The Heretics' Hour: A chat with Fredrick Töben - historian, revisionist and author

John Rees

February 18, 2014 at 5:00 am

Carolyn, there are thinking (self critical) Jews, not much, but there are, and you know of course that Paul Eisen is one of them. I have an e-mail from him, stating the important lines:

“I tried to outline the process in “Why I call myself a Holocaust Denier”

“I very much hope that the truth about Germany will become known.
“I think the outcome when the world becomes aware (and it’s now happening )could be cataclysmic for many Jews. Of course, it’s their (our?) fault but I intend to do whatever I can to seek mercy.”

So yes, Paul Eisen to me is a man with courage.

John

John Rees

February 18, 2014 at 5:12 am

Every era has its lies. Think of the establishment of early science, when some men had the courage to research and think for their own, when it loosed it self from the dogmas of the church. What happened with their pioneers? We all know. It’s the maintaining of power and interest until it goes no longer, until the facts forces the change itself. So in the end, the truth will always comes up, whatever this truth is. In our time it will be the end of the Jewish taboo.

John Rees

February 18, 2014 at 6:35 am

The national-socialist movement was also the first serious attempt in Europe to get rid of the jewish-christian era of more than 2000 years and starting with a new Germanic mindset focused on the Hegelian spirit.

John Rees

February 18, 2014 at 8:37 am

One more remark. In fact the labeling of anyone as “denier”, anti-Semite, hater or whatsoever, shows the lack of going to the core of things. The only thing that matters is how we look to life and our presuppositions connected to it, and all the other labeling stuff is completely mindless.

Thank you, Carolyn, and dr. Töben, for this great “chat”!

John

Carolyn

February 18, 2014 at 10:22 am

Oh John Rees, I am disappointed in you. I have written and talked about Paul Eisen. Did you miss it? Are you too busy reading and admiring Jews like Paul Eisen to read what Carolyn Yeager writes? In the recent The Heretics’ Hour program “All-Hosts Get-Together“, I mentioned his name several times, and what I thought of him. You should listen to that part of the program, perhaps over again, and see if you can ‘get it.’ It’s very important that we ‘get this’; not ‘getting it’ is the cause of our failures. I think it’s in the 2nd hour.

Paul Eisen is the type of “good jew” who is “do[ing] whatever [he] can to seek mercy,” (in his own words). As Tanstaafl puts it so well, that interprets as wanting to make the world safe for Jews … which is what all Jews want. He’s no different. He’s just approaching it from a different angle because they make a point of covering all the bases.

There is a Jewish Holoco$t historian by the name of Laurence Rees, quite well known. Is Rees a Dutch name, by any chance? The Dutch are notorious for being tolerant. The White Network does not accept any Jew, because every Jew (and Eisen strongly identifies as a Jew) goes unerringly in the direction of “what’s good for Jews.” If you ever believe that a Jew is on the side of Whites, you are making a fatal mistake. If you think that White and Jewish interests can ever coincide, and we can exist together on equal terms, we believe you are deluded.

Carolyn

February 18, 2014 at 10:33 am

John – You quote Eisen as saying

“I very much hope that the truth about Germany will become known.”

For Eisen, the “truth about Germany” includes that Adolf Hitler was an evil man who had no right to do what he did to Jews – to “uproot” them and send them out of the country. Or to remove them from positions of influence in vital areas of the German economy and social order. In other words, to “persecute” them.

There are some ‘revisionists’ who agree with this, either in full or in part, so Eisen can be a ‘revisionist’ and still be anti-Hitler. For me, the Truth about Germany includes the Truth about Hitler … no way to separate those.

John Rees

February 18, 2014 at 11:31 am

As I understood Paul Eisen pointed to the hoax of the gas chamber story, perpetrated by Jewry itself. Therefore he asks for mercy.
The “truth” about Hitler as evil is mainstream opinion.

So if the gas chamber story ends up as a big lie, does that mean that the Hitler regime was ethical right? For example, there is left the politics of Tiergartenstrasse 4, i.e. the euthanasia programm of 1939. That will be the next step to focus on for a better understanding and interpretation of the facts.

Rees can be a Dutch name, I am not aware of any Jewish connections to that.

John

John Rees

February 18, 2014 at 12:23 pm

Carolyn, you write:

“If you think that White and Jewish interests can ever coincide, and we can exist together on equal terms, we believe you are deluded.”

The only solution is easy: wheter Jews put aside their identity or they go back to Israel. This will never happen, because the United States are ruled by…Jews.

Carolyn

February 18, 2014 at 1:21 pm

Paul Eisen pointed to the hoax of the gas chamber story, perpetrated by Jewry itself. Therefore he asks for mercy.

Why should they deserve or get mercy? Did they give any? If Eisen is not serving jewish interests, why is he asking for mercy for jews? If he is on the “White” side of this, he should let Whites (and especially Germans) decide what they want to do. But he doesn’t. He keeps up a blog portraying himself (hopefully, he thinks) as the “good jew.”

For example, there is left the politics of Tiergartenstrasse 4, i.e. the euthanasia programm of 1939. That will be the next step to focus on for a better understanding and interpretation of the facts.

It’s already clear that that was an easily defended and well-run program, although controversial, yes. Sensitive and touchy, yes. It was the churches that couldn’t tolerate it and made a fuss, which ended it. Are you of the opinion that it was evil? I’m going to have to do some programs on it.

Rees can be a Dutch name, I am not aware of any Jewish connections to that.

I didn’t mean to imply that there was. Jews came to Holland and took Dutch names for themselves.

Carolyn

February 18, 2014 at 1:31 pm

If the “only solution” will never happen, then there is no solution in your opinion and we must continue to exist together?

Fredrick Toben might say, We should just not bend to their pressure. I say, As long as they are around and given free-rein, it’s not possible to resist their pressure. BECAUSE THEY NETWORK.

Dietlef Busch

February 18, 2014 at 2:41 pm

It was atheistic Bolshevik Jews who started Marxism/Communism and the destruction of Christian Europe,and the murder of millions of Europeans, it was because of Adolf Hitler’s Christianity that the Germans resisted, not despite of it! It is because of Christianity, Europeans are anti-Jew/Muslim, not despite of it! We have defended Europe, because of our Christianity, not despite of it. Furthermore, Christianity pre-dates Judaism, therefore Christianity does not stem from Judaism. Yes, we are disappointed in the Churchians, but that is nothing new, as much as it is nothing new that the politicians are all kosher and fake. Atheism is the death of the Germanic Geist i.e. “Der germanische Geist ist der Geist der Freiheit”

JoshuaF

February 19, 2014 at 3:17 pm

Two comments. First, I agree with Carolyn. The Jews get kicked out of 77 countries 109 times (or whatever the figure is !) So why can’t we learn the lesson that we cannot live with Jews? It is not even worth a discussion any more.

Second here we have pinko, lefty, Australian academic Fred Toben who visits Africa in the 1970s and knows all about it. (I will give him my admiration however for standing up about the Holohoax !)

The difference between Australia (where I spent 25 years and came across quite a few Tobens) is that Australia was settled by whites a hundred years before Africa was settled. The early Australians succeeded in nearly exterminating the entire population of indigenous people and in Tasmania actually succeeded in wiping them out entirely. Australian aborigines were considered vermin and fair game. They could be hunted and shot with impunity. End of problem ! In Africa a hundred years later the Christian church moved in first and introduced modern medicine. Behaviour exhibited by the cousins of the white African settlers who had settled Australia 100 years earlier was now unacceptable. The average African woman produces 10 children. Pre Western medicine only 1 or 2 survive: post Western medicine, they nearly all survive. The result is a population explosion whereby the whites who are not nearly so fecund …or rather, they are responsible in their reproductive activities and only produce the number of children they can afford to give a good start in life…… find themselves vastly outnumbered in only a few decades by Africans who have no such considerations. Toben and similar Australian academics think it right and proper that their white African cousins should have handed over what they created to blacks. In every case, to say the blacks have made a mess of things is an colossal understatement. I could go on and on, but in short what really gets up my nose is his anti-racist hypocrisy.

Then he almost eulogises Mugabe. Mugabe lives in a palace with the utmost opulence. See here http://www.stickboydaily.com/life/robert-mugabe-luxury-harare-palace-pictures/. While his “subjects” live in abject squalor. Mugabe is a Nationalist according to pinko, lefty, Toben ! Oh really !

Dietlef Busch

February 19, 2014 at 5:05 pm

Just another quick note regarding “Euthanasia” (mostly found on websites to “boost” the holohoax), let us address the very concept that the “moral apostles” are now implementing what they have accused (still are) the “evil Nazis” of doing for the last 70 years:-
1) Belgium Close to Allowing Euthanasia for Ill Minors
2)Legality of euthanasia

Fredrick Toben

February 19, 2014 at 10:45 pm

JoshuaF: The confusion expressed in the comment is evident by JoshuaF using concepts such as “pinko” and “lefty”.
This indicates to me there is an affliction of “class-thinking” that has not matured away from the master-servant group think, which is, of course, like the Holocaust belief, as ancient as the Bible itself.
Germanic thinking transcends such slave mentality – and I hope JoshuaF will recognize what implications this brings into his personal life, especially when it gets to the level of the male-female relationship. Will JoshuaF fall into the win-lose trap of Talmudic-deficiency thinking or will there be a revelation enabling the Hegelian win-win dialectic of personal maturity to come to the fore?
Time will tell – but I hope the “pinko-lefty” conceptual framework will be discarded with some urgency so that the Germanic world view emerges unhindered and unencumbered. But then such is not for everyone, as Wagner’s creation is not for everyone….

Dietlef Busch

February 20, 2014 at 8:04 am

I am in agreement with Carolyn and JoshuaF

Hegelian thinking, the precursor to Marxism, is not German thinking, it is an insult to even mention Wagner’s Weltanschauung it in the same sentence as Hegelian Marxism “mind of its own”(der eigene Sinn) which will be the antithesis of Richard Wilhelm von Neutitschein’s “Der Nationalsozialismus als Urbild des Deutschen” (National Socialism as the archetype of the German) which avoids the “Hegelian Dialect Trap” as displayed here “Bomber Harris do it again” or “Rape the German women” and stand our ground as our forebear did with (based on Christian Principles and Morals) Gott Mit Uns

Matthew 1:23

GOD WITH US – Nobiscum deus (Gott Mit Uns) was a battle cry of the late Roman Empire and of the Byzantine Empire, used for the first time in German by the Teutonic Order. In the 17th century, the phrase Gott Mit Uns was used as a ‘field word’, a means of recognition akin to a password, by the army of Gustavus Adolphus at the battles of Breitenfeld (1631), Lützen (1632) and Wittstock (1636) in the Thirty Years’ War. In 1701, Frederick I of Prussia changed his coat of arms as Prince-Elector of Brandenburg. The electoral scepter had its own shield under the electoral cap. Below, the motto Gott Mit Uns appeared on the pedestal.

The Prussian Order of the Crown was Prussia’s lowest ranking order of chivalry, and was instituted in 1861. The obverse gilt central disc bore the crown of Prussia, surrounded by a blue enamel ring bearing the motto of the German Empire Gott Mit Uns.

At the time of the completion of German unification in 1871, the imperial standard bore the motto Gott mit uns on the arms of an Iron Cross. Imperial German 3 and 5 mark silver and 20 mark gold coins had Gott Mit Uns inscribed on their edge.

In the First and Second World Wars German soldiers had Gott Mit Uns inscribed on their Belt Buckles.

To the Germans it was a rallying cry, “a Christian as well as an Imperial motto, the expression of German religious, political and ethnic single-mindedness, or the numerous unity of altar, throne and Volk”.

Sophron

February 20, 2014 at 8:20 am

I would take issue with Dr. Töben’s contention that Christianity is, in its essence, spiritually alien to the Germanic ethos. In the West, Christianity was Germanized as much as the Germans were Christianized, simply by virtue of the nature of missionary movements; the ascetic, world-denying culture of Late Antique Roman Church, in order to secure its very survival, gave way to one informed by the world-accepting character of Germanic folk-religionists. The thought-world that produced such treasures of Germanic civilization as the Beowulf poem, the Heliand, the chivalric romances, the Grail legend, and Gothic architecture is not one of Semitic nomads, and neither is it one of that is a direct continuation of Greco-Roman antiquity. It is instructive that Spengler considers even modern Islamic civilization to be a continuation of the Magian Hochkultur to which Early Christendom also belonged, yet he distinguishes even in the “Dark Ages” of Western Europe the seeds of a new spiritual epoch, the Faustian.

This transformation of Christianity in the West, along Germanic lines, is the subject of an interesting study by James C. Russell in “The Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity: A Sociohistorical Approach to Religious Transformation.” I would also point out that the role of missionary was often played by Germanic peoples, evangelizing their brethren, most famously the prolific Anglo-Saxon missionary work in Continental Europe, establishing dioceses and monasteries that became centers of enormous cultural productivity. From the 7th century up to the 9th century, Anglo-Saxon churchmen established or refounded bishoprics in Erfurt, Würzburg, Büraburg, Eichstätt, Regensburg, Augsburg, Freising, Passau, Salzburg, among other places, and played a leading role in reforming ecclesiastical life and scholarship within the Carolingian Empire in what became known as the Carolingian Renaissance.

When one discards Christianity, one does not purge Germanity of foreign influence, but rather casts aside the brightest jewels from her crown. The Christian faith as we have traditionally known it (until the upheavals of the 20th century) was mediated through the spirit of our civilization and is an authentic manifestation of our character and virtues. It has unquestionably served as the inspiration behind many of our greatest achievements: poetry like that of Walther von der Vogelweide, architecture and technological achievements like that of the Kölner Dom, Bach’s Matthäus-Passion, even the conquest of the Baltic pagans by the Teutonic Knights.

German piety was not a historical aberration. Scrupulosity, fastidiousness, and cleanliness had a fitting home in the various German churches, and fidelity to faith and principle drove many Germans, especially Mennonites, to settle throughout the world, preferring an unknown fate to abjuration of doctrine. In the Russian Empire, along the Volga and in the Ukraine, they quickly became among the most productive farmers.

The tragedy of the contemporary era is that, while the Germans remain scrupulous and deeply concerned with moral cleanliness, their fidelity is no longer to Christ, the God-Man hero who vanquishes death and the serpent, but to the Jew. A mythos that was long serviceable to the German people, and was long oriented toward genuine flourishing, has been inverted into an ersatz religion with its own crude passion plays (by the likes of Wiesel and Spielberg), with its own drama of guilt, but one that saps the vital spirit and offers no hope of redemption.

Dietlef Busch

February 20, 2014 at 12:00 pm

Excellent answer Sophron.

The fact is, that what became to be regarded as “German civilization” was built and constructed on the foundations of Christianity. Every people has a “culture” in some sense of the word; common habits, ways of living, etc. But the way we understand culture today, real culture, “high culture” or advanced civilization if you want to call it that: literature, architecture and grand monuments, great achievements, etc., for most European people this began some time in the last +2,000 years. And for the Germans, just like so many other Europeans, this culture and civilization was founded on Christianity. Prior to this there was a culture or a civilization in a very loose sense, but true culture and truly advanced civilization was built on Christianity. What has come to be known as German culture, and more broadly western civilization itself, would not be without Christianity. To deny Christianity is to deny the whole of German (and European) culture and civilization. It is also worthy to note, that the most ancient German translation of the Holy Scriptures (and recording of the German language as such), was made by Ulfilas, A.D. 360, and it was taken from the Septuagint LXX and New Testament both in the original Greek, and not from the forgeries of the Masoretic text (which in essence means, Luther was not required to make any translations, but which he did and from the Masoretic Text, which all modern “Bibles” were/are translated from – and the more mistranslations, the more mistakes).

Dr. Töben, it may indeed be surprising for you, but Wagner was in fact a deeply philosophical Christian, whose Christianity was infused with the spirit of Schopenhauer’s philosophy, which he first read in 1852 (See M. Boucher, op. cit., p. 18. Schopenhauer’s Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung was first published in 1818.)The Wagner Library

John Rees

February 20, 2014 at 1:39 pm

And who of these commentators can give reasons that euthanasia überhaupt is a good thing, that it is not evil? To me there is a priori knowledge that it is wrong in the core. You only can do such a thing if you suppress violently and rationaly the higher faculties as intuition and conscience within your self.
It has all to do what your presuppositions are: What is life about in the end? Is life a one time experience or is it possible that we can give reincarnation a serious thougt? What is consciousness? Is it right to take life what we ourselfes did not create?

John

John Rees

February 20, 2014 at 2:50 pm

@Dietlef: Are there no differences between the euthanasia programm of 1939 in Germany with today concerning euthanasia?

John

Dietlef Busch

February 20, 2014 at 10:02 pm

@ John Rees

Action T4 (an abbreviation of Tiergartenstraße 4), which came into use AFTER WW II i.e. in the Kangaroo trails. Yes, there is a difference between Allied propaganda and factual truths. You seem to dwell on Allied propaganda of “mass extermination” (holohoax) and NOT the medical term as old as history itself.

Euthanasia (n.): c.1600, from Greek euthanasia “an easy or happy death,” from eu- “good” + thanatos “death” (see thanatology = from 1974 that word has been used principally in reference to specialists in the needs of the terminally ill). Sense of “legally sanctioned mercy death” is first recorded in English 1869.

In August 1939 a Ministry of Justice commission on the reform of the criminal code provided the KdF (Chancellory of the Führer, Kanzlei des Führers) with a
draft law to legalise euthanasia:-

Clause 1. Whoever is suffering from an incurable or terminal illness which is a major burden to himself or others, can request mercy killing by a doctor, provided it
is his express wish and has the approval of a specially empowered doctor.

Clause 2. The life of a person who because of incurable mental illness requires permanent institutionalisation and is not able to sustain an independent existence, may be prematurely terminated by medical measures in a painless manner.

During the autumn of 1940 a law legalizing euthanasia was discussed … but it was never implemented. Revised drafts of the law did the rounds but it never went beyond the final draft. Although consideration was given to euthanasia legislation it was never finally proceeded with or promulgated by decree. Adolf Hitler killed the project on the grounds that it would fuel enemy propaganda. In the end, there was no law which passed the Reichstag which provided for euthanasia in any form.
(Karl-Heinz Roth and Götz Aly, „Das “Gesetz üdie Sterbehilfe bei unheilbar Kranken:. Protokolle der Diskussion über die Legalisierung der nationalsozialistischen Sterbehilfe in den Jahren 1938-1941).

As I have previously pointed out, its main use is to “boost the holohoax”, which were refuted by numerous revisionists Robert Faurisson and Dependent on “Holocaust” Literature and The Wetzel-Lohse Correspondence

You will notice in the second link I gave, the mentioning of the sermon of the Bishop of Münster on 3 August, 1941, his name is not given in that article, but here excerpts out of the sermon:
Excerpt from Bishop von Galen’s Sermon (August 3, 1941 and herewith the answer and here

Therefore, let us take the holohoax out of this discussion for the sake of either being a proponent of the MEDICAL term of Euthanasia or an opponent. John have you ever visited a hospice for the terminally ill, plugged onto life-supporting machines or being on pain killers, a carer or nurse changing their soiled diapers? Can you imagine yourself being in that situation, despite all of the medical advantages, you are in pain and there is no cure for you, that in the end you will die regardless?

Death is very personal John Rees, speaking for myself, it is a matter between me and God (speaking as a Christian)and I will find it a noble cede to spare my family pain and for me to depart this earthly shell in dignity and honour. You on the other hand, have no right to judge my decision or call it evil.

Steven J Lewis

February 20, 2014 at 11:50 pm

I’d like to hear more from Fredrick in regards to his statement about how there is no such thing as asexual, which Veronica Clark claims to be. My thoughts are its become a modern day fad since its history doesn’t reach that far back. Also, most of the information I pull up seems to blur the lines between plants and humans in regards to asexually, asexual, and asexuality. Either way, after seeing VKC’s video of her running around some property out in the boonies. Really bizarre and may explain her asexual claim in a way she refuses to acknowledge. Perhaps she was given a weekend pass from the funny farm.

Anyway, great show Carolyn, as usual.

Carolyn

February 21, 2014 at 12:25 am

Hi Steven – Fredrick will be back sometime in March, after the Heidegger book comes out, so we can delve into the subject of asexuality then. When I was growing up, the concept of a woman being “frigid” was terminology used. Could they be the same thing?

Dietlef Busch

February 21, 2014 at 12:59 am

Ahahaha, they already have their own asexual pride flag Welcome to the Freudian Community *clap your hands* LOL

Sophron

February 21, 2014 at 2:41 am

Mathematician John Hajnal divided Europe into two parts based on fertility, roughly differentiating East and West, but also demarcating between the northern and southern Italy and separating Ireland from the rest of the British Isles. This has been called the “Hajnal line,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hajnal_line , and it has proved to be a useful tool in investigating social differences across Europe.

In non-Mediterranean Western Europe, men and women have tended to marry later and generally at similar ages, have fewer children, and a significant number of individuals never married. Even in preindustrial times, it was not uncommon in many places for as many as 20% of the population to never marry. In an era before birth control, and in which the Church and society proscribed sexual immorality and in which tremendous shame would result from the siring of bastard children, it is not unreasonable to assume that many of these women lived in continent celibacy, whether it was voluntary or not.

But in the South of Italy, in Ireland, and in the East, there have been historically fewer singletons, it was more common for older men to marry younger women, and fertility rates were far higher; women had more children, but fewer of them survived to adulthood.

Contrary to the popular imagination, these trends aren’t “modern” vs. “premodern,” but reflect very old cultural differences in family structure. These differences date back at least to the medieval period.

Compare the Hajnal line with this map based on the work of French anthropologist Emmanuel Todd, which shows the distribution of traditional family models, roughly from the era of 1500-1900. http://i.imgur.com/QEijvOD.png Todd suggests that religious beliefs, ideologies, and cultural differences can stem from basic differences like the structure of a family. Some things jump out at me from the map: Ireland vs. England; Northern Italy vs. Southern Italy; the North of France vs. Mediterranean France. It is hard to draw direct conclusions from just glancing at this, but it is interesting.

My basic point: although “asexuality” as we know it may be a modernist misunderstanding of the human condition, marriage participation varies culturally. And in the Germanic cultural sphere, marriage participation has historically been lower than some other parts of Europe, like Finland, Ireland, the East Slavic lands, or the Mediterranean.

In my opinion, we should be sensitive to the fact that there is great variation, not only across societies, but between individuals. Either because of genetic reasons, upbringing, or personality, just as some have an unusually high degree of sex drive, some have an unusual low degree. Most probably cluster somewhere in the middle. Some individuals who identify as “asexual” may have been traumatized in youth by a violent event, or perhaps, coming of age in a society in which Jewish sleaze predominates cinema and the Internet ( See this article from a Jewish newspaper on the history of Jews in pornography and trash-literature http://forward.com/articles/191724/a-short-history-of-jews-and-obscenity/ ), some may come to associate eros with filth and overreact by assuming a completely desexualized identity.

It is very difficult to find sound information on these sorts of questions, because much of the literature surrounding questions of sex and society has been written with an agenda by Jewish perverts like Alfred Kinsey, hell-bent on destroying whatever remains of Western society by undermining foundational institutions like the family.

JoshuaF

February 21, 2014 at 3:04 am

Dr. Toben, On a re-read of my post, I think it was a bit cheeky and OTT ! It was your comments about Africa, Whites who live there and Africans that annoyed me. On the subject of Revisionism, you have my greatest respect for standing up to the bastards !

No body that I can recall talks disparagingly about their servants. Not these days anyway! I live in Kenya where we are outnumbered over 1000:1 and we would not be tolerated if we did not employ Africans. The unemployment rate is over 70% and half of those in actual employment occupy government jobs. For my part there is no Master/Servant relationship because they are all on contract. There is no dole or social security, but there is definitely Affirmative Action. The only Whites who survive here are either retired on self funding pensions or self employed entrepreneurs. Many of the government functions here have gummed up. The other day, the local Land Registry lost 5 of my files. The only way to get the matter going was to pay a bribe of £50 per file to get them “found”. Is that talking disparagingly about Africans?

My comment had nothing to do with class. It was everything to do with the damage done by academia in Australia to the White Race. I believe that the universities in Australia were and still are, very pinko-lefty. I define that as Anti-Racist which usually means Anti-White. Nothing to do with class! Where did pinko-lefty ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) get its recruits for intellectual content ? Would Malcolm Fraser (the ex Prime Minister found wandering about in a Texas hotel without his trousers!) and the yamulka-wearing, Bob Hawke have succeeded in pushing their multicultural, multi-racial, anti-White, political correct agenda without the support of academia? They did not get much support for that kind of thing from country areas away from the capital cities.

The irony is that Tasmania after making itself 100% white, now sees a lot of Sudanese settled there and no doubt mixing it up sexually with ignorant white girls and boys. Then there is all that BS about aborigines based on guilt. (As in, “The early white settlers, our ancestors, treated the inhabitants terribly badly so we must make amends and prostrate ourselves in abject self hatred so that the aboriginal might forgive us!) You hear all about “aboriginal culture”. I could never quite work out what that was. Does survival on wichety grubs and the ability to build humpys amount to culture? There is aboriginal art which is primitive but can demand very high prices from collectors.

During my 25 years in Australia, I frequently had the finger pointed at me for being white and an exploiter. We white Africans deserved to lose our land, it was their land anyway, etc. But none of the finger-pointers took into account the African black population explosion which is still on-going, or their own history. I thought I detected a little bit of that from you during an excellent interview and probably over-reacted! I am always happy to hear you talk.

I know nothing about Wagner and will look into it.

John Rees

February 21, 2014 at 7:41 am

@ Dietlef. In my opinon “Clause 2. The life of a person who because of incurable mental illness requires permanent institutionalisation and is not able to sustain an independent existence, may be prematurely terminated by medical measures in a painless manner” is evil.
Suppose your own son or daughter according to clause 2 will be killed, do you think it is ok? Could you life with that in peace? Would it be that easy for you? Because it is of the greater good of the improving healthiness of the (German) race? Or would you take your son or daughter out of the mental hospital and take care by your self? I wonder whether that choice was even possible.

According to clause 1: do you think you will have ever the right to take your own life that you did not create your self? Do you understand God so well that you can decide to stop your own suffering?

Is it possible that social Darwinism and (German) Christendom can ever meet? Van Galen makes this clear it is not.

Carolyn

February 21, 2014 at 9:01 am

John Rees – In my opinion, Clause 2 is not evil at all. “Incurable mental illness” means insanity, and “permanent institutionalisation” means round-the-clock care, or else neglect. We are talking about the common good vs. the individual wish or desire. You are not a National-Socialist if you don’t put the good of the nation before the good of a son or daughter. All young men defend the nation at the cost of their lives – would you say that is against God? And who are you, or Bishop van Galen, to know what God wants? It is only your belief.

Further, the idea of taking care of one’s incurably insane “son or daughter” (or spouse or parent) at home is a false proposition – no one does it or wants to do it. If such were the case, healthy productive lives would be used up caring for a totally unproductive life. Insane people are violent, and at that time the powerful drugs we have now were not available. To question whether that scenario “was even possible” shows you want to make a moral judgment against Hitler’s Reich. You should study up on questions before you make moral judgments about them.

Carolyn

February 21, 2014 at 4:29 pm

John Rees:

quotes Paul Eisen:
“I very much hope that the truth about Germany will become known.
“I think the outcome when the world becomes aware (and it’s now happening) could be cataclysmic for many Jews. Of course, it’s their (our?) fault but I intend to do whatever I can to seek mercy.”

So yes, Paul Eisen to me is a man with courage.

Paul Eisen:

I just saw this in the Daily Kos and it’s about resistance to the National Socialist government in Germany.
Recently I had occasion to reflect on what I would have felt had I been around in Germany in the thirties and forties.
Well, I’ll never know. What I do know is that if the story of this young woman and her brother is true [Sophie and Hans Scholl and the "White Rose Society"], then, whatever I may think about National Socialism, I admire their courage.

Eisen’s blogpost is at http://pauleisen.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/cant-forget-wont-forget-18th-february.html

Where one stands on the White Rose Society is the real test. Tune in tomorrow to my Saturday 2-22 show with Andreas Wesserle. I’m going to bring the subject up.

P.S. I hope you don’t think I’m picking on you, John. I’m not, I appreciate your comments – just have some disagreement.

john rees

February 22, 2014 at 4:53 am

@ Carolyn: I appreciate your honesty and straightforwardness. No traps, just Carolyn as she is. We should have more people like you!

John

Smythe

February 23, 2014 at 12:43 am

We are talking about the common good vs. the individual wish or desire. You are not a National-Socialist if you don’t put the good of the nation before the good of a son or daughter.

You’ve got it the wrong way around Carolyn. Having the state kills mentally ill relatives that you would have to otherwise look after places the desires of the individual (to be free of burden) above that of the nation (having a nation of moral, self sacrificing people).

Carolyn

February 23, 2014 at 1:26 am

No, I don’t have it wrong, Smythe. You, and everyone who comes up with your argument, is confused and trying to confuse others.

First, you keep saying they are simply “mentally ill.” But these were extreme cases which, as I said, would be better termed “incurably insane” and were termed that. I already said it is not in the interests of the nation to have these people filling up institutions, and not in the nation’s interest to have its productive citizens used up by taking care of hopeless cases even if they are a relative. It is called a “merciful death” … merciful to all. Do you really think anyone who is in that shape would want to continue in their suffering if they could make the choice? Do you think death is a bad thing? It all hinges on one’s answers to these questions; also to define what is a moral nation. You might be confusing moral with religious.

katana

February 23, 2014 at 5:22 am

Smythe February 23, 2014 at 12:43 am

“We are talking about the common good vs. the individual wish or desire. You are not a National-Socialist if you don’t put the good of the nation before the good of a son or daughter.”

You’ve got it the wrong way around Carolyn. Having the state kills mentally ill relatives that you would have to otherwise look after places the desires of the individual (to be free of burden) above that of the nation (having a nation of moral, self sacrificing people).
—————-

Smythe, I think you have the wrong idea about the process. It wasn’t families caring for mentally ill patients at home wanting the state to “get rid” of them and relieve themselves of a burden. The killings were for institutionalized patients to relieve the wider community of an excessive burden (given the circumstances) that took resources away from much more needy people.

All peoples throughout history (think of indian tribes requiring their elderly to “go for a permanent walk”) have done so and continue to do so in one form or another. It’s simply an issue of where you draw the line and how extravagant a society can afford to be. For example if you live in a city and have a heart attack you can expect medical help in about 10 minutes or so. If you live in some remote part of the country you might be hours away from help and might perish as a result. Isn’t this a form of de-facto euthanasia, that we all tolerate because of the huge burden it would impose on society at large to provide otherwise?

I look forward to a podcast by Carolyn on the T4 program. I suspect that it came to a formal end because most of the worse cases had been dealt with by then.

Sophron

February 23, 2014 at 6:19 am

In the case of the “incurable insanes,” I would support voluntary charity supporting these individuals. You are right that it is basically unfair to mandate that productive citizens support and care for such people, and they constitute a burden on the nation. But even if we are able to alleviate their suffering with euthanasia, by having the state do so, we deprive private individuals and religious institutions of the opportunity to exercise charity and care on a voluntary basis.

Another thing to keep in mind: psychiatric drugs and therapies are available today that were unavailable in the Third Reich, including many classes of anti-psychotic drugs and sedatives. Many of those who were incurable at that time may be, if not curable, then at least treatable. Even if the underlying disease is not responding to treatment, we have the capacity to reduce excitability and agitation and make the anguish more bearable.

Fredrick Toben

February 23, 2014 at 8:17 pm

Permit me rather belatedly to respond to Sophron’s and Dietlef Busch’s comments.

I know it is contentious to claim that Wagner transcended Christianity because Nietzsche’s break with Wagner was allegedly caused by atheist Nietzsche claiming Wagner had fallen back into the religious framework of Christianity. There are also critics who say Wagner himself proclaimed to be a Christian.

This is partially true but the Wagner-Nietzsche break was actually caused by Wagner learning from Nietzsche’s personal doctor of Nietzsche’s homosexuality, and his atheism did not go down well with Wagner because he knew that the religious impulse needs expression. It is possible to proclaim atheism as a dogma, as the Communist/Marxists did, but that then kills the soul – the Godly impulse still hungers for expression.
Pure rationality, as Nietzsche propounded it, cannot come to grips with the depth Wagner achieved in his musical creative impulse, and Nietzsche’s own musical creations were thus devoid of this depth, which further frustrated Nietzsche’s rational impulse – leading him critically to attack Wagner’s works.

This kind of ‘rational frustration’ is expressed in the current criticism of Wagner’s works. We saw it expressed by Dr Lawrence D Mass, Newsletter 746, who is trying to come to grips with Wagner’s creative output by defensively trying to discredit it by imposing on it the usual derogatory concepts such as “antisemite”, “racist”, “Nazi”, etc. and thereby locking it up rationally. Because he cannot cope with Wagner’s universality, Mass, at the beginning of his article, exclaims that he is a gay Jew, as if that had anything to do with Wagner! That’s Mass’ personal problem, and he also has to come to terms with the fact that most people don’t care about his personal problems.

I usually tell the story of Michael Barnard, a one-time respected columnist for The Age, who died last year at 82. He told me the story of a young cadet journalist who during the late 1970s did the rounds of The Age office in Bourke Street, Melbourne, telling everyone he was gay. He knocked on Barnard’s office door and announced to Barnard that he decided to “out himself” and proudly announced he was gay. Barnard used an expletive and bade him depart: ‘I don’t give a f— what you are, just get back to your work!’

This blaming on Wagner all the evils in the world – as his great grandson, Dr Gottfried Wagner, is still doing by running around Europe claiming his great-grandfather, Richard, through his musical creations, was responsible for Adolf Hitler’s rise to power – is so absurd that I wonder whether there is a hidden agenda behind all this. I sense it is a deep-felt psychological inadequacy felt by those who cannot emotionally cope with Wagner’s thoughts and music opening them up to a new perspective of human expression – a revision of the prevailing world view, the creation of a new Weltanschauung.

Adolf Hitler did say to Winifred Wagner that out of Wagner’s works he would like to create a new religion – and this is one aspect of National Socialism that after World War Two still has the guardians of the re-educated German nation fearfully trembling in their shoes.
If we recall that the world view of National Socialism aimed to move the German nation beyond Christianity, beyond Islam and Judaism, even beyond Hinduism and Buddism – and certainly far away from Talmudic-inspired atheistic Marxism-Feminism – then it is clear the 12 years during which Nationalism operated was not enough to bring on a New World Order that through the Hegelian life-giving dialectic would transcend these past religions. Carl Jung recognised in the early stages of the movement the possible emergence of a new religion.

Just a word about the term dialectic. We have a number of different ways of thinking, of perceiving the world. The phenomenological way of understanding the world is through perceiving of the objects in this world without having a detailed thought-through theoretical structure to rely on. Most of us still operate at this level where intuition, the feeling of right and wrong, operate and enable us to make sense of our lives.
The rational approach is the dialectic argument developed by German philosopher G W F Hegel: Thesis –antithesis-synthesis. The physical process in action is illustrated thus: Thesis = man; Antithesis-the opposite = woman; Synthesis – the coming together of the two = the child. The opposites merge and their differences are conserved in the synthesis.

Marx, who claimed to have turned Hegel upside down, because Hegel claimed the Absolute in this pyramid is the IDEA, developed dialectic materialism where, for example the thesis=man, comes together with the antithesis=woman, then the synthesis = the asexual person because man and woman are locked in a life and death struggle, i.e. the woman castrates the man.

What happens here is that this Marxist death-dialectic, of friend-foe, win-lose, is a primitive way of confronting the world, and we have seen the result of this Marxist thought structure driving the Bolshevik killing fields, etc.

Hegel’s life-giving dialectic, of win-win, is what creates culture and maintains life, and civilisation.

It is the death-dialectic that is commonly used by individuals who want to win arguments and don’t care whether such a process is also creative and moral. For example, the Feminists are Marxist-inspired and so they do not entertain any idealism, and for them the concept/ideal of love, truth, honour, justice are irrelevant and pie-in-the-sky stuff because they believe such ideals have no reality and are social constructs. One Feminist claimed that there is no such thing as truth and love but rather lies and sex rule the world.

In times of war such idealism is regarded as naive, and if we view World War Two from an idealistic viewpoint, then it is easy to regard Adolf Hitler as a man of high moral character who made many peace offers, and who let the British escape at Dunkirk because he had high admiration for the British Empire. Saying this, of course, is not appreciated by those who have grown up with the thought that Hitler was a mass murderer and the most evil man in the world – for all times. Especially through hindsight, it is now common to ascribe to Hitler a total lack of judgment in this matter of conducting a war, but any idealist can understand the torment and pressure he felt in deciding to go with the moral high ground and, for example, let the British forces escape instead of adopting the Talmudic-Marxist slaughter technique used by Stalin.

Just briefly back to Wagner. It must also be remembered that Wagner was maturing through the various influences that came his way, which he then expressed reflectively in his musical creativity. He soon learned that in politics the concept “revolution” is a short-cut to power, which did not do much for uplifting and inspiring the people as a whole.

Wagner absorbed the philosophical impulses he found in Nietzsche’s writings, then in Schopenhauer’s implied negation-of-the-will philosophy, and which then led him to contemplate what the Buddhist thoughts were all about. An opera about this stage in his development remained unfinished, and there is a Wagnerian who has made out a convincing case in favour of claiming that had he lived beyond his three-score-and-ten years, then Wagner’s musical output would have given birth, and wherein the Budda’s universal message would have been incorporated into another Wagnerian opera.

All in all, however, Richard Wagner’s music was just one impulse operating in intellectual Germany and in other European countries, which is still with us, and individuals have to date not given up in expressing themselves – liberating themselves – from the master-slave mentality that all three Abrahamic religions embody, and which the Germanic mindset abhors.

I tend to resist the temptation of regarding the European universal impulses as being in total decline as Oswald Spengler, then recently Jacques Barzun, claimed. The lesson of Wagner’s Der Ring Des Nibelungen is focused on this very problem of decadence – and although Wotan’s experiment, emerging out of fear, comes crashing down, the Rhein river and its maidens continue to cleanse the world of all human frailties and passions – until the next cycle of life begins anew! Now there’s hope yet for Heaven, Paradise, Elysium…and for me personally, Adolf Hitler, although defeated by the Judaic mindset was, for the Germanic mindset, one of the greatest freedom fighters of the 20th century!

katana

February 24, 2014 at 9:01 am

Fredrick Toben
February 23, 2014 at 8:17 pm

I tend to resist the temptation of regarding the European universal impulses as being in total decline as Oswald Spengler, then recently Jacques Barzun, claimed. The lesson of Wagner’s Der Ring Des Nibelungen is focused on this very problem of decadence – and although Wotan’s experiment, emerging out of fear, comes crashing down, the Rhein river and its maidens continue to cleanse the world of all human frailties and passions – until the next cycle of life begins anew! Now there’s hope yet for Heaven, Paradise, Elysium…and for me personally, Adolf Hitler, although defeated by the Judaic mindset was, for the Germanic mindset, one of the greatest freedom fighters of the 20th century!
———

That last sentence was particularly, beautifully, well put Fredrick.

The more I read about Adolf Hitler the more I appreciate his honesty, his decency and dare say, his genius.

Dietlef Busch

February 24, 2014 at 11:47 am

I rather disagree Dr. Töben. Some of your “statements”:-

“National Socialism aimed to move the German nation beyond Christianity…”

How could the the aim of National Socialism be to move beyond Christianity, if the goals of Hitler was the defend, save, and preserve Christianity and Christian civilization?

“Adolf Hitler did say to Winifred Wagner that out of Wagner’s works he would like to create a new religion”
І believe it comes from a Jewish source, Sherree Owens Zalampas

Regarding “creating a new religion”, even if this quotation was authentic (it is obviously second hand at best, since it says “He told…”), but assuming it is a true quotation, they are clearly misinterpreting it. It is not theologicial, it is purely political and social. It is a reference to what modern scholars call a so-called “political religion”. This concept of a so-called “political religion” is something conceived of and implemented by Benito Mussolini, thus Fascism has been dealing with these misunderstandings unfortunately for years before Hitler… It is not to replace Christian religion; the Christian religion is a part of it and compliments it. It is merely an organized doctrine of patriotism which unites everyone in a common “faith”. Mussolini tried to explain this many times. And still people do not understand, and I see Hitler is being accused of the same misconceptions by anti-Christian.

All this being said, the quotation still can not be proved to be authentic, since it is a second hand source.

“Carl Jung recognised ” Carl Jung was a student of Sigmund Freud

“liberating themselves – from the master-slave mentality that all three Abrahamic religions embody, and which the Germanic mindset abhors” (source? Have you made a consensus of what the Germanic mindset wants or abhors?)

When people speak of “master-slave mentality”, it sounds to me like libertarianism and classical liberalism, i.e the Enlightenment, French and English revolutions, Spinoza, Voltaire, Locke, etc..

How can one speak of “mastery slave mentality” and then endorce Fascism and National Socialism, which endorses absolute submission to the State?

or Gott Mit Uns (as explained above)?

To the Germans it was a rallying cry, “a Christian as well as an Imperial motto, the expression of German religious, political and ethnic single-mindedness, or the numerous unity of altar, throne and Volk”.

Jews do not even recognize Jesus Christ! As seen here and here

Adolf Hitler in an interview with Otto Wagener about Christ, the churches and socialism:

It is a modern view, since historically Catholicism and Protestants did not recognize Judaism as having anything to do with Abraham (as their “holy book” is the Talmud, and Islam was regarded as a pagan religion which copied portions of the Holy Scriptures. Historically no commonality in God or Abraham was recognized between Christianity and Judaism/Islam.

Catholics and Protestants believe in a Trinity, Jews and Muslims alike reject the Trinity. Muslims in particular reject it explicitly in their Talmud and Koran.

“Our aim is also to crush the Turks and other infidels standing firm in the eastern and southern regions. They treat the way of true light and salvation with complete contempt and totally unyielding blindness; they attack the life-giving cross on which our Saviour willed to accept death so that by dying he might destroy death, and by the ineffable mystery of His most holy life he might restore life; and they make themselves hateful enemies of God and most bitter persecutors of the Christian religion.” – Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 12, Constituti Iuxta Verbum

“But at any rate the Jews say that they, too, adore God. God forbid that I say that. No Jew adores God!” – St. John Chrysostom, First Discourse against Judaizers

“Moreover, we trust that with God’s help another benefit will accrue to the Christian commonwealth; because from this union, once it is established, there is hope that very many from the abominable sect of Mahomet will be converted to the Catholic faith.” — Council of Basel, Session 19 (Sicut Pia Mater)

“It would be too absurd for a blasphemer of Christ to exercise power over Christians…we forbid Jews to be appointed to public offices, since under cover of them they are very hostile to Christians…We extend the same thing to pagans.” — Fourth Lateran Council, Canon 69 (That Jews Are Not to Hold Public Offices)

“I vow to deliver the Christians languishing in slavery, to exalt the true Faith and to extirpate the diabolical sect of the reprobate and faithless Mahomet in the East.” – Vow of Pope Callixtus III

An article by Alfred Rosenberg in the „Völkischer Beobachter“, 24. Dezember 1921 Against the Jews and their so-called claim to Abraham and in defence of Jesus Christ!

“And when he understands that Hitler alone is to thank for the fact that Germany has been saved from Bolshevism, which destroys Christian culture, churches, and altars, he must vote for Hitler. That cannot be changed by attempts to prove that Hitler is “hostile to religion,” using works by private, independent works by National Socialists, or by the poetic fantasies of Dietrich Eckart, whose conversations with Hitler never happened.”

“Adolf Hitler, although defeated by the Judaic mindset was, for the Germanic mindset, one of the greatest freedom fighters of the 20th century!” – how was he defeated by the Judaic mindset???

I wish anti-Christians like you, would start being honest and condemn Hitler for his Christianity (the Jews have done rather a “good job” with it as is). At least then the Christian National Socialists will know where they stand with you and your work.

[...]

As Pastor Ludwig Münchmeyer commonly referred to the Social Democrats as “the biggest Jew in the Reich.”, the latter day Hegelians are “the biggest Jew in the Reich”

John Rees

February 24, 2014 at 4:21 pm

@ Dr. Fredrick Töben. You write:
“If we recall that the world view of National Socialism aimed to move the German nation beyond Christianity, beyond Islam and Judaism, even beyond Hinduism and Buddism –…”

WHAT was in your opinion this world view of National Socialism? I can only understand it as a mixture of Social Darwinism, Nihilism and spiritualism like Wagner’s. But “Alles Leben ist Kampf”. Is there room for an esoteric knowledge, and things like karma, reincarnation, the cyclic structure of nature, etc?

John

John Rees

February 24, 2014 at 4:53 pm

@ Dietlef: have you read what Hitler sayd about the church in “Table Talks”? There is not much left of it it seems. Let it waste away, we should rely on science. Science can make mistakes, but it never lies deliberately (what I doubt by the way, because humans make science, and they lie many times for there own sake)
But maybe you can say more about it.

John

Fredrick Toben

February 25, 2014 at 12:58 am

Dietlef Busch
February 24, 2014 at 11:47 am:
I appreciate Mr Busch’s scholarship and citations that support his opinion on the matter. The Wagner matter came directly from Winifred Wagner, YouTube clip, in an in-depth interview with Jürgen Syberberg – Winifred Wagner (2_2) Die Geschichte des Hauses Wahnfried von 1914-1975 –

The moving beyond Christianity is a normal progression, as individuals are doing all the time, except too many fall into the atheism-nihilism-self-destruction of modern materialism because they have no spirituality. The eastern religions’ spirituality are lacking practical application and you can see how poverty-ridden societies are wherein they flourish in Asia, etc. It is a matter of values – and I know that in Cambodia, etc. Buddhist men, if they feel the need, just walk out of their family and settle in monasteries – we have many such deserted wives and children in Australia who have been happily picked up by Australian men who cannot make it with their own women.
I was born in 1944 and I can trace our family back to the 17th century – Ahnenpass – and I was not christened but became Gottglaeubig – God believing!

This process of a new religion emerging is a generational process and takes time – and the opposition to it will be vicious as we witness now with the various post-Christian religions such as Scientology and Mormonism, even Baha’i, that collect wisdom from all others, then make it their own. The Germans would develop further their Weltanschauung through philosophical discourse rather than falling back on quotations from some books declared to be holy and beyond content-dispute.
I am well aware of the Christian attempt to disconnect from Judaic thought structures, and I recall at one of my court cases how my opponent swore on the Old Testament because the attendant had been instructed to open the court Bible, and the fellow placed his right hand on the Old Testament part of the Bible.
Karma, reincarnation, esoteric knowledge are all fields that are covered in philosophy and in Wagner’s creative impulse, though some Wagner experts such as Andrew Gray claim that Wagner did not go along with any thoughts of transcendence. Philosophically one regards the NATURE processes and realizes like in Ecclesiastes: One generation comes and another goes, or something like that. Eternal life is the memory an individual leaves behind…and that may be too brutal an assessment for a gentle soul to grasp and to accept because then we ask again those basic four philosophical questions wherein we hope to find the answers that our questing minds seek: what is the purpose of life; will it be a mediated one or a direct connection to the pulsations of the universe – to our God?
I find it refreshing what Carolyn is digging up as she revises the conventional received wisdom about evil Germans, etc.
The approach of focusing on the Unconditional Surrender being an extermination policy in action is productive because it reveals one of the evil forces that is out to destroy the Germanic mind and its value system, which is the Talmudic-Judaic mindset.
Horst Mahler uses the Hegelian dialectic to solve this conflict because that is the process, the force, that moves our thinking. If we talk about “exterminating” our enemy, as some commentators do, then we are actually using the Talmudic-Marxist death dialectic that was used on Germans during and after the war, and which succeeded in crippling Germanic impulses. But after three generations of this the Germanic Youth is back on its feet, ever so gently, and asking questions…as the Germans have done for over 2000 years. I recall when the DDR existed we predicted it would not last too long because the Germanic impulse would transcend the Talmudic-Marxist ideological mental constraints imposed on the Germans.
Now that Materialism and Holocaust religion has replaced any semblance of a belief, the Germanic impulse will do its work – but again that’s a generational problem…
And finally note this clip wherein the US President Obama references Holocaust with the Abrahamic religions: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2S7Ts0LKgqE
That confirms the Judaic attempt to enshrine it as a religion for the non-Jews who have fallen by the wayside and now need another guilt trip, just as absurd as the one with the original sin concept. How can the act of love, the creation of life be sinful and deserving of punishment by a God?

Dietlef Busch

February 25, 2014 at 11:38 am

Dr. Töben with all due respect:-

“The moving beyond Christianity is a normal progression…”
Except that it is not. This entire premise, from your first sentence, is false. There was no “normal progression” to move “beyond Christianity”. Since, the “Enlightenment era” there has been an open conspiracy, openly attacking and attempting to destroy Christianity.

I am sure the sudden love for multiculturalism and diversity is a “natural progression” too, right? People are naturally moving beyond nations and race.

I am sure the sudden love for this LBGTQ asexual, bestiality, paedophilia ramblings are what also, a “natural progression” too, right?

Yes, gradually, all on their own, people are learning to move beyond gender, race, nation, language, heritage, folklore, tradition into one enormous melting pot, a “natural progression”…….. right?

You are obviously not familiar what set the National Socialists apart from the Marxists in the turbulent 1920′s, which was positive Christianity. Adolf Hitler presented to the Germans a platform whose twenty-five points were based on Christian principles and what Adolf Hitler told them rang true with their Christianity. Gottfried Feder was appointed by Adolf Hitler on February 14, 1923, to be the final judge of all questions relating to the Party Platform.

Feder wrote this about Point 24:
“The same can be said of all the coarse, stupid attacks on Christianity. Expressions such as “Christianity has only done harm” merely show that the man that utters them has neither human nor political intelligence. One may indeed blame the (Catholic & Protestant) Church (ians)…but it is wrong to abuse in general terms the greatest phenomenon in human history because of the perversities and erroneous ideas and defaults of individuals. The Christian religion has uplifted and strengthened millions upon millions, and brought them to God by the way of suffering.”

Walter Buch, President of the NSDAP Supreme Court and father-in-law of Martin Bormann stated:
“When point 24 of our programme says the party stands for positive Christianity, here above all is the cornerstone of our thinking. Christ preached struggle as did no other. His life was a struggle for his beliefs, for which he went to death. From everyone He demanded a decision between yes or no….That is the necessity: the man find the power to decide between yes or no.”
(Walter Buch, Geist und Kampf, Speech given between 1930 and 1932)

“I am well aware of the Christian attempt to disconnect from Judaic thought structures”….
And Dr. Töben, please start to distinguish between the Masoretic Text and the New and Old Testament Septuagint (which includes the Apocrypha). Great advances have been made in Biblical scholarship in Germany, scholars like Tischendorf, Eberhard Nestle, Hermann von Soden etc., in fact, during the 1920′s and 1930′s, all across Germany, more important advances in philology and textual studies of the Holy Scriptures, were made in Germany, than any other time or place in history! Many of these great projects started before World War I, and the war caused a delay in their progress. Hitler believed that these advances of scholarship would soon combine with the rich tradition of both the Catholic and Protestant professions in Germany and root out whatever Talmud-Judaic corruptions had entered into the churches in Germany. The Catholic Church in Germany had a clear history of opposition to the Jews, and Luther too, later in his career (after clearing his head of “Jesus Christ was a Jew”), had clearly identified the Jews as the single biggest corrupter of Christianity and actively opposed them. German Christians, both Catholic and Protestant, knew the history of their churches. With the clarity of scholarship bringing to light where and how the Jews had corrupted both confessions, it was just a matter of time before an even greater reformation would sweep through all the Churches in Germany and restore them to the true, positive, apostolic Christianity of the first century.

As to your reference of Gottgläubiger Weltanschauung = Christology.

As for the Ahnenpass, where do you think that came from? Ever heard of the tenth generation verse in the Holy Scriptures? German City Halls (“Standesamt”) started their records at 1877, prior to that births / marriages / deaths were kept in church records (German : Kirchenbücher, short: “KB”). The purpose of the Ahnenpass was not to distinguish whether you were christened and what confession you belonged to, but to proof you had no Jewish roots in your family tree (Tree of Life, also to be found in the Holy Scriptures) and that you are a “pure” German. As a sidenote: many families who have researched their German ancestry stumbled upon inaccuracies (not saying yours are).

Furthermore, as much as Horst Mahler and Sylvia Stolz (and the rest of our political prisoners) are in our prays, keep in mind Horst Mahler came from the radical left (RAF) and the “Junge Freiheit” (left) is much in line with his Hegelinism.

The father/mother/child Trinity concept does not come from Hegel, but it comes being part of a family. Vaterland/Muttersprache/Volk = “Aryan” (German philologist Max Müller (1823-1900) popularized the term in his writings on comparative linguistics, recommending it as the name (replacing Indo-European, Indo-Germanic, Caucasian) for the group of related, inflected languages connected with these peoples, mostly found in Europe), “noble, of good family.”

As for the Talmud-Judaic “Noahide” Babylon Laws and your opponent swearing on the so-called “Old Testament”. Did you actually see it, moved up closer or did you just see “Bible”. I do not see what that has to do with you wanting to proof something, if anything?

Seriously Dr. Töben, to give Obama’s video as “the truth,the whole truth and nothing but the truth…” as “evidence”?

Regarding your “act of love” and “original sin”

How to Destroy Nations with Love and Tolerance

@ John Rees, which one of the spurious “Table-Talks”, here are three sources in German for the Table-Talk: the Bormann Notes copy of Genoud, which contains the full brunt, of Bormann’s editing’s; the fragment of the Bormann Notes in the Library of Congress; and the limited German text of Picker?

Each one I can give a full analysis on, but I think you got the message regarding the German churches as set out above.

There is a number of other forged or heavily tampered-with documents. Here, I will provide just a brief list.
- Works by Konrad Heiden, Hans Bernard Gisevius, Erich Kordt, and Fritz Wiedemann have also proven to be concoctions.
- Carl Jakob Burckhardt’s diary.
- Hermann Rauschning’s Conversations with Hitler is largely embellished and fictional.
- Fritz Thyssen’s I Paid Hitler.
- The forged Christa Schroeder diary, actually written by Albert Zoller.
- Large sections of The Testament of Adolf Hitler are probably fictitious.
- The diaries of Vice Admiral Wilhelm Canaris.
- Eva Braun’s diaries (forged from the diary of Countess Irma Larisch-Wallersee). There did exist an authentic diary of Braun, which was recovered after the war, but this diary disappeared shortly thereafter and has never been seen again.
- The diary of Feliz Kersten, the reported masseuse of Himmler and Ribbentrop, is also a complete fraud.
- There are obvious corruptions and frauds in Count Galeazzo Ciano’s famous diaries.
- Luftwaffe Chief of Staff Karl Koller’s published diary is a forgery.

And the list goes on. Even authentic diaries, memoirs, or accounts are likely to contain corruptions or interpolations from the publishers.

katana

February 26, 2014 at 8:25 am

Dietlef Busch
February 25, 2014 at 11:38 am

@ John Rees, which one of the spurious “Table-Talks”, here are three sources in German for the Table-Talk: the Bormann Notes copy of Genoud, which contains the full brunt, of Bormann’s editing’s; the fragment of the Bormann Notes in the Library of Congress; and the limited German text of Picker?

Each one I can give a full analysis on, but I think you got the message regarding the German churches as set out above.
—————————

Dietlef Busch, can you give some solid reasons why you think “Table-Talks” are spurious?

Since it contain many opinions that are quite negative towards Christianity I can understand your antipathy.

I’m not a Christian, although I was in a way in my late teens many years ago and so can understand your attachment to it.

If you are right that Hitler did not see Christianity as a man made belief system, which Table Talks indicate, then Hitler was not a realist. That I can’t believe, given everything Hitler said and did.

Carolyn

February 26, 2014 at 9:20 am

I do not believe that Martin Bormann ever changed something that his boss Hitler said or wrote without Hitler’s knowledge/permission. We have no documented examples of it, as far as I know. I do not believe that Bormann was a “plant” or a “turncoat” or a sneak. I believe that his sincere desire was to serve Hitler and to ease the burden of his workload as much as he could … which he did. That he had strong anti-Christian views is a fact, same as with Himmler, but the bond of German-ness and National-Socialism was much stronger.

To expect that Hitler thought, and would express himself, exactly the same in speeches in 1920-21, in Mein Kampf in 1925, as he did in dinner-table talk among intimates in 1941-44, is not realistic. I no longer see any reason to dismiss the Table Talk notes, and certainly not to liken them to Rauschning or Conrad Heiden. In fact, I’ve been planning for several months already to read TT following completion of The International Jew. I think it will be a vastly interesting adventure.

Dietlef Busch

February 26, 2014 at 10:52 am

Dear Carolyn and katana, if you allow me to dissect them (and I do not base the evaluation, because I am a Christian, but in the light of unbiased intellectual honesty). I do NOT dismiss them, I find the inaccuracies in the three (four published ^correction to the above) versions, therefore allow me to comment:-
Thus, it is necessary to deal with these spurious sources and set the record straight. The most popular of these sources is Hitler’s Table Talk, with a popular English translation by Cameron and Stevens and with an introduction by H.R. Trevor-Roper. In fact, this is the only complete English translation available.

The following is illustrative of the types of quotations that are popularly cited, all from the Trevor-Roper edition:
If my presence on earth is providential, I owe it to a superior will. But I owe nothing to the Church that traffics in the salvation of souls, and I find it really too cruel. … Our epoch will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity. It will last another hundred years, two hundred years perhaps. My regret will have been that I couldn’t, like whoever the prophet was, behold the promised land from afar. We are entering into a conception of the world that will be a sunny era, an era of tolerance. … What is important above all is that we should prevent a greater lie from replacing the lie that is disappearing. The world of Judeo-Bolshevism must collapse.
I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors ­ but to devote myself deliberately to error, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie.
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.

However, the Table-Talk also is filled with many quotations like the following:
We don’t want to educate anyone in atheism.
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).
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.

So we appear to be presented with two different extremes in the same document. It should further be pointed out that nowhere in the Table-Talk does it record Hitler denouncing Jesus Christ or his own Christian faith.

It is very likely that the Table-Talk is indeed based upon actual statements of Hitler, but given the numerous internal inconsistencies and statements that appear to contradict the public and published statements of Hitler, we need to determine if these writings have undergone editing or interpolations. To do this, we must understand how this book came to be. [...] [comment terminated here by cy]

katana

February 27, 2014 at 8:57 am

Thanks for your considered reply, Dietlef.

I’ve only read bits of Table Talks, so I’m not really in a position to argue about particular apparent contradictions. But in general one would expect that some contradictions would occur in a person’s views over a three odd year period of off the record free ranging discussions or monologues (while engaged in the biggest war of the ages). Especially when put down in cold hard print and analyzed critically.

That said, in your example given, Hitler says that:
“Christianity is an invention of sick brains”.

Then you quote him as saying:
“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)”.

Do these statements really contradict each other? Rejecting Christianity or any other organized religion doesn’t necessarily make you an “atheist”, does it?

My impression is that Table Talks shows clearly that Hitler saw Christianity as a man made creation. For me this makes perfect sense as he was a man driven by a search for the truth about our reality. Christianity, despite all its dogmatic certainties, is just a way station for such people.

Carolyn has announced that TT will follow TIJ, so we will all have plenty of opportunity to agree and disagree over the following months. And most of all, to live and learn!

Carolyn

February 27, 2014 at 11:31 am

katana, Do please remember that translation is a very inexact art. Hitler spoke in German, and notes were taken in a kind of shorthand. Who knows what he said? He certainly did not say “sick brains.” We can take it that he spoke critically of Christianity, but of what part did he mean? I don’t think he meant accross the board. You seem to be as much arguing for an anti-Christian Hitler as Dietlef is arguing for a Christian Hitler. There is no doubt that Hitler had plenty of complaints against the Churches and the Churchmen in Germany, but his private beliefs were his own. He always spoke well of Christ, which anti-Christians do not do. He always said Jesus Christ was not a jew — very controversial, so if he didn’t care about Christianity, why would he bother or care? He always spoke of Christ as a fighter (that’s the Jesus Christ he liked) – a fighter against the jews. So be careful of proclaiming he “grew past it all”. Seems to me his intention was to have a better Church – a German Church – which we can see today more than ever is, and was, badly needed.

National Socialism is based on Christian principles … but for insiders (“us”), not outsiders. That seems to be the difference. I don’t think the German National Church would be sending missionaries to Africa to convert them.

katana

March 1, 2014 at 8:53 am

Carolyn wrote February 27, 2014 at 11:31 am

“We can take it that he spoke critically of Christianity, but of what part did he mean? I don’t think he meant accross the board. You seem to be as much arguing for an anti-Christian Hitler as Dietlef is arguing for a Christian Hitler.”
—————-
The “anti-Christian” label is very broad-brushed as it can be read as not only as a rejection of the Christian belief system itself but also as a rejection of the people who hold such beliefs whether they hold high office in the Church establishment or are merely the common people. As the vast majority of Germans were Christians of one sort or the other and Hitler himself was one in his early days, I’d say his “anti-Christianity” was of a hard kind and a soft kind that recognized the fatal faults and crippling limitations of Christianity but also recognized that his people, the German folk, were deeply influenced and immersed in it.

But, as I mentioned, I haven’t studied TT other than a quick look through. Then there’s the issue of translation and authenticity, etc as you say. In other words I can see there’s likely a fair amount of wriggle room for interpretation. We will find out.

“There is no doubt that Hitler had plenty of complaints against the Churches and the Churchmen in Germany, but his private beliefs were his own.”
——————–
And rightly so. There’s that old and cynical saying about religion that goes something like this, “The masses believe it, the wise think it foolish, and rulers find it useful.”

Hitler was from the masses, was wise and became a ruler. That explains a lot of Hitler’s, perhaps contradictory, words as he navigated his way to power and being in power.

“He always spoke well of Christ, which anti-Christians do not do. He always said Jesus Christ was not a jew — very controversial, so if he didn’t care about Christianity, why would he bother or care?”
—————–
He cared about Christianity because his people cared about Christianity. Likewise, declaring Jesus a jew would have put himself in a rather tricky situation, wouldn’t it have? I suppose he could have said that Jesus was a reformed jew, a “Good Jew”, but at the expense of much division and infighting for no good at all.

“He always spoke of Christ as a fighter (that’s the Jesus Christ he liked) – a fighter against the jews. So be careful of proclaiming he “grew past it all”.”
—————
Yes, I agree that “Christ” was a fighter against evil, and therefore a fighter against jewry. And given what Germans believed then it was useful and necessary for Hitler to harness that sense of righteousness.

Of course, I say he “grew past it all” because that is my own experience and would find it very extremely surprising (yet possible, I suppose) if Hitler had not grown out of that level of indoctrinated belief system called Christianity, given his incredible journey through life.

“National Socialism is based on Christian principles … but for insiders (“us”), not outsiders. That seems to be the difference. I don’t think the German National Church would be sending missionaries to Africa to convert them.”
————–
Another way of looking at it is that Christianity contains National Socialism principles of looking after ones own, that in turn merely embraces White peoples principles that existed long before Christianity was even in the cradle.

Dietlef Busch

March 1, 2014 at 12:59 pm

Katana, I recommend this book for you:-

Dr. Cajus Fabricius

He was a NSDAP member (born 1884-1950) and head of the Theology Department in Germany (he wrote numerous books) Against Atheism

A preview of the book to be found here:

Positive Christianity in the Third Reich

Fabricius was a theologian and a convinced National Socialist, and he felt he needed to address Christianity in the Third Reich because even after Hitler took power, evil forces were leading young German minds astray and driving a wedge between Christianity and National Socialism. Fabricius was an official within the State, and a political leader within the Party, and one would think that his religious convictions would clash. However, Dr. Fabricius refutes this:
“My religious duties and political duties do not clash . . . but rather the one supplements the other, and both stand together in complete harmony. Indeed, they do more than this: In my own and thought, Christianity and National Socialism are closely knit together. And because I am a Christian and a a theologian, I felt compelled to put on the “brown shirt.”

Also look into Karl Lueger, one of Adolf Hitler’s mentors’ you will find a clearer image of Adolf Hitler in his time spent in Vienna.

And also Adolf Hittler’s Christianity who remained a devout Catholic his whole life, was not ex-communicated and died as a Catholic in act we perceive as the noble cede of a warrior in Christ.

I ask myself this question everyday, if we had one more chance of having a noble leader as Adolf Hitler and an united German Nation as back then, would I follow a National Socialist State under positive Christianity? My answer is YES!

Would you?