|
Adolf Hitler and Thomas Jefferson: Unitarian Christian Faith
“The brilliant statesman who drafted the Declaration of Independence and served as America's third president boldly separated himself from the established churches of his day. Regarding Jesus as a great moral guide but not a divine figure, and believing that Jesus' message had been distorted by Christian prelates, Jefferson discarded the Old Testament and the works of Paul, and extracted from the Gospels the basic story and teachings of Jesus to compile what is called The Jefferson Bible. …Biblical- and religious scholar Dr. Martin Larson explains the deist outlook of Jefferson and some of America's other founding fathers” (Mark Weber of IHR).
Jefferson and Hitler: Christianity and Reason
“Jefferson’s first and greatest reliance was upon human reason. ‘Truth and reason,’ he declared ‘are eternal. They have prevailed. And they will always prevail’” (Jefferson Bible, p. i). Even though the great American Founding Father conferred much intrinsic value upon reason, he did not have a fatalistic attitude toward religion, and as a matter of fact, adhered to Christianity. Jefferson was a Unitarian Christian.
He had a profound belief in a single God, which he believed to be the creator of everything man has ever known. However, he rejected the concept of the Trinity of Orthodox Christian doctrine. “He called trinitarianism a ‘hocus-pocus phantasm of God, like another Cerberus, with one body and three heads.’”
Jefferson, like Hitler, was far too intelligent to accept the simple-minded approach to Christianity that the churches had to offer. Instead, he said, “that when we take a view of the universe… it is impossible for the human mind not to perceive and feel a conviction of design, consummate skill, and infinite power in every atom of its composition.” Furthermore, Jefferson was an ardent believer in some form of life after death.
Hitler, in Mein Kampf, stated that, “And a religion in the Aryan sense cannot be imagined which lacks the conviction of survival after death in some form.”
Clearly, there are countless similarities with regards to the Christian-value system shared by these two men of reason.
Hitler also said:
“The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science. Religion will have to make more and more concessions. Gradually the myths will crumble. All that’s left is to prove that in nature there is no frontier between the organic and inorganic. When understanding of the universe has become widespread, when the majority of men know that the stars are not sources of light but worlds, perhaps inhabited worlds like ours, then the Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.
Originally, religion was merely a prop for human communities. It was a means, not an end in itself. It’s only gradually that it became transformed in this direction, with the object of maintaining the rule of the priests, who can live only to the detriment of society collectively. …
… Christianity, of course, has reached the peak of absurdity in this respect. And that’s why one day its structure will collapse. Science has already impregnated humanity. Consequently, the more Christianity clings to its dogmas, the quicker it will decline” (Hitler’s Table-Talk, p. 59-60).
Jefferson said:
“Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.
I concur with you strictly in your opinion of the comparative merits of atheism and demonism, and really see nothing but the latter in the being worshipped by many who think themselves Christians.”
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Richard Price, Jan. 8, 1789
“The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.”
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814
“In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.”
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814
This is certainly thought-provoking, as many of the church authorities in Germany demonized Hitler and denounced his government. Many chose to cooperate with Stalin and Communism, as opposed to Hitler and the Nazi-Sozis, who were trying desperately to work with them.
“You say you are a Calvinist. I am not. I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know.”
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Ezra Stiles Ely, June 25, 1819
“As you say of yourself, I too am an Epicurean. I consider the genuine (not the imputed) doctrines of Epicurus as containing everything rational in moral philosophy which Greece and Rome have left us.”
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Short, Oct. 31, 1819
“Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him [Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being.”
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Short, April 13, 1820
Hitler believed that this strange duality of Christ was the work of Jews like St. Paul. Indeed, one specific example of this duality can be found in the Jefferson Bible, when Jesus says:
“Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.” Now, if we are to take God the Father and Jesus at their word, one should not desire to inherit the earth, because, as God states, the earth will “pass away.” Our goal is to inherit the kingdom of heaven. One does not want to be meek, or one will pass away with the short-lived earth. Not even Jesus was meek, as He preached, taught, and challenged Jews on a regular basis. This is probably just one example of Paul’s undermining.
Jesus goes on to contradict Himself:
“Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your father which is in heaven” (Jefferson, p. 10-11). The goal has always and ever been, in Christ’s view, to inherit heaven; not earth. This is a stark contradiction that requires acknowledgement and explanation.
How is a meek person or a person “poor in spirit” going to accomplish good works that go noticed by myriads of others? It simply is not in their nature to do so. Everyone knows that a great leader or politician has to have an extra edge over average people, or they will never make it into power. Besides, Hitler and Jefferson both did hundreds, if not thousands, of good works, yet, they were not meek. Are they going to be discredited for their good works just because they were not meek?
Furthermore, meekness constitutes submissiveness, quietness, a lack of will, a lack of initiative, and mildness. How is a meek human being ever going to do great works, let alone commit to suffering for the sake of righteousness? Righteousness constitutes “greatness” and “responding to injustice” (Microsoft Thesaurus). Again, it is not in a meek person’s nature to follow through with these precepts.
Jefferson also denounced the official dogma of the churches, just as Hitler had done:
“To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, god, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or that there is no god, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise: but I believe I am supported in my creed of materialism by Locke, Tracy, and Stewart. At what age of the Christian church this heresy of immaterialism, this masked atheism, crept in, I do not know. But heresy it certainly is.”
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, Aug. 15, 1820
One interesting and relevant thing to note is the fact that even though Jefferson and Hitler both believed Christianity to be quite problematic, and absurd in many respects, neither one of them took such a fatalistic or rueful approach toward Christ and His teachings. Indeed, both men embraced Christ and studied His teachings intensively.
Jefferson ultimately ended up documenting Christ’s teachings—meanwhile expunging the ridiculous contradictions that had been conceived of by the Jews—and committed them to print in the form of a Jefferson Bible.
Hitler wrote extensive notes and gave numerous speeches, proclamations, and monologues dealing with the subject of Christ and His incredible lifework in the name of what Hitler believed to be socialism. He also expunged the canon put forth by swindlers like St. Paul. He pulled almost entirely from the Gospel of St. John and deemed him the most reliable of any of the Apostles. What’s more, Hitler was not alone in his belief that Jesus was the first socialist, as numerous Nazi-Sozi theologians, Jefferson, and John Stuart Mill believed the same thing to be true. Hitler and many Nazi-Sozis donned themselves “Christ-Socialists,” as a matter of fact (The Holy Reich, p. 41-49).
Jefferson and Hitler: Separation of Church and State
As did Hitler, Jefferson supported and defended the separation of Church and State (Jefferson Bible, p. ii). Though, let it be known that Jefferson came to the aid of the Shakers when they faced rampant persecution, but, he respected all denominations of faith, as they all stood on equal ground in his eyes. He wished that no single denomination receive any sort of funding or preferential treatment from the government (Jefferson Bible, p. iii).
Hitler, too, adhered to a rational conceptualization of the life and moral code of Jesus, as well as, Christianity. However, whereas Jefferson demanded that no religion receive governmental preference, Hitler openly endorsed a supra-confessional denomination called Positive Christianity. What is quite important to note here, though, is the fact that Positive Christianity, as referenced in the Nazi Twenty-Five Point Program (Robert Payne, The Life and Death of Adolf Hitler, 143-145), specifically declares that all faiths and denominations were to be equally recognized and respected by the State.
Though, the most crucial difference between the United States First Amendment and the Nazi-Sozi 24th Point of their Program is the specificity of the language used (see the First Amendment).
The First Amendment is extremely vague, and establishes no particular type of religion preferable to any other. The Nazi-Sozi Platform states that religions must not morally threaten or oppose the “Germanic race,” and it also states that the State itself advocates “Positive Christianity,” which serves to “combat the Jewish-materialistic spirit within and around us, and is convinced that a lasting recovery of our nation can only succeed from within on the framework: common utility precedes individual utility” (Twenty Fourth Point of the NSDAP Program). This is clearly aspiring to a rendition of socialism.
So, the Nazi-Sozi language forces this Positive Christian supra-denomination to serve the needs of the people; firstly by combating Judaism, which is viewed as an alien, hostile, anti-Germanic, anti-Christian force; secondly, it must conform to the socio-political framework of Utilitarianism.
Utilitarianism is an extremely intricate and complicated pleasure-pain principle, so I will not delve into its many facets in this piece, however, I will provide a brief explanation to make it understandable in this context. Essentially, the Nazi-Sozis believed that the common good had to supersede individual well-being in certain situations, as a necessity for the self-preservation of the folk, if not the race.
According to John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism:
“accepts as the foundation of morals ‘utility,’ or the ‘greatest happiness principle’ holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain and the privation of pleasure” [Mill, Utilitarianism, p.7].
He goes on to say… “To do this in any sufficient manner, many Stoic, as well as Christian, elements require to be included (Mill, p.8)… In the golden rule of Jesus of Nazareth, we read the complete spirit of the ethics of utility. ‘To do as you would be done by,’ and ‘to love your neighbor as yourself,’ constitute the ideal perfection of utilitarian morality.” Subsequently, Mill emphasizes the need for “‘social arrangements to place the happiness or interest of every individual as nearly as possible in harmony with the interest of the whole’” (Mill, p. 17).
Moreover, Mill claims that Utilitarianism is a “more profoundly religious doctrine than any other,” if we are to presume that God’s intention is to impart happiness unto His Creation. He says, too, “But others besides utilitarians have been of the opinion that the Christian revelation was intended, and is fitted, to inform the hearts and minds of mankind with a spirit which should enable them to find for themselves what is right, and incline them to do it when found, rather than to tell them, except in a very general way, what it is; and that we need a doctrine of ethics, carefully followed out, to interpret to us the will of God” (Mill, p.22).
As Mill has pointed out quite clearly, Christianity and the common good seem to be the pervading precepts of the Utilitarian ideology; thus, this particular ethical theory suited the conceptual definition of Positive Christianity nearly flawlessly. Furthermore, by advocating a supra-confessional doctrine of national faith with Christian moral underpinnings, rational, as well as simple, adherents to the Positive Christian faith could draw from it with ample satisfaction.
Many intelligent Christians like Hitler would have been completely turned off by a simple-minded faith; but, at the same time, many of the simplistic German folk would have been turned off by a rationalized version of Christianity, with which they may have felt completely unaccustomed. He mentions this to Göbbels, and Göbbels has documented it in his diary. Hitler said that he would not have wanted to take the church or the simple faith away from his mother if she were still alive (The Göbbles Diaries, p. 142).
This synthesis of simple and rational Christianity was thus realized in the supra-confessional faith of the Nazi-Sozi Positive Christianity point of the platform.
Unlike Jefferson, Hitler felt compelled to be more specific, regarding the religion and ethical code that would be placed upon the German people, as a whole. But, one must take into account the concept of völkisch nationalism and the homogeneity of the German nation, in order to fully understand why Hitler would be more specific in his lexicon, as opposed to vague, as Jefferson had been.
Jefferson did not share the same ethos, experiences, culture, or values as Hitler, hence, his beliefs about an official religion were spelled out much more vaguely than Hitler’s were. Neither is less correct than the other, only, different.
Moreover, America had not had a terrible experience with multi-ethnicism during Jefferson’s time. Hitler had lived through it and realized how unrealistic multicultural/multiethnic societies could be, hence, his specific lexicon.
Whereas Jefferson completely disassociated the church from the State, Hitler, in many ways, indirectly funded the churches in the Reich with government funds. He allocated millions of necessary marks to the welfare-related state functions—that the churches involved themselves with—that aimed to help the people. One example of direct state funding was the Winter Help Scheme, which had sub-organs like the Winter Help Organization and the National Socialist Welfare Society. The most memorable of these programs was what came to be coined the “One Pot Meal” campaign (A.P. Laurie, The Case for Germany, p. 105-106).
Hitler, unlike Jefferson, directly allocated funds to the churches, namely because, as Laurie states, “The Protestant Churches [in particular] have always been part of the State and some external organization and financial arrangements are necessary for efficient administration” (Laurie, p. 110). Hence, Hitler, believing Protestantism to be uniquely German in character, was most desirous to see it working hand-in-hand with the State. Some 80% of the churches were working in harmony with Hitler’s government (Laurie, p. 110).
Jefferson and Hitler: On Christ and the Churches
“I mention this rare oddity only for contrast to an extremely un-Aryan form of polytheism, the Jewish religion shown in what Christians call the “Old Testament.” The Jews selected a god, Yahweh, who was at first content to have no competitor associated with him in a temple and worshipped in his presence (“before me,” “coram me”) but eventually demanded exclusive veneration, and entered into a contract with the tribe to assist them in all their undertakings, if they would observe all his taboos and give him, in sacrifices, a share of the profits. According to the “Old Testament,” the Semitic god thus chosen for a form of religion that is called henotheism was able to beat up the gods of other peoples whom the Jews wished to exploit, such as Dagon, whom Yahweh decapitated and crippled at night when no one was looking.
Such henotheism is utterly foreign to the Aryan mind, which, as it rejects fanaticism and holy ferocity as manifestations of savagery, naturally does not attribute such jealousy and malevolence to its gods” (Revilo Oliver, The Origins of Christianity, p. 45).
Both Jefferson and Hitler specifically volunteered to expunge the Old Testament canon, which they both believed to be Jewish nonsense and hedonism, from what both men would come to call the moral doctrine of Christ. Christ’s teachings and extremely socialistic ethical code was integrated with the Aryan conception of god(s) and the afterlife.
According to Dr. Martin Larson, Jesus was the second “Essene Teacher of Righteousness, born about 95-90 B.C., during the reign of King Alexander Kannaeus.” He ascended to head the Essene Order, whereupon he preached as the prophesied prophet of God himself, until he was slain by the Jewish authorities around 70 or 69 B.C.”
Historical texts suggest, in all probability, that Jesus was an Essene; “that he became convinced that he was the one foretold in the cultic scriptures, destined to terminate the earthly dispensation (exemption or release from a rule or obligation, especially a religious one, as per Microsoft Thesaurus), conduct the Last Judgment, and inaugurate the ever-lasting kingdom in Palestine. Jesus re-enacted the career of the original personage who had passed away in almost complete obscurity, ingenuously contriving his own courageous and dramatic immolation; hence, he had succeeded in founding the religion of the western world—Christianity” (Martin Larson, The Essene Gospel, back cover).
Larson goes on to explain that the great appeal of Christianity is the fact that it was a synthesis of the pervading doctrines that had already undergone development and evolution over thousands of years by the pre-Christian cultures (Larson, p. 1).
The Synoptic Gospels offer a savior-atonement message of forgiveness and grace, as well as, bestowment of immortality and divinity upon the adherents to the faith. They provide an ethical system that promotes political and economic equality in a socialistic order, whereupon injustice is caste away for good. The third appealing aspect of these Gospels was the idea of eternal happiness for the redeemed, which of whom would have communion with one another in a kingdom of righteousness. Lastly, there was a promise of the return of the savior, as the Great Messiah, who would usher in the Final Judgment and establish the kingdom of heaven, which would belong to the saints “in perpetuity.” Additonally, the redeemed would be healed of all maladies, both physical and spiritual (Larson, p. 2).
Most of these concepts, though they were certainly referenced in the Essene society, were extracted and synthesized from other religions. The concept of the savior was taken from Egypt; the concept of communal equality was adopted from India; the concept of an after-life, from Persia; and, lastly, the concept of the Messiah, from Judaism (Larson, p. 2-15). The Essenes rejected the concept of purgatory, as there was no second chance in their opinion. Indeed, the Essenes synthesized Persian, Egyptian, Indian and Greek-mystery religious dogma, in order to bring about the realization of what came to be recognized as western faith (Larson, p.14).
At this point, it may be pertinent to bring up the fact that the Essene order “endorsed total love for brethren, but utter rejection of all others” (p. 102). The Essene order, like that of the Pythagoreans, also condoned communal tables for Eucharistic ceremonial meals, repudiated the sacrifice of animals, practiced total equality in dress, claimed prophetic powers, considered themselves the elect of the Supreme God, looked forward to joyous immortality and had no fear of death, lived very temperately and healthfully, oftentimes attaining very old age, practiced extreme frugality, condemned personal ownership of property, stressed the community’s needs over those of individual adherents, and was self-supporting, among other things (p. 101-103). What is most interesting is the fact that the Essene platform was nearly identical to that of Hitler’s NSDAP.
Moreover, the Essenes believed only in the love of their racial kinsman, and the rejection of all other non-blood brethren. This is more than likely what Christ was referring to in the Bible when he stated, “Love thy neighbor as thyself.” That is what Hitler and Eckart, among many others, had believed to be the truth. The Jews have even confirmed this teaching of Christ’s in their Talmud (see Freedman, Facts are Facts).
Jefferson and Hitler both acknowledged that they had greatly admired and revered Jesus for his socialist teachings, and his incredible code of ethics that was, to their individual knowledge, unsurpassed by any others. Hitler donned Christ the “first socialist,” and “the greatest anti-Semite of all-time,” while Jefferson condoned Jesus for rejecting the “wretched depravity” of the Old Testament and the Jewish Talmud.
Indeed, Jefferson went so far as to accuse the priests of undermining the teachings of Christ, just as Hitler had done, and he sought to “strip off the artificial vestments in which they have been muffled by priests, who have travestied them into various forms, as instruments of riches and power to themselves” (Jefferson Bible, back cover). He also denounced the churches, claiming that “… unfortunately, the Christianity of the western world—which he regarded as a perversion of the original Gospel—had drowned Europe in blood for five hundred years and had occasioned more suffering than anything else that had ever appeared on this planet” (Jefferson Bible, p. i). Hitler also condemned churches and priests.
He said:
“Like Christ, we must preach, “You are all brothers! Love one another (Wagener, Memoirs of a Confidant, p. 213)! … And this Volk will be the Sword of God (p. 214)! … I am astonished at all that has been made of these teachings of these divinely inspired men, especially Jesus Christ, which are so clear and unique, heightened to religiosity. … But the communities that called themselves Christian churches did not understand it! Or if they did, they denied Christ and betrayed him! For they transformed the holy idea of Christian socialism into its opposite! They killed it, just as, at that time, the Jews nailed Jesus to the cross; they buried it, just as the body of Christ was buried. But they allowed Christ to be resurrected (insinuating through his followers), instigating the belief that his teachings, too, were reborn!
It is in this that the monstrous crime of these enemies of Christian socialism lies! With the basest hypocrisy they carry before them the cross—the instrument of that murder which, in their thoughts, they commit over and over—as a new divine sign of Christian awareness, and allow mankind to kneel to it. They even pretend to be preaching the teachings of Christ. But their lives and deeds are a constant blow against these teachings and their Creator and a defamation of God!
“… Herein lies the essential element of our mission: we must bring back to the German Volk the recognition of those [Christ’s] teachings. For what did the falsification of the original concept of Christian love, of the community of fate before God and of socialism lead to? By their fruits ye shall know them! The suppression of freedom of opinion, the persecution of the true Christians, the vile mass murders of the Inquisition and the burning of witches, the armed campaigns against people of free and true Christian faith, the destruction of their towns and villages, the hauling away of their cattle and goods, the destruction of their flourishing economies, and the condemnation of their leaders before tribunals, which, in their unrelenting hypocrisy, can only be described as blasphemous” (Wagener, p. 140).
Hitler remained consistent in his feelings and opinions about Christ and the alleged Christian “churches,” even when he spoke with rabid anti-Christian Martin Bormann in the latter half of his reign.
Hitler and Jefferson: On Christ and “Anti-Judaism”
Jefferson and Hitler could both be categorically labeled as “anti-Jewish,” though not without good reason. Jefferson had donned the Old Testament and Talmud as “wretched depravity,” and Hitler donned the Old Testament “the arsenal of the Antichrist.” He denounced the Jewish Talmud as, “not a book to prepare a man for the hereafter, but only for a practical and profitable life in this world (Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, p. 28).
Jefferson also said of the Jews:
“Dispersed as the Jews are, they still form one nation, foreign to the land they live in. Those who labor in the earth are the Chosen People of God, if ever he had a chosen people” (D. Boorstin, The Americans, quoted from Radio Islam).
Hitler made a comparable assessment of Jewry in Mein Kampf:
“… This was pestilence, spiritual pestilence, worse than the Black Death of olden times, and the Volk was being infected with it!... these scribblers who poison men’s souls like germ-carriers of the worst sort, on their fellow men.
It was terrible, but not overlooked, that precisely the Jew, in tremendous numbers, seemed chosen by Nature for this shameful calling.
Is this why the Jews are called the ‘chosen people’” (p. 58)?
Jesus even denounced Jews en masse. In fact, this may well be one of the primary reasons they had him murdered. People must begin thinking rationally when it comes to the life and death of Jesus Christ. In all probability, he was not sent by God, as His only son, to die for the sins of humanity. Even Jesus has refuted this absurdity. He said, “You are all the children of God,” albeit, through St. Paul (Galatians 3:26).
This teaching of Jesus as the only prodigal Son appears to be another Jewish-instigated ploy, in order for Christianity to serve as a protective cloak—or shield—for Jewry.
If they could subtly deceive the other peoples of the world, into believing that Jesus Christ was literally the Jewish Son of God, then perhaps they [Jewry] could assert their ludicrous, pride-ridden belief in being the “Chosen of God,” and it would be accepted as an unquestionable truth amongst Christian nations and folks throughout the world. In fact, whereas Christ certainly meant it when he stated, “You are all the children of God,” the Jew St. Paul cleverly synthesized this teaching with his own proto-bolshevist ideology. He had claimed that all the nations of the entire world were “the children of God,” thus rendering Christ’s doctrine as ‘international’ in nature. Indeed, he goes on to say, “There is neither Jew nor Greek; there is neither slave nor freeman; there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28). Jesus specifically addressed men and women as completely separate, having separate roles, and separate spheres. Indeed, he said that women were a weaker sex and should serve man as his wife and helper. He also set out to free his followers from slavery and oppression. Moreover, Jesus specifically denounced Jews and preached almost solely to Gentiles. In all probability, Paul had completely contorted Christ’s doctrine.
Another example of Paul’s treachery can be seen in this passage:
Paul reprimanded Peter and asked, “If you, though a Jew, live like the Gentiles, and not like the Jews, how is it that you are able to compel the Gentiles to live like Jews” (Galatians 2:14)? This is a condemnation against Peter, who is clearly trying to be like a Gentile, perhaps in earnest, or, perhaps to subvert, but the fact is, he is being reproved by Paul for even acting like a Gentile. Now, how is Paul not subverting Christianity when he speaks like this? His goal seems to have been, time and again, to make Gentiles more like Jews via subversion of Christian doctrine.
Hitler had definitely believed this to be the case, and he substantiates his belief in a conversation with Bormann. It is far too engaging to transcribe in its entirety here, so, I will summarize the main points of his monologue:
“On the road to Damascus, St. Paul discovered that he could succeed in ruining the Roman State by causing the principle to triumph of the equality of all men before a single God—and by putting beyond the reach of the laws his private notions, which he alleged to be divinely inspired. If, into the bargain, one succeeded in imposing one man as the representative on earth of the only God, that man would possess boundless power.
… In short, [the priests] were the emanation of a power that the people had created. The idea of a universal god could seem to them only a mild form of madness—for, if three peoples fight one another, each invoking the same god, this means that, at any rate, two of them are praying in vain.
Nobody was more tolerant than the Romans. … St. Paul knew how to exploit this state of affairs in order to conduct his struggle against the Roman State. … Under cover of a pretended religious instruction, the priests continue[d] to incite the faithful against the State.
The religious ideas of the Romans are common to all Aryan peoples. The Jew, on the other hand, worshipped and continues to worship, then and now, nothing but the golden calf. The Jewish religion is devoid of all metaphysics and has no foundation but the most repulsive materialism. That’s proved even in the concrete representation they have of the Beyond—which for them is identified with Abraham’s bosom” (Table-Talk, p. 76-77).
As an aside, even Thomas Cahill points out this Jewish strangeness in his book The Gifts of the Jews.
He says:
Paul is the “peculiar Jew of the first century (p. 263). … But he is more than the god of Israel, he is the universal God, the Creator of all, who has deigned in his mysterious mercy to single out this people and make them his holy nation (163). … You shall be a special treasure from among all peoples… a kingdom of priests… a holy nation (135). … But despite these miraculous answers to their incessant whining, the people keep regressing, wishing even that they had died in their captivity and longing for the fleshpots of Egypt (133). … What was to become gradually real for the Jews and remains real for us is the here and now and the there and then. What was real for the Sumerians [before them] was the Eternal (127-28). … Like Abraham before them, the Children of Israel are sent forth from Egypt richer than they arrived, with “objects of silver and objects of gold, and clothing” that the Egyptians press upon them to encourage them to leave (117-18). … Why is Pharaoh so obstinate? God predicted he would be and even claimed responsibility for Pharaoh’s attitude. Are we, therefore, to conclude that Pharaoh is just another pawn with no will of his own (114)?”
One can clearly see that Jews have indeed created for themselves a materialistic pseudo-religion that proclaims them the “Chosen People of God.” Even Cahill acknowledges that Jews have always been whining, greed-ridden people; indeed, they had been ousted from every country they called ‘home’ because of their war-mongering and materialism. Egyptians had to give to them material goods and gold in order to get them to leave. And, even more absurd, is the fact that Yahweh makes people do horrible things and then destroys, or relentlessly punishes, them—or their entire people oftentimes—for fulfilling his will (that he had imparted unto them). This was the vile insanity that Hitler had denounced as purely Jewish clap-trap.
“It’s since St. Paul’s time that the Jews have manifested themselves as a religious community, for until then they were only a racial community. St Paul was the first man to take account of the possible advantages of using religion as a means of propaganda. If the Jews has succeeded in destroying the Roman Empire, that’s because St. Paul transformed a local movement of Aryan opposition to Jewry into a supra-temporal religion, which postulates the equality of all men amongst themselves, and their obedience to an only god. This is what caused the death of the Roman Empire.
… the Roman slave was not at all what the expression encourages us to imagine today. In actual fact, the people concerned were prisoners of war,… of whom many had been freed and had the possibility to become citizens—and it was St. Paul who introduced this degrading overtone into the modern idea of Roman slaves.
Think of the numerous Germanic people whom Rome welcomed. … The Jew, on the other hand, was despised in Rome. Whilst Roman society proved hostile to the new doctrine, Christianity in its pure state stirred the population to revolt. Rome was Bolshevized, and Bolshevism produced exactly the same results in Rome as later in Russia.
It was only later, under the influence of the Germanic spirit, that Christianity gradually lost its openly Bolshevistic character. … Today, when Christianity is tottering, the Jew restores to pride of place Christianity in its Bolshevistic form.
The Jew believed he could renew the experiment. Today, as once before, the object is to destroy nations by vitiating their racial integrity. It’s not by chance that the Jews, in Russia, have systematically deported hundreds of thousands of men, delivering the women, whom the men are compelled to leave behind, to males imported from other regions. They practiced on a vast scale the mixture of races” (Table-Talk, p. 77-79).
Jesus Truly Speaks Through St. John
Hitler believed that John was the only Apostle who could be trusted. John’s words are truly incredible and poetic, but also uncanny. It will become obvious as to why Hitler believed John to be the true Christian amongst the many “antichrists,” like St. Paul.
St. John said:
“… Antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have arisen; whence we know that it is the last hour. They have gone forth from us, but they were not of us.” Here, John is specifically insinuating that these antichrists were Christians, though, subversive, false Christians, probably like the Jew St. Paul. He went on to say: “For if they had been with us, they surely would have continued with us [he is alluding to Jews here]; but they were to be made manifest [apparent], that not one of them is of us. But you have an anointing from the Holy One [Jesus] and you know all things. I have not written to you as to those who do not know the truth [the Jews], but as to those who know it [Christians], and because no lie is of the truth. Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ?” St. John is clearly condemning Jewry with this uncanny rhetorical question, and he reveals the Jews as the “liars” because they denied and murdered Christ. He went on: “He is the Antichrist who denies the Father and the Son.” John is literally ascribing the title of Antichrist to Jewry; not to any single man or woman of the future (I John 2:18-25).
“No one who disowns the Son has the Father. … that we should be called the children of God; and such we are. This is why the world does not know us, because it did not know him.” John is referring to the Jewish-Roman world, which denies Christ, and hence, denies God. “No one who abides in him commits sin; and no one who sins has seen him, or has known him. … He who commits sin is of the devil, because the devil sins from the beginning. To this end the Son of God appeared that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whoever is born of God does not commit sin, because his seed abides in him and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God and the children of the devil are made known” (I John 3:2-10).
This is one of the single most significant chapters in the New Testament, as it tells Christians many things all at once. Firstly, it tells us that one cannot ever be of God if one has not accepted the Son, or rather, the Word.
Secondly, it tells us that those who have come to know the Word can never have sin. They become the eternal children of God, and no transgression can separate them from their knowledge of God or his bond with them. Only those who had chosen not to accept the Word were sinners, and those sinners that John had mentioned were none other than Jews; the only people in the entire Jewish-Roman world who had willingly rejected the Word. Hence, they had rejected God and accepted the eternal status of sinner.
Thirdly, it tells us that Jesus appeared to destroy the works of the devil. Jesus had indeed revealed the Jews for who they were—preying on the people like a greedy pariah, relishing in wealth, and assuming to be the “Chosen Elect” of God himself. This is what Jesus had been referring to when he said, “You are all the children of God.” He never intended for this to become a universally applied concept, which St. Paul had made sure was what was done with it, but rather, it was Christ’s attempt to teach his people that there was no need for a priestly Jewish elect who declared themselves the “chosen” children of God. As aforementioned, he called the Jews “the children of the devil,” in turn, revealing the “children of God” as the non-Jews who had chosen to live by his ethical code of brotherly love and righteousness. Jesus also stated, “I am from the Father,” which, as pointed up by a friend of mine, implies that the Jews had never been from the Father. Indeed, one may logically conclude that the Jews were, in Christ’s eyes, of the Devil.
Lastly, it tells us that the Christians are the children of God and the Jews are the children of Satan. This is indeed what John had believed to be the case, because he implies that Jewry was the Antichrist (I John 2:18-25).
Jesus said to the Jews, “But I know that you have not the love of God in you. I have come in the name of my Father, and you do not receive me. If another come in his own name, him you will receive” (John 5:41-43).
Jesus was probably not literally claiming that he came from the Father, but rather, as a follower of God, and not the devil. He was trying to tell Jews that they had no idea of what/who God was. He was trying to provide himself a chance to explain to them what true godliness was, but they refused him, and would only listen to their own Jewish brethren and their father.
“I speak what I have seen with the Father; and you do what you have seen with your father” (John 8:38). Here again, we see that Jesus differentiates the true Father from the false father; the Jewish father. He is implying that that father is the devil.
“If you are the children of Abraham do the works of Abraham. … You are doing the works of your father” (John 8:39-41). Here is another allusion to the devil as the father of Jewry.
“The father from whom you are is the devil, and the desires of your father it is your will to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has not stood in the truth because there is no truth in him. When he tells a lie he speaks from his very nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies…. The reason why you do not hear is that you are not of God” (John 8:42:47).
Conclusion
Jesus openly condemned the Jews as the “children of the devil,” but more importantly, he implied that it was their very nature to be just as their “father” was.
Hitler also believed that Jewry’s very nature caused it to sin and indulge in self-puffery, pride, and deception. In all probability, Hitler got most of his ideas about Jews directly from the New Testament. He certainly studied it most ardently, and he seldom spoke without mentioning religion, Christ, or Christianity.
Jefferson, too, despised Jewry, but not to the same degree as other great Americans like Ben Franklin. Franklin reviled the Jews, and spoke all kinds of ‘hatred’ against them. Jefferson, in all probability, also felt this way about Jewry.
Even George Washington condemned Jewry and warned his fellow Americans about them.
Were these all “anti-Semites,” or intelligent, spiritual, and rational men who had come to logical, self-evident conclusions, about Jewry?
Jesus exposed the enemy of all men; all men are the “Children of God,” except for this one sect of men. You know exactly who they are, because Jesus told you who they are. Do you trust Jesus or Jewry? Remember what He said, “You will know them by their words” and “… you cannot serve two masters.” It isn’t the “Illuminati,” the “Freemasons,” or anyone else who is destroying this world and doing the will of Antichrist; it is Jewry… for this sect of men wears all of these crowns of blaspheme. Jewry is the source of it all; otherwise, Jesus would have stated otherwise. Do not let them deceive you. The only entity you can trust is Jesus. Forego the priests and the churches, as they have committed nothing but murder and idolatry in the name of Christ. Trust only the person and Word of Christ alone. After all, He said, “I am the Law.”
|