HTT_2_3-13-14_0.mp3
(13.48 MB)
March 13, 2013
Carolyn Yeager and Ray Goodwin read and comment on the Sat. July 5th through July 15th, 1941 dinner table monologues by the German Fuehrer, as taken down by an adjutant and checked for accuracy by Martin Bormann. 59m. Some highlights from the program:
- Russians do not naturally incline toward a Western, Aryan type of organized state;
- Expansion into the East will create new tourist destinations reachable by autobahn;
- Moscow must disappear and Bolshevisim be exterminated;
- The dominion of natural law, no education in atheism, Christianity less tolerant than the ancient world;
- Moral law governs the actions of Germans, making them uniquely capable of a revolution in religion;
- Racial migrations, and “way of eating” a typically racial characteristic;
- Stalin an extraordinary figure in history.
Image: July 1941. A proud time: Hitler with Field Marshal Keitel and Reichsmarschall Goering (far right) in conversation with Knight's Cross winner Werner Mölders (left). [click on image to enlarge]
The edition being used was translated by Norman Cameron and R.H. Stevens, published by Enigma Books, New York, and can be found as a pdf here.
- 1499 views
Comments (2)
Original comments on this program
carolyn
12 Responses
katana
March 15, 2014 at 9:57 am
A very good start by Ray and Carolyn, although it’s immediately apparent that Hadding’s skill at putting on various accents would be useful to distinguish who is saying what. But that will likely sort itself out.
Ray mentioned two or three times that the rejection of Christianity by Hitler did not mean the acceptance of atheism, that there is something in between. I agree fully with this in a practical sense.
In TT 3 AH said:
“Fundamentally in everyone there is the feeling for this almighty, which we call God (that is to say, the dominion of natural laws throughout the whole universe). The priests, who have always succeeded in exploiting this feeling, threaten punishments for the man who refuses to accept the creed they impose.
”
In TT 4 AH said:
“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.”
I think any plain reading of the above leaves no doubt that AH here, at least, rejects Christianity. And any plain reading of history shows that Christianity exterminated its enemies without mercy until it lost secular power.
But the supporters of Christianity will all say that the excesses of past Christianity were not “true” expressions of it. Well to them I would say that there is no “true” expression of Christianity. There are just endless variations of it as the circumstances demand.
I think Christians are simply victims of brainwashing. And that Hitler thought that, yet needed to work with what he had in hand.
Bill Krapek
March 15, 2014 at 10:23 am
I trust your judgement on the authenticity of these talks, Carolyn. And I don’t mind if Hitler’s more pagan than Christian. I never really believed he was one of us anyway. (And that wasn’t because he was mean to the poor Jews.)
But it does tell me that we’ve a natural cleavage in the White community among those who are conscious of the struggle. My position – which I go over on Tan’s program – is that the Israelites were Aryan. Since I last wrote him even more parallels between the Israelites and other Aryans have become obvious to me. For example, the prophet Samuel was horrified that the Israelites were demanding a king. Meanwhile I’d noticed that the Philistines – who were Aryan – never had a king. You only hear of the Five Cities of the Philistines or the Lords of the Philistines. And Israelites had a very eccentric alter for offerings; it had four horns. Sure enough, we dig up Philistine alters and find they have horns.
On the other hand, in the old Hebrew “Canaanite” was a well known byword for a merchant. And who are known as merchants? Semitic Jews. NOT Aryans like the Hittites, the Etruscans, the Brahman priests of India, and – of course – the priests of Aaron.
Also: Christianity is RIGHT. I won’t go into the prophetic details on why that is. But as far as I’m concerned it’s an open and shut case.
And on a more practical level, Aryan and other White populations BOOM under Christianity. We see that happening right now in Russia, where the Whites there have started having babies again. We saw the exact same thing in the Roman Empire.
Another thing to clear up: WE did not start the Dark Ages. The MUSLIMS did. We now know it wasn’t just in Europe. From Spain to Iran, and from Egypt to Britain, nobody was building stone structures or writing great works of philosophy or creating beautiful works of art. I won’t go into any more details on this because it’s not the place. (And God don’t get me started!) But that is also a compelling case that Christianity should take the pride of place among Whites. The territories of the Roman Empire were getting ready for a boom such as the old Empire could only dream of. The Persian wars and – after that – the hundred year reign of Arab extreme terrorism (probably supported by the Persians) brought the whole thing crashing down. It took us more than a thousand years to recover.
UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF CHRISTIANITY.
Carolyn
March 15, 2014 at 1:27 pm
No one will ever know what Hitler “really thought” about Christianity or religion in general … certainly not you, katana. You are much to eager to announce the “final judgement” on the matter.
Using the word “Christianity” for the official Church doctrines (there were two Christian confessions in Germany to deal with that were opposed to one another), it is easy to claim Hitler “threw the baby out with the bath water”. Also, his “personal views” on certain Church beliefs and practices does not preclude his sanction of these for the nation as a whole as long as there are those for whom they have meaning.
You atheists are every bit as closed-minded as the bible-believing Christians you accuse of such.
Forgot to say that only one person is talking [AH] so why do you think there is a need to distinguish between voices?
katana
March 16, 2014 at 5:41 am
Carolyn, March 15, 2014 at 1:27 pm
“No one will ever know what Hitler “really thought” about Christianity or religion in general … certainly not you, katana.”
———————
We may not ever know what Hitler “really, really, in his heart of hearts, thought” about Christianity but we may know what he “thought” about Christianity by simply reading his Table Talks … certainly even you Carolyn if you are willing to be objective and put aside what I suspect is your wishful thinking.
“You are much to eager to announce the “final judgement” on the matter.”
—————–
Perhaps I may seem a little trigger happy but when we have AH saying; “The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity’s illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew.” it’s pretty plain, is it not?
“Also, his “personal views” on certain Church beliefs and practices does not preclude his sanction of these for the nation as a whole as long as there are those for whom they have meaning.”
—————–
I agree and said as much in my last sentence.
“You atheists are every bit as closed-minded as the bible-believing Christians you accuse of such.”
—————-
I wouldn’t consider myself an atheist, as I simply don’t know the answer as to what has created our world in terms of god or god concepts. If you consider someone who rejects the Abrahamic religions as being basically atheists then I would be one, as I think it’s all clever BS. And most “atheists” that I’ve met are quite open minded and is the very reason they became “atheists”.
“Forgot to say that only one person is talking [AH] so why do you think there is a need to distinguish between voices?”
——————
Only to be clear. What are you implying?
Carolyn, you seem to have overlooked what I wrote: “Ray mentioned two or three times that the rejection of Christianity by Hitler did not mean the acceptance of atheism, that there is something in between. I agree fully with this in a practical sense.”
Carolyn
March 16, 2014 at 2:24 pm
Dear katana,
Yes, I was a little bit testy in my remarks to you. But starting at the bottom, I still don’t get the sense of saying you miss the different voices by Hadding (such as Jewish and British), when there are not any such characters being quoted in Table Talk. So let me ask you: “Only to be clear” about what? What I am implying is that your statement makes no sense to me.
The thing about atheists is: Even though you don’t admit to being one, you are antagonistic to religion (all clever BS, you say) toward those who like being religious. As I see it, religions are created by man, certainly not by “GOD.” As men, we create all our institutions, culture and beliefs, and call it civilization. In nature, we see the true face of God, and in what we call Natural Law, and Universal Law(s). It’s the way things operate that we cannot change no matter how much gold and silver we can accumulate, or paper bills, etc. Our world of mental and social constructs is of our own creation that derives from our intelligent brain and free will. Therefore, religion and religious beliefs can be good or ill (depending on your perspective, of course) AND therefore are relative, not absolute as Church leaders would have us believe. The early Christian (catholic) church was founded on the supposed command of Jesus Christ to Peter to “build his church upon this rock (Peter)”. Thus it claimed to be of divine origin … and still does (sort of). Therefore the Pope can speak for God. This is what is so easy for a thinking person to see through.
However, there is the cultural aspect of it. Do we want to live in a state of nature (no!), so we end up building our own constructs, from our own intelligence and imagination … based on our desires and needs. This morning, when it occurred to me that it was Sunday, I immediately relaxed and felt happy, as I do on Sundays. Why, because it’s a day set apart for freedom from work and business, set apart originally to turn one’s mind to “Our Creator”, but has become simply a free day. I thought, Ah, blessed Sunday. And I thought about how I automatically come up with that word and what a nice word it is – blessed – but what I really like is not that word but the idea behind Sunday. What if all the days were the same, as it is for the animals. What do they know about Sunday?! All of this is invented by us (yes, I understand about the Holy Spirit). But Nature and the Universe was definitely not created by us, unless it was us on a very different cosmic scale. This is the mystery that religion is meant to represent to us, but like all things it got corrupted. And so is everything else we created corrupted, even science (politicized). So the Christian religion offers us something – many positive benefits – that’s why I don’t like to see it “trashed.”
Once again, I will say that we should not put over-emphasis on any one day or any one thing AH says during his after-meal conversation. And we need to read the entire collection, as Ray keeps reminding us, before we can make any real judgements. We all know that on different days we feel differently and say things differently. What we want to do is look for the themes that come up again and again – I think that will be telling.
katana
March 17, 2014 at 9:14 am
Carolyn, March 16, 2014 at 2:24 pm
“But starting at the bottom, I still don’t get the sense of saying you miss the different voices by Hadding (such as Jewish and British), when there are not any such characters being quoted in Table Talk. So let me ask you: “Only to be clear” about what? What I am implying is that your statement makes no sense to me.”
————
First off, thanks for your considerate and informative reply.
What I meant was of no big deal, other than just to say it required concentration on the listeners part to detect when AH was speaking and when comments were being interspersed within AH’s speech. So I imagined how much easier (and entertaining, I suppose) it would be to follow if Hadding (or Ray) was putting on a German accent for AH’s parts. On reflection that approach (that worked well with TIJ) might come off as sacrilege by some and could easily start to resemble a B-grade parody if not done well.
.
“The thing about atheists is: Even though you don’t admit to being one, you are antagonistic to religion (all clever BS, you say) toward those who like being religious.”
——————-
Although it may seem to make no difference I’m not really antagonistic to the people who are religious but rather I’m antagonistic to the ideas they promote.
.
“As I see it, religions are created by man, certainly not by “GOD.” As men, we create all our institutions, culture and beliefs, and call it civilization. In nature, we see the true face of God, and in what we call Natural Law, and Universal Law(s). It’s the way things operate that we cannot change no matter how much gold and silver we can accumulate, or paper bills, etc. Our world of mental and social constructs is of our own creation that derives from our intelligent brain and free will. Therefore, religion and religious beliefs can be good or ill (depending on your perspective, of course) AND therefore are relative, not absolute as Church leaders would have us believe. The early Christian (catholic) church was founded on the supposed command of Jesus Christ to Peter to “build his church upon this rock (Peter)”. Thus it claimed to be of divine origin … and still does (sort of). Therefore the Pope can speak for God. This is what is so easy for a thinking person to see through.”
———————–
Well said Carolyn. I agree with you that our religions are man-made, despite the religious leaders claims.
.
“However, there is the cultural aspect of it. Do we want to live in a state of nature (no!), so we end up building our own constructs, from our own intelligence and imagination … based on our desires and needs. This morning, when it occurred to me that it was Sunday, I immediately relaxed and felt happy, as I do on Sundays.”
——————-
Aha!, I now see that I need to make sure my comments fall on Sundays or Sunday look-a-likes days!
.
“All of this is invented by us (yes, I understand about the Holy Spirit). But Nature and the Universe was definitely not created by us, unless it was us on a very different cosmic scale. This is the mystery that religion is meant to represent to us, but like all things it got corrupted. And so is everything else we created corrupted, even science (politicized). So the Christian religion offers us something – many positive benefits – that’s why I don’t like to see it “trashed.”
——————–
I appreciate that Christianity does offer comfort and benefit to many people. In my Christian teenage years I too enjoyed the warm and fuzzy feeling of belonging to a social group that was on a life journey with “truth” and JC on its side. The many social activities, group outing and the charms of the preacher’s daughter and other nice daughters were very compelling. In fact, to my later regret I lost many an opportunity with these things by insisting on an in depth discussion of all things theological rather than paying attention to what they were really talking about. But less seriously, there were a group of us, mostly guys, who were very interested, obsessed I’d say, about the truth or not of Christianity. That led to the slow and painful conclusion, over hundreds of hours of intense discussion, that Christianity was a man-made thing. It was a shattering of my world view – as it was all a damn lie – that’s why I, to half seriously paraphrase you, don’t like to see the truth “trashed.”
.
“Once again, I will say that we should not put over-emphasis on any one day or any one thing AH says during his after-meal conversation. And we need to read the entire collection, as Ray keeps reminding us, before we can make any real judgements.”
————————–
Fair enough, Carolyn. Although I don’t always agree with you, it’s only because we’re really on the same side, although coming from different angles, sometimes.
Carolyn
March 17, 2014 at 10:19 am
Well katana, two things in reply:
I am the one who was breaking in as I’m reading Hitler’s words to make an immediate comment, and I was already thinking that I shouldn’t do that. So thanks for saying so and I will now follow Ray’s example and read all of Hitler’s words, or a good portion, before making my comments. It should go smoother that way.
* * *
I was also, like you, one who, when involved with a church or church group, took “what we believed” very seriously and was highly interested in that part, then discovered to my discouragement that others really were not. They were happy to accept without needing it to make sense. But I have come to see that these are still “our people” who are good people. What is the difference, really, between all White people who (we wish) rather unthinkingly identify with other White people as a group, and Christian White people who unthinkingly identify with other Christians as a group? Most White Christians don’t associate personally or intimately with non-Whites. There are notable exceptions, and naturally they get the attention, but more race-mixers are motivated by liberalism than by Christianity, I’m sure.
I’m just saying that this emphasis on Christianity as the Main Problem is overdone. There are many traps that non-Christians fall into that real Christians do not.
* * *
I have been getting more flak about this book than I would have imagined, for all kinds of reasons.
katana
March 18, 2014 at 9:19 am
Carolyn, March 17, 2014 at 10:19 am
“I was also, like you, one who, when involved with a church or church group, took “what we believed” very seriously and was highly interested in that part, then discovered to my discouragement that others really were not. They were happy to accept without needing it to make sense.”
————————
And those others represent the vast majority of Christians, because it’s really all about the social interaction aspect that organized Christianity provides. The ones who are concerned about the real truth or not of the beliefs are few and far between. I’d go as far as to say that the “truth” aspect takes not a back seat but actually is really dumped in the trunk/boot of the religious followers.
It’s like that in every sphere you can think of, not only religion — and it’s probably better that way. The vast majority are the followers. If “we” are not persuading them to follow us, it’s because we’re not doing a very good job. -CY
.
“But I have come to see that these are still “our people” who are good people. What is the difference, really, between all White people who (we wish) rather unthinkingly identify with other White people as a group, and Christian White people who unthinkingly identify with other Christians as a group? Most White Christians don’t associate personally or intimately with non-Whites.”
———————–
Completely agree. I have nothing against Christians as people. White people, whether they are Christians, leftists, liberals or whatever are all part of the White family. But it can’t be ignored that so many Whites have been brainwashed into holding anti-White ideas. And that sadly includes the vast majority of today’s Christians who have been brainwashed into buying into the multicult, egalitarian worldview that is destroying us.
.
“There are notable exceptions, and naturally they get the attention, but more race-mixers are motivated by liberalism than by Christianity, I’m sure.”
———————
Yes, but isn’t liberalism the bastard child, of Christianity and the jews?
.
“I’m just saying that this emphasis on Christianity as the Main Problem is overdone.”
——————-
Yes and no.
From a “Let’s get out and man the barricades.” point of view, then yes. There are fires to be put out, now, so quit squabbling.
But from a longer, deeper, philosophical point of view on the reasons why jews have been able to lead us to racial destruction, Christianity looms large as suspect number one in the lineup.
Mainstream Christianity morphs, accommodates its beliefs to fit the current marketplace of ideas like a whore services customers.
Modern mainstream Christianity/liberalism promotes every ill that jews promotes. It also turns men into wimps and women into bitches. Other than all that it’s great!
You are forced to say “Modern,” aren’t you, for your very sweeping statement. It didn’t use to be that way. That tells us it’s the liberalism, not the Christianity. -CY
katana
March 19, 2014 at 10:03 am
Mainstream Christianity morphs, accommodates its beliefs to fit the current marketplace of ideas like a whore services customers.
Modern mainstream Christianity/liberalism promotes every ill that jews promotes. It also turns men into wimps and women into bitches. Other than all that it’s great! – katana
—————–
You are forced to say “Modern,” aren’t you, for your very sweeping statement. It didn’t use to be that way. That tells us it’s the liberalism, not the Christianity. -CY
———————————
I tacked on “modern”only to narrow the form of Christianity that I was equating with liberalism. Christianity has taken all sorts of forms in its long history, some which you couldn’t easily equate with liberalism of today.
My point is that Christianity and liberalism are very similar because Christianity ‘begat’ liberalism. In Western countries, but perhaps not so much in the US, liberalism has replaced Christianity as the new “religion”. In other words, today’s brainwashed liberals were yesterday’s brainwashed Christians. Yet, another way to put it is that liberalism is repackaged Christianity.
And the reason for that is because Christianity, with all its baggage of superstition and simply unbelievable stories, doesn’t pass the smell test in “educated” societies.
Rejecting the nasty parts of Christianity/liberalism and such ideas today is not to reject our past. It is to learn from our past.
Carolyn
March 19, 2014 at 2:05 pm
That is not true at all. In fact, I think it is a pretty “uneducated” statement.
Rejection of superstition does not lead to liberalism. And I think I prefer a little bit of liberalism, anyway, to what you probably believe.
Let’s wait for the next reading now, okay?
katana
March 19, 2014 at 9:36 pm
OK.
Nick Dean
March 21, 2014 at 5:49 pm
I would think the abiotic oil theory issue came up right behind the discussion on Russians because that theory has always been most popular in Russia where it’s still respectable today.
Deep Oil Replenishment
Rusty
Carolyn and Ray,
Thank you for taking the time and effort to do this series. The audio format is great for listening to while walking and traveling.
I just finished #2 and wanted to say something about the ambient oil theory that was mentioned. This is the theory that oil is not created from ancient organic material but is produced by chemical reaction from inside the earth, possibly even below the crust. I am not an expert but I received my petroleum engineering technology degree 30 years ago and no mention was made of this theory. I have been working in the petrochemical engineering and construction industry for 30 years and I have never heard it mentioned at work or in the trade mags. Even if it were true, which it might be, we draw the oil out much faster than it it is replenished. Perhaps the passage in the book meant that oil moves up from lower formations, which does in fact happen all the time.