if to gloat over his misfortune, only, we have his (forgivable) failure to learn from, whereas he did not have the body of research (Carrier and the like) that we now possess – so the chances are, if we assimilate it correctly… we would indeed probably not make that mistake in our future decisions!
Just for the record, Ben has in mind the 21st-century work of Richard Carrier, who has demonstrated to my satisfaction that Jesus didn’t exist (something the National Socialists ignored in the 20th century). The Gospels are pure literary fiction written by Jews after the Romans destroyed Jerusalem.
The quotes I have been making, and will continue to make, from Adam Green’s very recent book corroborate this view.
The Christian Question is a dead end. Logic cannot defeat faith. Maybe Hitler realized this fact.
I won’t respond to what you say below (and it’s not certain that Ben will want to tomorrow).
Kerr and Yockey are correct. Without Hitler, no stand would have been made. Monday morning quarterbacking his every decision is a gay larp.
I had to pause for a while as I didn’t understand your straw man at first (and don’t know the expression ‘gay larp’ – I assume it’s an American WN term). No one was arguing for a situation ‘without Hitler’ nor was his ‘every decision’ critiqued. I think the point was that, yes – and without any insult to him and his memory whatsoever – no one is perfect in their decision-making. For example, I’ve mentioned some less-than-ideal facets of Aktion T4 on here before. Most of his decisions were very prudent, true. But I ask again, how can we learn from his errors if we can’t even accept at base point that he might have made some? It’s not petty criticism for its own sake – it’s pragmatic planning. It seems ‘gayer’ somehow to effectively act as yes-men and sycophants for him, without independent review as to why he was indeed so great a character, to whom we are forever indebted (despite a few matters we’ve gone over). As with the thread on David Irving, there’s a difference between respecting a great figure and indiscriminately kissing his ass.
As for Christians, I agree with you to some degree – their deluded faith certainly is very hard to shake, but we’ve planning for all out revolution in future generations on this site, and I’m sure bullets (etc.) could defeat them if words couldn’t, let alone a string of occupied crosses stretching into the horizon. One can at least try (I’m aware that American Christian Nationalist militias are well-armed, but I mean Christians in general, not that latter ‘having their cake and eating it’ group). I still think it’s worthwhile in the meantime keeping open-minded to de-conversions. I was raised as a devout and practising Catholic for example, right into my 20s (and again with a brief return in my 30s), and I’ve transvalued my own values these days nonetheless. I think César has had similar.
Without wanting to be too fatalistic, I think coming hard times will go some way to removing their blinkers also, especially if one country or another decides to act publicly in a thoroughly non-Christian way (for example, completing the Palestinian genocide, or a nuclear strike on Iran), or if an industrial-scale fertiliser-shortage famine wipes out the global south and, due to financial tightening, no foreign aid is provided.
Agree with everything you said. Still don’t understand how Germany was supposed to defeat America and the Soviet Union, regardless of the potential strategic and tactical mistakes made by Hitler and company.