Sven Longshanks' assault on reason and truth

Published by carolyn on Sat, 2015-05-02 12:40

Sven Longshanks complains to me that I said in my most recent radio program “Taking Stock” that he regularly made dishonest statements in the comments at The Daily Stormer, but I “cannot even provide one instance or quote, or you would have.” [see comments for that program]

Okay, so here are the quotes. These are all from the many comments found here:

The topic being discussed was “Hitler's Table Talk”. After other comments had been made ...

Finn  August 13, 2014 at 10:21 pm

Once again wolf no proof of table talks being fake not one single fact, in fact EVERYONE in Hitler’s inner circle who went on to write memoirs not only validate Table Talks, but also Hitler’s belief on Christianity…But I guess you know better then them Huh? Or maybe the jooozzz edited everyone and placed the anti-Christian sentiments?

This willful ignorance is getting old.

Sven Longshanks  August 13, 2014 at 11:16 pm

They arent ‘legit’ Finn. The original German does not contain any of the Anti-Christ rubbish in there that contradicts everything else Hitler ever said or wrote.

I saw this only three days later and replied to it:

Carolyn Yeager  August 16, 2014 at 10:31 pm

This is not true, Sven. Why do you make things up? Do you read German? No, so who told you this?

No response from Sven because it was 2 days later, but Sven did answer Finn with a word-for-word, copy and paste from Richard Carrier, an aggressive atheist, anti-Christian historian (strange source for Sven to use) and with no knowledge by Sven of the German language. He just quotes this source because it says what he wants. [Carrier's translations have been found faulty.]

Sven Longshanks  August 13, 2014 at 11:24 pm

‘Before we can begin to sort through whatever alterations Bormann himself may have made to the text, it first should be pointed out how faulty the Trevor-Roper edition is, and the Genoud’s French translation upon which it is based.

Carrier has described the Trevor-Roper edition as “worthless,” and in fact, he has shown that all of the major anti-Christian passages commonly cited by historians, including the three at the beginning of this chapter, are frauds and are not contained in the original German, in his article “Hitler’s Table-Talk: Troubling Finds.”

Let us look at these three popular quotes one by one, in light of Carrier’s article.

The first, often quoted passage is:-

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. I admit that one cannot impose one’s will by force, but I have a horror of people who enjoy inflicting sufferings on others’ bodies and tyranny upon others’ souls.

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. Man must be put in a position to develop freely the talents that God has given him.

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.” [The "lie that is disappearing" is Christianity -- that is clear -cy]

This quote is supposedly from February 27, 1942, when Heim was stenographer. Carrier provides the German of Jochmann and Picker which agrees, except in a difference of one word, then his own translation of that German:

“I am here due to a Higher Power, if I am necessary for anything. Leave aside that she is too cruel for me, the beatifying Church! I have never found pleasure in maltreating others, even if I know it isn’t possible to stand your ground in the world without force. Life is only given to those who fight for it the hardest. It is the law of life: Defend yourself! 

The time in which we live indicates the collapse of this idea. It can still take 100 or 200 years. I am sorry that, like Moses, I can only see the Promised Land from a distance.

We are growing into a sunny, really tolerant worldview: Man shall be able to develop his God-given talents. We must only prevent a new, even greater lie from arising: that of the Jewish-Bolshevist world. That’s what I must destroy.”

The difference in these two passages is astounding!!!!

There is no mention of a “disease of Christianity” which will end, but rather Hitler speaks in general of his then present world order. He does not mention that he “owes nothing to the Church.” He boldly states that he is “here due to a Higher Power,” rather than saying “If I am here…” Rather than speak of Moses condescendingly, he identifies with Moses in his desire to see the Promised Land. He envisions a world free of Jewish-Bolshevism where men will be able to develop fully their God-given talents. So the English edition of Trevor-Roper contains here a complete fabrication, and this fabrication, particularly the line about “the disease of Christianity,” is perhaps the most frequently quoted passage by those who attempt to deny the Christianity of Adolf Hitler and the National Socialist Movement.

Carrier points out that in the same entry in the German, the English and French translations have also omitted an important line. In the same conversation, Hitler said,

“Das, was der Mensch vor dem Tier voraus hat, der vielleicht wunderbarste Beweis für die Überlegenheitdes Menschen ist, dass er begriffen hat, das es eine Schöpferkraft geben muss!”

Or in Carrier’s translation:-

“What man has over the animals, possibly the most marvellous proof of his superiority, is that he has understood there must be a Creative Power!”  [This is not a pro-Christian statement -cy]

The blatant omission of this passage is proof-positive that the mistranslation of the above passage was a deliberate attempt to take a pro-Christian statement of Hitler and turn it into an anti-Christian statement. This is why it was necessary to entirely omit the above passage, so that the inconsistency of the entry would not be readily apparent. [Nonsense. I'm not sure this was omitted because I recall reading it or something very like it. -cy]

The second often-quoted passage that Carrier deals with is:-

“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. In acting as I do, I’m very far from the wish to scandalize. But I rebel when I see the very idea of Providence flouted in this fashion. It’s a great satisfaction for me to feel myself totally foreign to that world.”

But again, the actual German is quite different.

Carrier’s translation:-

“I know that humans in their defectiveness will do a thousand things wrong. But to do something wrong against one’s own knowledge, that is out of the question! One should never personally accept such a lie. Not because I want to annoy others, but because I recognize therein a mockery of the Eternal Providence. I am glad if I have no internal connection with them.”

Again, the favourite sentence of liars is,I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie.” But this sentence is not in the original German at all! It apparently was inserted into the French by Genoud’s (“Je ne m’accommoderai personnellement jamaisdu mensonge Chrétien“) and then copied into the Trevor-Roper English edition. [Yes, it is part of the German text by Heim:  "Man darf sich persönlich einer solchen Lüge niemals fügen." Which can be translated, "One may never individually go along with such a lie."]

Thus, so far, we have an example of the perversion of the text in translation, omission from the original, and addition to the original.

The last example is:-

“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”

But Picker’s German contains four important words that have been omitted by Genoud and Trevor-Roper. The English should be:-

The Christianity that teaches Transubstantiation is the maddest thing ever concocted by a human brain in its delusion, a mockery of all that is godly.

According to this, Adolf Hitler did not say that Christianity was an invention of sick brains, but that the doctrine of Transubstantiation was the invention of sick brains.

However, even this point is controversial as Adolf Hitler remained a devout Catholic, was never ex-communicated ( and the “statement” is rather the view of a bigoted “Protestant”. [Calling Hitler a DEVOUT Catholic until his death ("remained") is an example of Sven's dishonesty. But he makes himself ridiculous by doing so. -cy_added 5-3-15]

In nearly every other supposedly negative statement about Christianity contained in the Table-Talk, the statements are not about Christianity but about perversions of Christianity. [False. Hitler repeatedly compares Christianity to Bolshevism -cy]

In fact, the Table Talk makes it clear that Hitler, as time went on, was becoming decreasingly optimistic about the chances of a successful reformation of the Catholic Church. Nevertheless, not once is Hitler’s belief in Jesus Christ or his own Christianity a question. But he did come to more and more question the Church.

Thus, in dealing with the Table-Talk, we have many problems. First, the only English translation available, the Trevor-Roper edition, is hopelessly corrupt; it is a translation of Genoud’s translation, and Genoud’s translation has been purposefully altered. What did this Swiss banker who claimed to be a “Nazi” really have planned? At best, he was a confused atheist who sought to de-Christianize National Socialism, á la Bormann; but at worst, and probably more realistic, he was an agent of the Jew propagandists who spent much of his personal fortune buying up Nazi relics and distributing supposedly authentic texts like the Table-Talk.’

[Why don't these articles at TforG's have authors? Is the site ashamed of who has written them? Or is the author ashamed?  -cy] [Oh, I've got it now, they're by "Gearmáinis Wolf from Truth for Germans" - maybe Wolf at the Daily Stormer?]

The whole basis of National Socialism was Christian. To attribute anti-Christian quotes to Hitler is just ridiculous.

Finn  August 14, 2014 at 12:53 am

“Richard Carrier” Atheist American is the be all end all of German translations? LOL, how desperate…

Finn  August 14, 2014 at 1:02 am

“Carrier’s thesis has never been accepted by historians, including Steigmann-Gall, who despite seeing a pre-publication copy of Carrier’s article accepted Kershaw’s warning to use ‘due caution’ and elected to treat Table Talk as a viable source.”

By the end of that day, Sven had banned Finn from further comments.

Sven Longshanks  August 14, 2014 at 10:10 pm

I think Finn needs to be removed. All the comments of his I have seen on this site have been intended to make Hitler out to be a liar and a hypocrite, so Finn can pretend Hitler agreed with Finn’s own Anti-Christ agenda. [But Sven, Richard Carrier, whom you're depending on for your argument, has an Anti-Christ agenda!-cy]

Yet he cannot provide one quote or even a written sentence from Hitler saying as much. [Similar to what he said to me -cy]

One only has to look at what Hitler achieved to see his fruits.

The fruits of the Anti-Christ is the usurious banking system.

The fruits of Christ is NS. 

Sven Longshanks  August 15, 2014 at 5:49 pm

The whole premise of National Socialism was based on Christian teaching, love they neighbour as thyself and man being made in the image of God. You can hardly turn a page in Mein Kampf without coming across a Biblical allegory, saying, proverb or parable. Not true To believe that the man who wrote all that and then put it into action would then rubbish his inspiration, is not believable or even logical. [All what? Hitler was NOT a Christian writer, for God's sake!]

Even the swastika itself was likely inspired by the one at Hitler’s local abbey, which he would have regularly seen from childhood onwards. [Pure speculation, no evidence, Hitler never said so. -cy]

Hitler continued reaffirming his faith right up until the end, why you think that references to it don’t count, I dont know. [Did he? Some examples? In his will, Hitler left all his possessions to the Party, headed by Martin Bormann, and named Bormann executor. He asked that his body be burned without any religious ceremony. In his Political Testament, there is no mention of Christianity, only the N-S Party and the German people. That was his "religion." He was actually open to the possibility of reincarnation, as noted in his Table Talk.]

The only way God can guide people is through his holy providence, Hitler knew that and was blessed enough to be able to understand it, for which he continually gave thanks. [Now you are equating Hitler's "Providence" with the "Holy Spirit." He never saw Providence as "guidance", more like destiny. -cy]

Hitler’s fruit showed his faith far more than words ever could anyway. [Sven is admitting he has no words from Hitler on what he says Hitler believed. -cy]

I also wrote:

Carolyn Yeager  August 16, 2014 at 5:33 am

To Sven,
Plus, as I’ve pointed out before, there are only two references to “Christian” in the Index of Mein Kampf, and neither one has Hitler professing Christianity.

Sven Longshanks  August 16, 2014 at 4:13 pm

Carolyn, if you bought a book on farming, would you expect the author to be continually saying ‘I am a Farmer’ throughout it, or would you expect it to give instructions on how to farm?

To think that Mein Kampf was not influenced by Christianity because the word ‘Christianity’ only appears twice in the index, really does your investigative credentials no good at all. The word ‘Christianity’ does not appear once in the Bible, does that mean the Bible is not Christian?

Carolyn Yeager  August 16, 2014 at 11:07 pm

Sven, Mein Kampf is not a book on Christianity and it doesn’t give instructions on how to be a Christian. Your analogy is faulty, to say the least.

Also, “Christ” appears many times in the bible, but “Christianity”or “Christian” was not a formed concept among those followers of Christ yet.

And so on. Nothing you come up works for making Hitler a believing Christian, although you propose that all “good” values are Christian – therefore any “good” person is a Christian. So Hitler was a Christian.

* * * * *

Now to the issue of confusing the German Reichstag with Buckingham Palace.

Sven Longshanks  February 15, 2015 at 12:05 am

I haven’t even commented on here and you are trying to criticise me.

Who do you expect a British nationalist to stand up for, China?

And where have I ever tried to protect Britain from deserved criticism?

Every day I write critical articles of Britain.

You are the one who has Buckingham palace on your blog, not me.

Carolyn Yeager  February 15, 2015 at 3:14 am

Oh wow, Sven. LOL. I have Buckingham palace on my blog??? On I have the German Reichstag prior to 1944.

You are a decent fellow, I know, but you really fit my description of the commenters here on DS that “each one is denser than the one before.” Do you agree that “the British people” should be willing to admit their nation’s MAJOR WAR CRIMES against Germany in WWII and that to do so they have to lobby their MP’s and those Party leaders you have, plus your government? I don’t see you showing any interest in that. But that would be genuine “reconciliation”, not the phony stuff the phony Brits talk about.

*   * 

Since his reply came the following day, I did not see it. I didn't return to this thread after the 15th and that's why I said Sven had “disappeared.” He did reply, but what a reply – somehow blaming me that he doesn't know what the German Reichstag in Berlin looks like.

Sven Longshanks  February 16, 2015 at 1:00 am

Looks like Buckingham palace to me, with the angel and everything. I know of people who have instantly switched off upon opening your site because of it. I did think it rather a strange choice. [This shows he doesn't use critical thinking, just accepts his first impression.]

Of course I would like to see Britain admit their war crimes.

Pretty dumb sort of question to ask.


Swastika as a Christian symbol 

Sven also said:

"If you listened to the radio program I did with Bill, you would find out why the swastika is a symbol for CHRIST, along with the Black Sun and the Life rune."

I listened and this is what I heard: First you said a little about the "Black Sun" - that Christ was the Light that can't or couldn't be seen; the Black Sun represents hidden light; therefore the Black Sun is a Christian symbol for the hidden light of Christ. As far as I'm concerned, your lack of reasoning skill (or maybe just lack of respect for reason) allows you to make anything out to be so.

You then said the Life Rune clearly represented the Cross in a different configuration, and that is Christian. Then you alluded to a reference to the Swastika in Revelations (in the Bible) but didn't tell us where to find it. You said something like this:

The swastika as a Christian symbol represents the Hebrew letter Alpha, which is a line reaching above and below. It symbolizes the Alpha and the Omega. This makes it Christian as Christ is the Alpha and Omega.

Can also be seen as the Juggler because of it's shape.  The Juggler is one who sets everything in motion and keeps it going ... that is Christ. [sounds like the Hindu god Vishnu.] This can be extrapolated from the swastika.

Thus, all symbols used in WN can be seen as coming from Christianity. This is the cognitive dissonance - they deny Christ while using His symbols.

I thought he started to put down Mary as a bad or wrong symbol, but then stopped himself.

So, according to Sven, everything is Christian because I think he dates Christianity to the story of Creation and to Adam and Eve. He therefore dismisses the usual history in favor of myth, and he can and does make up whatever he wants.

You can hear Sven on this subject at these stops: from 1hr04min45sec to 1hr:09 … then 1:13:30 to 1:21:30 … then 1:26:40 to 1:30 … then 1:34 to 1:38.


If HTT is a fraudulent document that criticizes Christianity, Himmler's and Rosenberg's etc criticism of it are as well? 
Swastika's existed before Christianity. You might argue that the ancient Asian cultures got it from Saxons (Buddha's name Sakya Moni or the Saxon Monk) and Lithuanians celebrate their identity with Swastika banners, as well. Lithuania was the last country to fall to the Christianization and the Swastika is much older there than 1,000 years. 
Also, Andre said that to join the SS, you'd had to be Protestant or Catholic. He omits "Gottgläubig" or believing in God as third option. 
There is no reason to believe Germany was an Atheist, anti-Christ state, but at the same time, it's quite a stretch to assume that Germany's Awekening was due to the Church or Christianity. It was part of it, sure but Germans existed before Christianity and hopefully will do after, too. The 30 Years' war in Germany, was all about Protestants and Catholics slaughtering each other and the neighboring states partitioning the country. By that time, Europe was at its high point of Christianity. 

I have never commented on your site before but I've been listening to your radio shows for a couple of years. You are doing really good work and I especially like your critical perspective on Christianity, Slavs and Greeks. I myself would go even further. In my book, Christianity is evil worship of darkness and chaos, and Slavs and Mediterraneans fallen people, very different from Western Europeans.
It's pretty sad that so many of the "leaders" in this "movement" are unwilling to engage in deep and honest thinking. I glad that you are at least trying to keep them honest. :)
Keep up the good work, Carolyn!

I don't think or say that Christianity is "evil worship of darkness and chaos," and that Slavs and Mediterraneans are "fallen people." No, not at all, so I don't want anyone to get that idea. But thanks for the supportive words. I can say I pretty much agree with Hitler on religion and race, although since I'm not running a State whose policies the Churches are starting to oppose (from their powerful position), I don't have that aggravating factor to deal with when thinking of Christianity.

We can see today, though, that Christianity as an institution has turned against us and, politically and socially, is an enemy.

Sven Longshanks is dishonest, sloppy, with a midget intellect and the fact he is one of the key people behind the Daily Stormer is what soured me on it.  Andre Anglin himself is not nearly as bad and he would do better to jettison the embarrassment who goes by the name Sven Longshanks but he is unlikely to since both are bound together by their christian identity "we are the real jews" stuff, and it's fair to then let that reflect on one's assessment of Anglin's judgment regarding the company he keeps.

Why dont you just give people the threads to look at themselves Carolyn, like I gave you the links to them, so they can make up their own minds, instead of 'he said, she said' and leaving bits out.
You asked me for them because you said I was dishonest for not responding to you. You were the one who stopped responding, because you were shown up as not knowing what you were talking about.
There is a Christian reference on every other page of an entire chapter of Mein Kampf as I proved to you, before you ran off with your tail between your legs.

First, I don't have a tail.

Second, I did give the links to the entire theads because I WANT people to read the whole thing. But I also wanted them to know what I thought were the main problems in what you wrote there.

It's all very fair, but you keep trying to make out that I am cheating in some way. People see through it, I'm sure.

"The only way God can guide people is through his holy providence, Hitler knew that and was blessed enough to be able to understand it, for which he continually gave thanks. [Now you are equating Hitler's "Providence" with the "Holy Spirit." He never saw Providence as "guidance", more like destiny. -cy]"
^ "In his speeches Hitler frequently referred to Providence and the Almighty. I am certain that he was inwardly convinced of a fate predestined in its general outlines, but preferred not to formulate what parts compulsion and free will played. He became more and more convinced that Providence had entrusted him with a mission. This became noticeable upon his return from his incarceration in the Landsberg, and grew ever more evident after the Machtübernahme, until, toward the end of the war, it assumed positively painful proportions. This conviction that, as Bismarck had once been chosen to unite the northern Germans in one Reich, so he was chosen to bring the southern Germans (Austrians) into this Reich, was certainly deep-rooted in him." -Alfred Rosenberg's Memoirs, p. 90 -

The words "Bismarck had been chosen" are very questionable. Chosen by whom or what?

Hitler had a powerful experience when still living in Linz, during an opera by Wagner. His friend Kubichek, who was with him, wrote about it. But experiences like this happen to people who are spiritually attuned and have a destiny they came into this world with. It's not the same as "guidance." Totally different. It's a realization of the big picture and how you fit into it sort of thing.

"He became more and more convinced that Providence had entrusted him with a mission."

He said a few times in Table Talk that he realized he was the only one who could do it [bring Germany back to a strong position]. He once or twice said, "If I am considered the indispensible person" ... and he did accept that he was. That is how he saw Providence - that he was uniquely qualified for his task, better than anyone else was. "Providence" revealed that to him, and later he recognized it himself.

So Bormann, Rosenberg, and Himmler conspired to claim Hitler wasn't a Christian. And instead decided to portray him as...  some sort of Deist with a complicated set of religious ideas that preferred Christianity to atheism, admired both Julian and Charlemagne, considered Schopenhauer his country's greatest philosopher, and made observatories a spiritual focal-point.
No, it's goofy and dumb. Everything his close associates said about him are consistent with the Table Talks. His political activities are more consistent with the Table Talks than they are with Christian theology. The Table Talks are fully consistent with German philosophy and early 20th century science.
Hitler did not believe all Germans were descended from Adam and Eve, he did not believe God's Chosen People lived in the Levant, and he did not believe he needed to accept Jesus as God's Son in order to save his soul. He was not a Christian. He did not subscribe to the religious tenants of Christianity.

His political activities are more consistent with the Table Talks than they are with Christian theology.
I think this is largely correct. There are certain things that Hitler did and said that were inconsistent with traditional Christian morality. For instance, euthanasia for mental defectives, saying that race-mixing destroys the image of God in man (said in MK, if I recall correctly), condoning the blasphemy of Positive Christianity, having an extended non-marital romantic relationship, etc. (By the way, Carolyn, do any revisionists challenge the euthanasia narrative? I haven't found any that do.)
With that being said, I think several of the main tenants of NS, such as a usury-free economy and a nationalist political system, are consistent with Biblical teaching. I also think that the radical respect shown for the lowliest of workers in NS Germany could only have developed in a country with a Christian heritage.However, when it comes to Hitler himself, I haven't seen any evidence that he personally had faith in Christ as his savior.

The euthanasia program allowed German families to ask the state to mercy-kill extreme retarded, deformed family members. This wasn't possible before. The state looked into the cases of the families that requested their relatives to be euthanized and made a decision.
Only during the existential war against the whole world, the state ordered to euthanize severely retarded/deformed Germans without consent to have more resources for wounded soldiers. If the war was lost, the unfortunate severely disabled wouldn't have survived anyway and the hospital beds and medical labor force had national priority for soldiers.
About 50,000 people if I recall correctly were euthanized. The enemy media make more of it than it was, and omits that other states did it too. They go that far and claim that wearing glasses was a reason to be gassed. Same old lies.
These unfortunates had no chances of survival without constant care and in many cases were a burden to their families. Nevertheless, it sure isn't an easy decision to euthanize anyone and out of 80 million, 50,000 is merely less than 0.1% of the population.  

Sorry I wasn't able to reply to your question sooner. But better late than never?

By the way, Carolyn, do any revisionists challenge the euthanasia narrative? I haven't found any that do.

By challenge, do you mean deny there was such a program, or deny specific descriptions of it? Some of the "narratives" are quite untrue and I'm sure most revisionists would agree with that. You can find some of those on this 3-page CODOH thread:    Hannover is making the right revisionist arguments.

I take it you are saying that any euthanasia for any reason is inconsistent with Christian principles. I am on record as saying that some euthanasia can be defended and that includes what N-S Germany was doing. Of course, I don't claim to be a Christian, only a sort of cultural Christian. I believe race-mixing is wrong in every instance (even among very diverse Whites) because it dilutes the racial integrity, the racial soul, of a person. I'm sure we are better off staying as closely as possible within our soul families. That could be called our soul image which could be called the image of God within us, I suppose.

There is a Universal Spirit that I call "Life" that is active in every living thing, but ending a particular person's life (who can't exist without basic care from others or without pain and suffering) is not harmful to current and future generations, but mixing your genes with someone from an incompatible soul family definitely is. These are the real criminals.

Thanks for the response. I don't doubt that the narratives surrounding the program have been distorted by mainstream historians, but it does seem that euthanasia did take place.

I understand that many people agree with euthanasia (including many contemporary Europeans), but I don't think you will find any confessing Christians (as opposed to cultural Christians) who would defend the practice. This would make the NS euthanasia program another piece of evidence that Hitler was not a genuine Christian believer, in the sense of upholding the official dogma of the traditional German churches.

In a movie about the crucifiction ot Christ I recently watched on TV, the blame for the crucification was laid on the "fact" that King Harrod was an antisemite.  That's not where the Bible lays the blame.  If Jews can change the Bible, they can modify the words of Hitler.

Carolyn, Sven Longshanks is the most dishonest person I have encountered in the pro-White movement. He has no problem lying to try to promote his Christian Identity religion. He is not Aryan (noble). I am pleased you have exposed him here.

Here is the quote from Table Talks (Trevor Roper's) which does contain quote which was alleged by Sven Longshanks as being absent in German
"An educated man retains the sense of the mysteries of nature and bows before the unknowable. An uneducated man, on the other hand, runs the risk of going over to atheism (which is a return to the state of the animal) as soon as he perceives that the State, in sheer opportunism, is making use of false ideas in the matter of religion, whilst in other fields, it bases everything on pure science." ~ Adolf Hitler, Table Talk
Although It is not so close to "Das, was der Mensch vor dem Tier voraus hat, der vielleicht wunderbarste Beweis für die Überlegenheitdes Menschen ist, dass er begriffen hat, das es eine Schöpferkraft geben muss!"
Still the overall message from the Quote from Trevor Roper's translation is the same.

This passage (below) from Trevor-Roper's also fits well with ""Das, was der Mensch vor dem Tier voraus hat, der vielleicht wunderbarste Beweis für die Überlegenheitdes Menschen ist, dass er begriffen hat, das es eine Schöpferkraft geben muss!"
"By considering what Bolshevism has made of man, one realizes that the foundation of all education should be respect—respect towards Providence (or the unknown, or Nature, or whatever name one chooses). Secondly, the respect that youth owes to maturity. If this respect is lacking, a man falls below the level of the animal. His intelligence, when it ceases to be controlled, turns him into a monster." ~  Adolf Hitler, Table Talk

Add new comment