ERIC ZUESSE

Winner of the H.L. Mencken Award for Investigative Reporting

WHY
THE HOLOCAUST HAPPENED

Its Religious Cause & Scholarly Cover-Up

Eric Zuesse is a cultural anthropologist, general systems theorist, economist, and investigative journalist. He has been published by Dell Publishing Company, Crown Publishing Company, The New York TIMES, REASON, JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC BEHAVIOR, GENERAL SYSTEMS THEORY, and others. Zuesse is a winner of the H.L. Mencken Award for The Year's Best Investigative News Report."

The Bible is history told as religion tells it. WHY The Holocaust Happened is history told as science tells it. ...No longer is the challenge to the religious account just Copernicus and Galileo - the Bible got the cosmology wrong. No longer is the challenge to the religious account just Darwin and Mendel - the Bible got the prehistory (i.e. evolution) wrong. Now it is history itself that is at stake; the final fig leaf covering the old myth is ripped away; and what stands exposed this time is rape. People's minds have been raped by a false historical account; and now we know both why it lied, and that the Holocaust was its result. Never again.

Dedicated to the victims.

"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind had produced—the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!" John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, September 3, 1816

*** "The teachings of Christ have laid the foundations for the battle against Jews as the enemy of Mankind; the work that Christ began, I shall finish." Adolf Hitler, speech to his followers, December 18, 1926

Contents Preface PART I: Hitler's "Holy War" Against "the Jews" A Map of the Argument J: The Problem 2: Hitler the Mystery-Man 3: Bible 4: Mission 5: Collateral Damage 6: Church Response 7: Historical Background 8: Hitler's Medievalism 9: Anti-Science 10: The Cover-Up by Scholars 24 27 33 53 67 84 95 100 108 121 127 11

PART II: Where the Bible's Anti-Semitism Came From A Map of the Argument 11: Our Methodological Approach 12: The Pre-Pauline Background 13: Summary of the Case 14: How the Scientific Approach Differs from the Religious One 15: Paul's Detailed Account of Christianity's Split from Judaism 16: Christianity's War Against Judaism CONCLUSIONS 17: Bringing It All Together 18: Of Smoking Guns and Hot Bullets 19: Completing the Work of Nuremberg 20: Policy-Implications Appendix 1: Hitler's Essay, "My Theory of Eugenics" Appendix 2: Random Thoughts on Causation Acknowledgments, and Why I Wrote this Book Index/References 216 229 241 244 254 277 353 356 146 149 154 161 171 176 190

PREFACE

Why did the Holocaust happen? Of all unexplained historical events, of all Man's irrationalities, is there any that so challenges our understanding? Man has not yet come to terms with the most-systematic and vast genocide in history. Testimony to this sad fact has been provided by each subsequent genocide, all mocking the prevailing platitudes about "the brotherhood of Man." Perhaps the failure to understand the Holocaust's cause has contributed to the ineffectiveness of prevention-efforts, as well as policies after the fact, in places such as Cambodia, Bosnia, and Rwanda, where subsequent ethnocides have occurred. Indeed, how would it even be possible to prevent genocide if the cause of one so vast as the Holocaust remains a mystery? With more than a half-century separating us from the Holocaust, we still have not answered the most basic question: why it occurred. Thus, younger generations of Gentians, both Christians and Jews—as well as the ethnic minorities new to the country—continue even today to debate the issues of guilt. After all this time, the Holocaust remains an unsolved riddle. The implications of this failure reverberate throughout the world, but perhaps nowhere more so than in Europe, the home of the Holocaust. On 2 April 2000, European Affairs correspondent Sylvia Poggioli, on National Public Radio's Weekend Edition program, brilliantly summed up the looming dangers of Europe's failures in this regard by pointing to a recent resurgence there of majority assaults against minorities. She reported a continent slipping back toward racial chaos eerily reminiscent of events that were thought and hoped to belong only to the past, and that were consequently of ominous portent for the future: 11

Preface The most recent case was a four-day rampage in southern Spain against Moroccan immigrants, but there's racist violence everyday, everywhere: in Birmingham, in Frankfurt, in Florence, in Copenhagen, in Marseilles. A typical site is soccer stadiums. In Britain, in France, and in Italy, you can see ultra-right-wing fans carrying banners with pro-Nazi and anti-Semitic slogans, and often Black players in the field are booed and insulted. What's shocking is that xenophobia is gaining acceptability. The populist parties that embrace anti-immigrant platforms are gaining popularity everywhere—not only in France and Austria, but also in Switzerland, in Belgium, in Denmark, and in Norway. The wave of xenophobia has begun to affect the traditional attitudes of many ruling leftist and center-left parties. Voters who used to form the backbone of leftist parties are now attracted to these right-wing anti-immigrant slogans, so governments are introducing political restrictions against immigrants. ... In Denmark, for example, the ruling Social Democrats have made requirements for family reunification very, very difficult. I found everywhere I went, in Italy, in France, in Germany, in Sweden, and in Austria, immigrants live almost exclusively in closed enclaves—ghettos, whatever you want to call them. For example, in Sweden, 1 saw one community outside of Stockholm where the only blue-eyed Swede was the security guard. In Lyons in France in the downtown area, which is the heart of the City, I never saw anyone who wasn't white. And it's a country with a large immigrant community from its former colonies, but I never saw [an immigrant as aj policeman or anchor on TV. And in Germany, most members of the large Turkish minority live in neighborhoods that are known as little Istanbuls. Ms. Poggioli was asked by the interviewer to explain the possible causes of the problem. The first to be raised was the standard explanation: hard economic times. Ms. Poggioli, however, quickly rejected this: Racism and xenophobia are strongest in the most affluent of European countries—in Austria, in Switzerland, and in some Scandanavian countries. More than anything, I think that Europeans believe that it's their cultural identity that is being threatened. Modern European states were built on the idea of monoethnicity. . . . Europeans are not shocked by the idea of ethnic division and partition. This is also the reason why right-wing 12

Evans in his 1989 book In Hitler's Shadow (p.. . it must be addressed. She meant that all of a sudden we see an acceptance of ultra-right-wing language and platforms that have been rejected since World War II. More than 3.. hollowed out. amid which the living were still lying. Poggioli that continuing to evade the Holocaust's cause will not do. and which happened on its territory by Europeans against Europeans half a century ago. United State General Omar Bradley recounted as follows the shocking scene when he first entered a camp in Poland: "The smell of death overwhelmed us even before we passed the stockade. and this made me think about what I believe is Europe's dirty secret: its continuing reluctance to come to terms with the worst crime ever committed against humanity. But how approach such a gigantic subject? It is not just the senselessness of the thing that so puzzles us: the Holocaust was monumental in its sheer evil. and in Deborah Lipstadt's 1993 Denying the Holocaust) to prevent precisely that objective. the moral challenge of the Holocaust towers over all our futures. starving. lice-ridden. that there were "piles of skeletal corpses." Complicating the intrinsic difficulties of understanding such monstrosities have been the persistent contrary attempts at obfuscation by some historians (discussed at length in In Hitler's Shadow. an American GI recalled of his entry into the Nordhausen camp. survivors strewn around huge mounds of corpses.Preface parties have succeeded in creating an image of immigrants as an underclass of undeserving members of society. Recent polls show that xenophobia is gaining respectability. and apathetic. the Holocaust. the questions themselves started virtually tumbling over each other at the moment when Allied troops first entered the death camps as liberators and found themselves facing gaunt. finally.. emaciated bodies had been flung into shallow graves. I agree with Ms.. And I think it's this reluctance by Europe to come to terms with its past that makes it much more difficult for it to confront its new racism.200 naked. After all." And as reported by Richard J. To comprehend such a phenomenon. how can a physician treat a disease he has not even diagnosed? Thus. and 33% admitted they were very racist or quiet racist. what former Swiss President Ruth Dreyfuss called the return of the repressed in European politics. . 13 . where do we start? Historically speaking. It even appears to have been evil for the sake of evil. 5). There are also many much more worrisome signs. Over two-thirds of those polled admitted to being a little racist. weak.

the thesis that science caused the Holocaust would surely have been documented in extensive detail. Science has long been routinely blamed for having caused the Holocaust. have agreed: science caused the Holocaust. Leo Strauss had long been making the same charge against science." Essentially similar charges had been prominently made by the German historians Michael Stunner and Ernst Nolte during the mid-1980's. Nonetheless. . if not the reality of the Holocaust itself. However. none of them liked either science or modernity. sociologist Zygmunt Bauman had published his Modernity and the Holocaust. that the Holocaust was bad. have accepted it 14 . even though no accusation could be further from the truth. the search to find the Holocaust's origins has also had to contend with a very active effort to confound it. The reason for this failure to document is amazingly simple: the assertion is false.. He was a hero to many within the Reagan Administration. Racism is strictly a modern product. Perhaps the commonest sublime explanation has been that science (or Us consequences.. Remarkably. In other words. Strauss was a student of the Nazi philosopher Martin Heidegger. none has stood the test of time. it has never been documented at all. only one person even so much as attempted to do so: Daniel Gasman. Heidegger and Schmitt proudly promoted Naziism as an essential response to what they both viewed as the socially corrosive challenges of modernity and science. saying (p. During Hitler's reign. however.Preface and to keep the roots of the Holocaust. and himself the leading philosopher inspiring America's conservative Reagan Revolution during the 1980's. in the dark. Unfortunately." Four years before." such as historians. Modernity made racism possible. All of these politically conservative intellectuals. They did not all agree. in his speculative and poorly informed 1971 The Scientific Origins of National Socialism. One might think that with so many proponents. In 1993. ranging from the sublime to the ridiculous. a disciple of Hitler's leading legal theoretician Carl Schmitt. as will herein be documented in full. a number of approaches to explaining the Holocaust have been tried. Philosophers and social "scientists. "racism is unthinkable without the advancement of modern science. such as modernity) caused this hell on earth. 61). the German-Jewish philosopher and Nazi refugee to the United States. But even before that. edited by Thomas Childers and Jane Caplan) expostulated upon "The Genesis of the 'Final Solution' from the Spirit of Science. the outright Nazis amongst them seem to have felt that it was either all right or excellent. the German historian Detlev Peukert (in the book Reevaluating the Third Reich. Even more amazingly. from the time of Hitler to the present.

consider the genocide as a possible military device. and at worst counter-productive. science as the "cause" of the Holocaust has been only one among the many insupportable "theories" put forth to explain this horror. that "railroad transport trains carrying Jews from the West to extermination camps in Poland were given priority over trains for urgently needed troops and war supplies. in his 1947 Defeat in Victory (p. We shall show that that would be like injecting cyanide into a person in order to "cure" his cyanide poisoning. desperately needed in the munitions plants in occupied Poland. Hitler and his subordinates aim at the total destruction of the Jews before the war ends and regardless of its outcome. as the present work will also show.Preface on nothing more than faith. needlessly hardened the worldwide opposition to Germany." And according to the Polish Ambassador. For example. the Holocaust was at best dubious. yet it actually drained the attention of Hitler and of his fighting forces away from the war-effort. the Holocaust occurred within the context of a World War. Some of the proponents of this attack against science have even held that only a more religious Germany will be safe against a return of Naziism. Obviously. However. despite the passage now of more than a half-century after the event. One reason for the mystery is that—just as with the science-scapegoating "explanation"—none of the obvious or easy "explanations" withstands even cursory investigation. Jan Ciechanowski.S. "The unprecedented destruction of the entire Jewish population is not motivated by Germany's military requirements. Horst von Maltitz perceptively observed in this regard in his 1973 The Evolution of Hitler's Germany (p. Both scapegoatings are based on frauds. the Holocaust's cause remains a mystery. and transformed into outright enemies talented people who might otherwise have been neutral or even supportive as "patriotic Germans. which is to say faith itself. 171). its epistemological foe." The basic question thus is posed: what was the relationship 15 . Moreover. As mentioned before. no one really knows. How fitting a basis on which to condemn science: religion. Adolf Hitler famously scapegoated Jews as the source of Germany's problems. skilled Jewish laborers. were carted off to extermination centers. Historians and others favorable toward religion have similarly scapegoated science as the source of the Holocaust. makes yet another jab at science. Why did it happen? Why did Hitler do it? Why did the German nation do it? Even today. and proceeded to build their analyses upon it. 179). in spite of strong objections by plant managers." Judged purely as a military tactic. President Roosevelt in the White House on 28 July 1943 a memo that. he had personally handed U.

against what he held to be the sole real enemy: "the poisoner of all nations. describes 16 . until victory. if the seed that grew into the Holocaust is to be found anywhere. that is to say. We shall indeed show that. one cannot possibly find the seed for the Holocaust in that knowledge alone. defeat of the enemy entailed nothing less than the extermination of all Jews. international Jewry. whose responsibility for this crime was of a fundamentally different nature. or whether they would have repudiated Hitler—or even never have elected him in the first place—if the Fuhrer had taken a different path than that of genocide. for Hitler. Unquestionably. Even the structuralist scholar of Naziism. because if Hitler had not wanted the Jews to be exterminated. In order to understand why the Holocaust happened. In other words. supreme. Thus. not of the masses of the German people. statement of his war-aims—urged his people to continue the war. it was the central military goal. Though it can be debated whether Hitler had to manipulate the German people to achieve that ghastly end. Even though one also wants to know why the German people entrusted to Hitler the unprecedented power they ended up placing into his hands. in his 1991 The Architect of Genocide. in the fifth chapter of his 1989 The Nazi Dictatorship.Preface between Germany's war effort and the Holocaust? Which served which. it cannot be debated whether the German people demanded it from him and forced him to do it. in fact. this also sheds light on why over 96% of the Jews slaughtered in the Holocaust did not come from Germany. over other options such as expulsion of the Jews. documents that Hitler skillfully developed within his leadership-ranks an everhardening position in favor of extermination. for Hitler. in the motivations of Germany's leader. the Holocaust—the "final solution"— was not a military device. Ian Kershaw. it therefore is necessary to understand why Hitler hated Jews so fanatically and so obsessively that nothing less than their total extermination would satisfy him. Richard Breitman. (pp. what was Hitler's ultimate objective? The Fuhrer's words right before his suicide—his final. which took precedence over even the expansion of Lebensraum. This has been extensively documented. it was a military goal. then the Jews would not have been exterminated. it will be found in Hitler's own motivations." The enemy for him was Jews in all nations. the Fuhrer was leading the German people to this end—this orgy of evil— and it is preposterous to assume (as does Daniel Goldhagen) that they were leading him. 50-1). Hitler did not need the Holocaust in order either to win or to stay in office. unquestionably.

his book would not provide such an explanation even if his thesis of German mass-anti-Semitism were totally true. and then in the population as a whole." And Rudolph Binion. Therefore.Preface how even the Nazis' early show-policy of Jewish expulsion was aimed at "creating the precondition for a worldwide battle against the Jews. This documentation consists. It leaves hanging not only the longstanding question of why anti-Semitism exists. much less to what he undocumentedly asserts to have been the uniqueness of German anti-Semitism that produced this outcome in that particular country at that time. 28-31). Regardless whether one accepts the thesis of Goldhagen's 1996 Hitler’s Willing Executioners. but also the entire question of why the Holocaust—the particular genocide that happened where and when it did—happened. firstly. In fact. favoring the extermination-option. it would not have taken place." It adds nothing at all that is new to the understanding of anti-Semitism itself. not the other way around. it should also be noted that despite Goldhagen's claims to be explaining the Holocaust. Fortunately. Even Goldhagen would probably inveigh against a supposed explanation of Hitler's "final solution to the Jewish problem" that stopped at "eliminationist anti-Semitism" on Hitler's part. His book fails to explain why "the Germans" hated "the Jews. no explanation of the Holocaust can succeed that fails to document what Hitler's motivation for it was. first amongst his own leadership group. Hitler promptly fired him. in Hitler's own painstaking and detailed 17 . In this context. Yet Goldhagen feels no need to go beyond that for an "explanation" of what "the German people" did." Hitler had to work long and hard in order to bring about a consensus. Hitler clearly was the catalyst turning the chemical mixture into the chemical reaction known as the Holocaust. (pp. that "the Germans" perpetrated the Holocaust because they positively enjoyed murdering "the Jews. the documentation of Hitler's motivation for perpetrating the Holocaust is extensive. documents that when Reichsbank chief Hjalmar Schacht began to put into place mechanisms for an even minimally successful expulsion-and-resettlement program. since Hitler led his people toward this end. Hitler's motivation for it is the central reality that must be documented in any successful explanation for the Holocaust. even though it has never been brought together systematically and presented in one place before now. Without Hitler. That does not constitute an explanation of the Holocaust. All that Goldhagen documented was the pervasiveness of anti-Semitism there. in his 1976 Hitler Among The Germans.

setting forth on different occasions different aspects of what. as he saw it.Preface explanations. despite the fact that he had formulated these policies as a direct consequence of his biblical readings and of his struggles to interpret his personal problems in relation to certain passages in the Bible. he never used a term such as "the Holocaust." As we will show. Such matters. Hitler never wanted his victims to know why he was perpetrating the Holocaust against them. for the first time. This theory was based on his having accepted the literal truthfulness of everything that is in "The Bible— Monumental History of Mankind. All four types of evidence are consistent with each other in presenting the same picture of Hitler's motivation for his perpetration of the Holocaust. Hitler's theory was based entirely upon the Bible. Nonetheless." which was introduced only in the War's aftermath. of course. consistently verifying his religiosity. Hitler was convinced that the public had no right to know about them." as he called it in his private notes. Hitler was determined to keep these personal problems private. logically consistent. In other words. and. were not of public interest anyway. and of those personal problems—to have been his own "curse" from original sin. however. Hitler's concern about "original sin"—a concept that recurs frequently in his statements—was largely based on personal problems in his life. Fortunately also. and centered upon his struggle to understand the meaning of "original sin. turns out to have been an amazingly coherent. theory for the Holocaust. The various fragments of his theory for the Holocaust are here. Fourthly and finally. these matters were irrelevant to the Tightness or wrongness of his policies. Secondly. his writings. in its entirety. there is the factual record of what Hitler did and how he did it. Thirdly. Hitler's theory for the Holocaust was based on the very same biblical passages that he had been pondering in order to find a way to "atone" for what he had determined—on the basis of the Bible. and his speeches to supporters. he was proud to explain to his friends and supporters why he was convinced that the extermination of all Jews was the central moral requirement for the world. 18 . and so he carefully avoided discussing them. there are the testimony and facts concerning Hitler's upbringing as a child and especially the cultural influences to which he was subjected during those earliest personality-forming years. his conversations with his friends and colleagues-in-arms. in any event. assembled from his private notes to himself. and that. there is the additional testimony of those who worked most closely with Hitler.

The empirical basis for the general principle is vast. and that were common in Germany and many other countries.Preface the relationship between Hitler's private problems and his biblically based theory for the Holocaust. to education. This work is not a psychobiography of Hitler. The only thing of a psychological nature that is assumed here is that one's personality—which in Hitler's case included an intense anti-Semitism—is formed on the basis of an individual's earliest experiences in life. Honing in on just the last two: it has recently been shown that Headstart programs for poor children produce lasting benefits only if undertaken during the child's very earliest years. and cigarette manufacturers know that their future is doomed if they fail to convert people while young. nor any application of any such theory to Hitler's life. clearly not from an evolutionary one (which Hitler and some scholars might prefer). cradle-talk is more important than college-talk. But one of the reasons why his countrymen accepted him as their leader is that those individuals had themselves been subjected. Hitler happens to have had remarkable leadership-skills. and thus to be the domains of evolutionary and of cultural psychology. Motivation increasingly is coming to be understood on the basis of evolutionary (genetic) and cultural (environmental) factors. to developmental psychology. and ranges over numerous disciplines. the psychological challenge it presents is obviously one of cultural psychology. and that as one gets older. And as a social/anthropological phenomenon. the cultural influences experienced during childhood are vastly more important than those experienced later in life. to the same general cultural influences that Hitler represented. the facts of his personal life that led Hitler to these fatal Scriptural passages that inspired him to enter politics with the aim to bring about the Holocaust are also clear. This book. from human development. The cultural influences that shaped Hitler's views of Jews from the crib on were the same ones that other small-town and rural Austrian children of his time experienced. to moral development. therefore. is transparently obvious. to put it roughly. to political socialization. to marketing research. In other words. to brain research. at the same time as it seeks to explain 19 . and marketers are so persuaded of the foundational nature of early experience. Inasmuch as the Holocaust was clearly a cultural phenomenon. during their earliest childhood. there is no psychoanalytical theory in it. well before school-age. that advertising-media fetch a hefty premium for reaching young audiences as opposed to old ones. the Holocaust will here be interpreted also from a cultural standpoint. additions or changes to personality become smaller and smaller. and as a consequence.

in the appropriate mixture. anti-Semitism was prevalent in Germany—not the fact of its prevalence. inasmuch as Hitler based his theory for the Holocaust upon them. as being literally true because they were from "The Bible—Monumental History of Mankind" (as Hitler revealingly referred to it in his private notes). Hitler. and Goldhagen got that wrong. as Goldhagen. aims to explain why his leadership was accepted. This aspect of the argument explains. which Goldhagen documented. The brain needs the body in order to carry out its intentions. but the explanation for it. one man planted the seed for the Holocaust. The second half of the book does this. one might view Hitler as the catalyst for the Holocaust.) Again. The aim in the present work is to provide a complete and fully documented explanation for the Holocaust. Also. obviously. This explanation will be both cultural-psychological and cultural-anthropological. Perhaps more should be said now about the reason for doing this. since it is quite unorthodox in historical explanations to deal with causes seemingly so remote as to have occurred two-thousand 20 . Hitler was the key. Some Germans even accepted them as Hitler himself did. and inasmuch as the German people had likewise been raised with these same anti-Semitic myths. required both brain and body. not in the body. and how the culture made the German nation want to follow his leadership in this enterprise. As has already been mentioned. among others. and even why. Amazingly. It will describe how the culture made Adolf Hitler want to exterminate all Jews. were originated by Saint Paul. the chemical reaction had to consist of more than merely a willing and ready populace: the chemicals. (This would include certain historical features of the country and of the time. The body needs the brain in order to organize its actions. The Holocaust was the fullest flowering of seed that had been planted nearly two millennia earlier. The second half of this work documents that.Preface how those cultural influences ended up producing Hitler as the leader of the Holocaust. It turns out that the biblical anti-Semitic statements. In those terms. in a sense. certain passages in the Bible are parts of this explanation. the catalyst made the chemical reaction take place. that were distinctive to Germany in the wake of the Versailles Treaty and the German depression and chaos of the struggling Weimar Republic. did the bidding of the brain. The Holocaust. established beyond any reasonable doubt. But motivation lies in the brain. such as were put into Jesus' mouth in John 8:44. and which Hitler believed as Gospel Truth. again. It therefore becomes relevant to address here explicitly the origins of biblical lies. why the body. the German people. since these lies caused the Holocaust.

either directly by his having read it. and church. Hitler's theory for the Holocaust constituted his reason for doing it Prior to his having formulated this theory. and goals. the Holocaust would never have happened. Gobineau. nor is it of the materialistic kind that is mechanistic and so refers to no individual beliefs. the foundation-stone for the "Thousand-Year Reich. Indeed. referred on 5 September 1967 to his own "totally irrational aversion. life-stories. what caused the anti-Semitic lies by Saint Paul and his followers who wrote the New Testament. And therefore. and not even to personal biographical facts. therefore. Hitler's own anti-Semitism was likewise inchoate. Fichte. beliefs. Hitler's theory for the Holocaust—not to speak of many of his other statements—drew from over a hundred specific biblical passages. and unfocused—just as is commonly the case with this sentiment. However. with a core of sixty that were essential to it. Karl Barth in his Letters: 1961-1968 (1981). The theory. so that it is impossible to understand his theory without reference to them. and must be understood if the cause of the Holocaust is to be fully known. in turn. For Hitler. The Holocaust. would never have occurred to Hitler if he had never been exposed to the Bible. of these two particular individuals." Without this theory. Without a doubt. thus become essential components in our explanation for the Holocaust. and this mission was the Holocaust. Likewise. But Hitler's theory—this "solution" to the problem that so plagued him personally. The personalities. That is why biblical lies are a subject in this book. while the theory proposed here is consistent with an 21 . was caused by this theory. the Holocaust was to be his greatest lifetime achievement." Early in his life. of original sin—gave him a mission in life. [an] allergic reaction of mine" toward "Jews (even Jewish Christians). this theory is not structuralist. school. or other intellectual influences that Hitler encountered after childhood if at all. is also a link in this causal chain. which is a variant of materialism. just as explaining the later links in the chain entails some biographical facts about Hitler. nor intentionalist. which is a variant of idealism. Explaining this originating cause of the Holocaust entails certain biographical facts about Saint Paul.Preface years earlier. It is neither of the idealistic kind that refers to Nietzsche. For example. the Bible was an essential link in the chain of causes that produced as its ultimate consequence the Holocaust. Hegel. This historical explanation. his anti-Semitism was inchoate. is of a new type. disorganized. or indirectly through his having on so many occasions throughout his childhood heard it preached and taught at home. therefore.

As previously mentioned. broadly conceived. which can therefore reasonably be considered as having shaped the individual's personality. with special emphasis being placed upon the cultural influences to which the individual was extensively exposed during his/her earliest childhood years. it might sound beyond belief. The accounts from these founders/originators are interpreted in terms of a minimum of theory.Preface idealistic/intentionalist approach. I would characterize the new approach as follows: the actual statements from the actual originator/founder of a social/historical movement regarding why he/she started that movement are presented. Hitler was the originator/founder of the Holocaust. Of course. psychoanalytical and other assumption-rich theory is avoided. nonetheless. but it is true. or Hitler's own racial-conflict theory. Paul. such as Karl Marx's classconflict theory. or instead merely a onetime occurrence—simultaneously a historiographical beginning and ending. that historians do not consult the statements of actual originators/founders of major social/historical movements in order to ascertain historical causes of those movements. it is entirely inconsistent with a materialistic/structuralist approach. not Christ. the actual originator/founder of "Christianity". To some. as we shall show from his own testimony. simply incredible. only time will tell whether this new approach to historical causation is itself a historiographical beginning. in favor of an impersonal materialistic-structuralist social analysis. Nothing is assumed except the cultural background from which the person came. originated the faith named after Christ. and are taken seriously as representing the reason why that movement came into being. since the latter repudiates any consideration whatsoever of strictly personal or individual factors. 22 . Paul was.

PART I: Hitler's "Holy War" Against "the Jews" 23 .

would be for him to execute God's will on Earth. therefore. and also the only way for him to achieve his spiritual salvation as a Christian. as expressed in "The Bible—Monumental History of Mankind. but that will be enough. You can think of this outline." whom Christ had identified in John 8:44 as being the 24 . Only the main streets are shown. This conceptual map will show. one might lose one's way. it is accepted that the Holocaust would not have happened if Hitler had not wanted it to happen. because reality is complex. in broad outline. when he first entered politics. Each chapter of the book will deal with a different aspect of this complex whole. the interrelationships between the parts." (as he phrased the matter). the case is presented that the reason why Hitler wanted it to happen is that in 1919. The basic theme of this section dealing with Hitler and the Holocaust consists of two parts: First. and to cleanse the world of the "original sin" of the "blood poisoning" of "The Aryan" or "Children of God" (or pureblooded Christians) that has occurred by "miscegenation" with "the Jews. Second.A Map of the Argument: How Hitler Came to the Conclusion That All Jews Must Be Killed The argument to follow is going to be complex. it will even get you to all the side-streets. as being like a street-map to a city. Without a map. Hitler came to the conclusion that the only way possible for him to deal with certain personal problems that had long plagued him.

" and John 8:44 and Matthew 27:25 defining the children of Satan. Hitler had to "atone" for "this curse" of his having Satan's blood coursing through his veins. right after Germany's defeat in World War I. purified by Christ's blood. and thus constituted "a terrible fact" producing "misery forever. made him fee) miserable on many occasions." His notes explored the meaning of "original sin" without any personal reference at all. his own "blood poisoning" 25 . evidently. or how. only thus could he win "Paradise. even though he did not mention those health-problems specifically. Hitler suffered certain physical ailments that." In a separate writing by Hitler at around the same time. "original sin" consisted of the "blood poisoning" of "The Aryan" or "Children of God. Hitler divided Mankind into two categories. as a fundamentalist Christian to whom the Bible was "history" instead of myth. Hitler's own "original sin" for which God was punishing him became clear: Hitler had always believed (as it turns out. he did not mention his personal problems: his ailments. This was typical of him: Hitler always universalized his personal problems. which in any event he felt were nobody's business but his own. in 1919. Then. First. was convinced that God must be punishing him for his own "original sin. who considered himself to be at least relatively free of individual sin." And he was determined to end it. In Hitler's notes. in accord with biblical passages such as 1 Peter 1-2 defining "God's chosen people. had concluded that this "race-mixing" violated "Racial purity the highest law" of God. or might be. he outlined his interpretation of the meaning of his health-problems. He was here concerned only with what he felt to be the broader significance of those problems—the reason why God was punishing him in this way.A Map of the Argument child of Satan. Hitler was convinced that the problem must lie in his blood." Hitler gave first expression to his subsequently relentless view that they have to be "eliminated." Again. the grandson of a Jew—the unknown father of Hitler's own illegitimate father." In this context." by "miscegenation" with "the Jew. God's people are Christians. a letter explaining how society should deal with the problem of "the Jews. Hitler. As defined by the Christian Bible. who for that reason had shed His blood. for what he intended to be his first book. Throughout his life. The Germanic Revolution—Volume I. In private notes to himself. In these notes. and the now-assumed cause for them. he came to the solution that he pursued for the rest of his life. even though doctors could never diagnose the cause. he tried leeches to purify it—he did not know of what. Hitler. and Satan's people are the Jews. falsely) that he was. This got him nowhere.

This was the real meaning behind such statements from Hitler as when he said.A Map of the Argument by "the Jew. The present work is the first in which its existence is even acknowledged. that "Paradise" (his term for a disease-free world in which God's People lived uncontaminated with the "blood poisoning" from the people of Satan) must be restored in order finally to end original sin and the miseries it causes. but was triggered by Hitler's personal problems. religion was the gun. and so is hardly challenging to document. etc.] have laid the foundations for the battle against Jews as the enemy of Mankind. when he wrote Mein Kampf in 1924. is a major reason they elected him. the Bible placed the seed for the Holocaust in Hitler's mind. Thus. and why they carried out his Holocaust. 26 . only two years later. The Versailles Treaty and Weimar collapse were the stage-setting for the crime." Professional historians. in turn. That. on 18 December 1926. "The teachings of Christ [John 8:44." However. That is the key reason why they considered Hitler's anti-Semitism acceptable or even good. perhaps concerned to avoid the possibility of offending religious believers in what is still an overwhelmingly religious society. and fertilized the soil—the German public—for the bumper crop of death that was to come. In sum: the Holocaust was inspired by the Bible. and Hitler's personal problems triggered the gun that delivered the bullet. that." Hitler was actually referring here to his subsequent "final solution" to "the Jewish problem. the Holocaust was the bullet. even though Hitler's most detailed statement of it was sprinkled throughout Mein Kampf. I shall finish. the work that Christ began. The German public were raised with the same anti-Semitic myths as Hitler. have uniformly failed to report Hitler's biblically grounded theory for the Holocaust. he filled in more details of what was by then his full-fledged theory for the Holocaust that was to come: for example.

Consequently. that was imposed top-down by identifiable leaders. Extending further this summary of the responsibility. In other words. Furthermore. but motivation at the top—that is to say. and thus guilt. Clearly. to actually answer the question of why the 27 . Obviously. this specification of "motivation" must itself be real. rather than an unorganized grass-roots phenomenon. Adolf Hitler. For example. it was a planned and organized mass-crime. the leadership below the topmost level of the Fuhrer. it would be even less to the point to assert that "eliminationist anti-Semitism" amongst the German masses "caused" the Holocaust. but of cause. therefore. However. To specify the motivation for the Holocaust requires more than merely to name a feeling. it necessarily had a motive. amongst the leadership—mattered the most. it would actually explain nothing. The extermination of Jews and others was intended. it requires identifying the actual source of that feeling. then." such an "explanation" would be fake.1: The Problem By virtue of the Holocaust's having been not just a tragedy but a crime. whose intentions were therefore supreme. took their instructions from Hitler. no answer to the question of why the Holocaust happened would be adequate if it did not resolve what Hitler's motivation was for the Holocaust. not fake. not a mistake. such as a riot. This is an attribution of the center not only of guilt. not only did motivation matter. for this crime. if one were to say that Hitler wanted the Holocaust to happen because he felt "eliminationist anti-Semitism. The statement is nothing more than tautological: to want to exterminate all Jews would be the same as to intend the Holocaust.

its cause. It is the search for the cause that has been failed. and its conceptualizer: Hitler himself." and that the Nazi organization selected only people who did share that goal. the real key that answers why Germany and Austria did it. There arc other reasons why this is so. And. Conservatives. This is not to deny that something had to have been profoundly wrong with German and Austrian society during the 1930's in order for it to bring Adolf Hitler forward as the revered popular leader of the Germanic Reich. but why the Nazi leadership did it. as this book will demonstrate. he answered this question during his lifetime. then one would be unable to deal in a meaningful way with the reality that some Germans did not share the goal of "eliminationist anti-Semitism. and even extreme conservatives such as the Nazis. so he is not available to ask. is that scholars have covered this up. in his private notes and voluminous other writings and statements. but also explain why public knowledge of this theory. in Hitler's own words. This is what one is referring to when saying that the Holocaust was no grass-roots movement or riot: the leadership that selected and organized "Hitler's willing executioners" was the key to the Holocaust—the difference between simply the common anti-Semitism that prevailed in the German/Austrian and other Christian cultures of the time. Of course. has been failed. Thus. upon the basis of which he planned the Holocaust. but certainly not its motivation. instigated it. its initiator. Liberals have also blamed the Versailles Treaty. We shall therefore not just present. too. carefully and coherently. For example. or in a standalone sense. if one were to speak of the German masses as having been the cause. and ultimately why the Fuhrer did it. it is to establish on a sound footing the search to identify precisely what that profound wrongness consisted of. but he did so in amazing detail. his theory behind the Holocaust. and which therefore caused 28 . those conditions produced the opportunity to perpetrate the Holocaust. have blamed the pre-Nazi German Weimar Republic that was the result of the Versailles settlement that ended World War 1. The only reason you don't know why Hitler perpetrated the Holocaust and why the Holocaust happened. and the genocide that the German/Austrian Nazis brought about.1: The Problem Holocaust happened. That search. the ultimate perpetrators of the Holocaust. Adolf Hitler. combined with the Great Depression. Hitler is dead. is to know why the Fuhrer. it is necessary to identify the motivation of its leader. and not only did he answer it. But fortunately. To the contrary. at most. the issue that has always been failed is not why "the Germans" did it. But none of that produced the Holocaust.

unlike Hitler. His function was not that of the slaughterhouse-worker. It is this theory that is here being exposed to the non-Nazi public for the very first time. in other words. Himmler very much shared Hitler's cultural values that were expressed in the Holocaust. Hitler did not personally sully his own hands directly with this dirty work. as we shall show in his own words. they have published. this theory would not have been able to have the impact it did. Although scholars have suppressed the theory. The theory was not needed in order to produce that obedience. in terms of which Hitler himself had formulated this theory. But in any case. Despite the myth of morally heedless "Hitler's willing executioners" who were supposedly insensitive to the sheer barbarism of what they were doing. It was enough for them simply to share Hitler's cultural values. For the people working below him. One widespread public notion that should be discredited in advance is that Hitler and the other Nazi leaders were simply unaware of the repellent character that the Holocaust presented even to their own people. It is that conception of this "higher good" that will be laid out in these pages. small squibs or isolated narts of it. its source. there was no need to know all details of this "higher good. Consequently. but of the planner and chief executive officer of the Holocaust. in a multitude of different places. And as also might be expected. if it had not sprung from values that the masses of the German and Austrian people shared with their Fuhrer—values. he was extremely proud to be its planner. the Nazi leaders who organized the genocide knew quite well that the people they were commanding felt that they were doing dirty work. As might be expected. which he knew to be of supreme importance to the Fuhrer. Hitler appointed as the chief operating officer of the Holocaust Heinrich Himmler. here and there. of the culture itself. would be threatening to the authority of scholarship itself. and so has been suppressed. for it was those shared cultural values that caused them to obey willingly. in pursuit of what they felt to be a higher good. actually visited the slaughterhouses. even if it was dirty work they felt had to be done. in Hitler's own words." Hitler's entire theory for the Holocaust. but never Hitler's explanation for the Holocaust—the theory on the basis of which he entered politics in 1919 with the aim in mind to eliminate all Jews. 29 . who. Or one might even say that he was so distant from its actual execution as to have been not its CEO but its Chairman.1: The Problem the extermination of millions. Himmler was wholeheartedly committed to the assignment. and yet-more-so to the masses. All who willingly engaged in this enterprise did so despite its repellency.

the 80 million worthy Germans. Himmler spoke with passion—at some times almost whispering. Most of you men know what it is like to see 100 corpses side by side. This is an unwritten and never-tobe-written page of glory in our history. 4. that this wealth will of course be turned over to the Reich in its entirety. in v. on 4 October 1943 delivered to his subordinates. elimination of the Jews. in complete frankness. Individuals who have erred will be punished in accordance with the order given by me at the start. or 500 or 1. which has been carried out by SS Obergruppenfuhrer Pohl. of a really grave chapter. Of course. USGPO. the extermination of the Jewish people." in which he said (as reported in pages 145-6. for once. Of all those who talk like that. document 1919-PS. not one has had to go through with it. it shall be said quite openly. 1946): I also want to speak to you here. We have taken none of it for ourselves. 29 of International Military Tribunal. Trial of The Major War Criminals. This is one of the things that is easily said: 'The Jewish people are going to be exterminated.' And then they all come along. 1948. he is a first-rate Jew. I gave a strict order." as the mutually agreed-upon euphemism for "the Final Solution to the Jewish Problem. v. Amongst ourselves. not one has seen it happen. or Security Squad) leaders. Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression. extermination—it'll be done.' that's what every Party member says. I am referring here to the evacuation of the Jews. the others are swine. and at others shouting—about the "Clearing out" or "Evacuation of the Jews. threatening that anyone who takes as much as a single Mark of this money is a dead man. and each one has his one decent Jew. *** The wealth they possessed we took from them. 1919-PS. it's in our program. and pages 563-4.000. To have stood fast through this and—except for cases of human weakness—to have stayed decent. but all the same we will never speak about it in public. A number of SS men—they are not very many—committed this 30 .1: The Problem This seriousness and intensity of commitment to the Holocaust as a moral goal were well reflected in a speech that Himmler. that has made us hard. but this one. SS (SchutzStaffel. 'sure.

He has sent Hitler to God's People now. And we have suffered no harm to our inner being. "Die Schutzstaffel als antibolschewistische Kampforganisation. and a megalomaniac. We vow to you and to the principles laid down by you. "Do you therefore believe in God?" The answer is. as a watch. in the course he taught to the Wehrmacht. Himmler. and that meant it was also the will of God. for example. But we do not have the right to enrich ourselves by so much as a fur. Adolf Hitler. 634). however." Then Himmler continued in a more personal voice. stupid. pp. v. to be infected by this bacillus and to die. Wherever it may form we will together burn it away. Do not doubt that we could not be the men we are. Munich) 50 Questions and Answers for the SS-Man. 1946. "We swear to you. we can say that we have carried out this most difficult of tasks in a spirit of love for our people. 30. Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression." from Zentralverlag der NSDAP/ Franz Eher. I will never stand by and watch while even a small rotten spot develops or takes hold. 1937. in the end. This idea of Hitler as Christ's successor was standard for Himmler." meaning that just as God had sent Christ to God's People then." Third is. as Himmler two days later told another group of subordinates. if we did not have faith in 31 . All in all.1: The Problem offense. our character. Himmler went into no detail about the Fuhrer's theory for the Holocaust. 4. by one Mark or a cigarette or anything else. 15-23 January 1937 (USGPO. "Only once in 2. p. page 468). 1990. Gauleiters and Reichsleiters (as quoted in Peter Padfield. One finds it. loyalty and bravery as leader and chancellor of the German Reich. because we destroyed a bacillus. in which the first question is. Himmler had written the 1937 booklet (excerpted in Hier spricht Deutschland.000 years is such a leader [as Hitler] sent to our people. as part of his closing justification for the coming "extermination of the subhuman enemies of Germany as the nucleus of the Aryan race. It was enough simply that these men knew that they could trust that they were doing something noble. obedience till death. we had the duty towards our people. v. He is not suited to be one of us. There will be no mercy. "Yes. and they shall die. We do not want. "I have reminded you of these three questions and answers in order to make completely clear our attitude toward religion." God's Chosen People. he didn't have to. Shortly before his having taught that course. I believe in the Lord God. bound by a solemn oath. We had the moral right. "What is your oath?" The answer is. our soul. "What do you think of a person who does not believe in God?" Answer: "I consider him arrogant. because it was the will of Hitler. to destroy this people that wanted to destroy us. 27-31. Or. so help us God!" Question Two is.

Apparently. But we—the world that has been left in Hitler's wake— need to know. have been formed and grown within our newly resurrected people on the command of the Fuhrer. was enough of a reason. not just of Hitler's genocide. Hitler's authority alone was sufficient reason to do it. it says. but of any genocide. they had faith." They did not know Hitler's full theory behind the Holocaust. . for these people. Nor did Hitler expect his fighting forces and the masters of the death-factories to know more than that they were doing his will. "We. . because we need to avoid a recurrence. and who has sent us our Fuhrer. there are lessons the world has not yet learned because the Holocaust still remains not understood. men with such convictions are anything but atheists. our people and this earth. we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea. Believe me. because this was obedience ultimately to the will of God. such as how he knew this to be God's will." Clearly. the man—no longer merely the people surrounding him who carried out his orders.1: The Problem a Lord God who rules over us. And this brings us finally to Hitler himself. Hitler on 21 October 1941 told his confidants. obedience itself. In his Secret Conversations (1953) or Table-Talk (1988) in his war-bunker. 32 ." Further on in the booklet. Only Hitler himself needed to know reasons beyond that. as we shall subsequently have occasion to quote again in other contexts. because they had no need to. . even of the ones that have followed after the Holocaust itself. the Schutzstaffel. "By exterminating this pest [Jews]. who has created us and our Fatherland.

beyond any doubt—or to an absolute 100% certainty—is reasonable in mathematics. (2) means. the scientific standard of proof. in any case. A higher standard of proof.2: Hitler the Mystery-Man The eye of the hurricane was Adolf Hitler: if Hitler had not wanted the Holocaust to happen. This is an appropriate standard because the Holocaust was itself a crime—a massive crime—whose motive is unknown and is here to be established for the first time. which is the standard of proof required in a criminal trial. but not in science. Therefore. and a court of law deals with questions beyond those of mere mathematics. Hitler's wanting it to happen was a necessary but not sufficient condition in order for the Holocaust to occur. where it is applied to certain real-world matters by labeling them as supernatural. However. supposedly beyond even the possibility of reach by science. it might be noted. and (3) opportunity. rather than religiously. A criminal court in a democratic society aims to exclude such mythological thinking. which is beyond a reasonable doubt. applies in a criminal trial. Absolute certainty. to address real-world matters—matters of science. nobody knows why Hitler wanted the Holocaust to happen. The three requirements in order to produce a conviction for any crime are: (1) motive. and this will be the approach used here as well. The purpose of Part I of this book will be to answer that question beyond a reasonable doubt. a precondition. It was. As a logician might put it. In the case of the 33 . it is also the standard in religious faith. so as to come up with verdicts that are defensible scientifically. then the Holocaust would not have happened. is not the standard only in mathematics.

And it would be unrealistic to portray that hurricane without the eye at its center. only the first. and thus his intended audiences. one must possess the decoding key. finally. the one cause of the Holocaust that scholars refuse even to consider was the actual cause of the Holocaust. transcribed conversations with his colleagues-in-arms. and the crime thus. exists in the voluminous verbal record he left. has not been.2: Hitler the Mystery-Man Holocaust. the motive also will be established. The opportunity for the Holocaust consisted of all of the aspects of a desperate post-World-War-I Germany experiencing hyperinflation during the Great Depression. the scholars—despite their claimed expertise— are unanimously wrong and are profoundly misleading the public. inspire. and empower with 34 . But we shall document that on this single item of unanimity. Adolf Hitler. educate. which is the reason why the Nazis bombed those themselves just before the advancing Allied troops were able to get to them. Scholars disagree on just about everything concerning the cause of the Holocaust. In the process of answering the question of why Hitler wanted the Holocaust to happen. into two fundamental categories: "us" and "them. But on one thing they are unanimous: Adolf Hitler did not perpetrate the Holocaust on the basis of religious—and certainly not with Christian— motivation or belief." He did not speak—or write—the same way to both. both of the latter two have been well established according to the requisite standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. Hitler was a cunning man. at last. A remarkable—and stunningly ignored—goldmine of evidence regarding why Hitler wanted the Holocaust to happen. which is the correct understanding of Hitler's strategy and tactics of communication. The most basic component of this decoding key is that Hitler divided Mankind. including private letters. or interpret. The means of the Holocaust included such things as the gas chambers. and in order to accurately understand." his supporters whom he accepted as fellow Aryans. his objective was to teach. we shall also address other aspects of the Holocaust's cause. motive. It will be shown that all these things are interconnected. And now. notes to himself. solved. any one of these statements. However. Ironically. as well as the nation's cultural tolerance of anti-Semitism and of other forms of bigotry. we are coming to understand a culture— the culture that produced the Holocaust. decode. and that in drawing these interconnections. When he was addressing "us. and speeches to his supporters. such as why the German people found Hitler to be an acceptable leader.

will be the subject of subsequent chapters within Part I." he falsified. which he delivered with intense passion. and they succeed at doing so even now. he tried to avoid making any single complete and coherent statement of it. Many other statements by Hitler that were also false. no individual other than himself must know everything that he knew or. and also directed at "them. amongst all of the thousands of statements that Hitler left us that were directed either to himself or to people he thought at the time to be supporters. then such an individual. or "the big picture". (A great deal of what he "knew" was actually false.) Therefore. peaceful. it was important to Hitler that these people not be empowered with the Truth. The closest he ever came to violating this nondisclosure rule was his sprinkling virtually the entire theory amongst the hundreds of chaotic pages of Mein Kampf. to have been sincere. to himself and to those he considered supporters and fellow Aryans. and in control. to be more precise. that was an example that is now widely recognized as reflecting Hitler's deceptions. empowered with as much understanding as the Fuhrer himself. believed. But even there he avoided so much as a single instance of crediting the book he had mastered in his childhood and which was the source for each part of the theory. These statements reflected his real convictions. However.2: Hitler the Mystery-Man Truth as he understood it or believed himself to understand it. and thus still remain decoys to his true understanding. could become a rival and topple and replace him. However. Hitler knew that in order for him to remain safely in command. However. Presenting Hitler's explanation. By contrast." are still believed. and that therefore he must never impart to any one person—not even to a supporter—all of the Truth. for if he were to do that. The 35 . This reason was so detailed and so coherent that it constituted nothing less than Hitler's theory for the Holocaust. Hitler was cunning enough to recognize that knowledge is power. He led these people off the scent. intentions. One famous example of Hitler's communications directed at "them" was the Munich Pact—that piece of paper Sir Neville Chamberlain in 1938 held up to the eyes of the world as "proof of Hitler's essentially defensive. when Hitler was addressing individuals whom he considered to be not "us" but "them. he presented his entire reason for the Holocaust. even today. These decoy-statements were specifically intended by him to lead his enemies off the scent of his intentions. and especially not with any true understanding of his real intentions. laying out his theory for the Holocaust. because he wanted to avoid creating a rival as knowledgeable as himself.

") Hitler is a man of great mystery. international Jewry. or was power itself for him the only purpose? All these questions are the same. Guenter Lewy." Yet even after all the decades that have passed since then. for to him they were all the same. and scrutinizing his actions with care. virtually the only historians who continue to raise as a serious possibility the idea that Hitler merely drifted toward the Holocaust. Nowadays. Some biographers don't even try to answer them. even in his expiring words. One of the great unanswered questions is why Hitler singled out Jews for such special hatred. whom he referred to with fury. based on false "History" that he believed to be true because of its source. (Our subsequent chapters will document this. with remarkable logical coherence. his "Political Testament" before his suicide. are self-declared anti-Semites. and all a mortal threat to Hitler's own "Aryan race. first and foremost. But there was something special about his hatred of Jews. but how did it come to be? And what made Jews such special targets of his bigotry? Hitler was also bigoted against Blacks." He had thoroughly mastered this "History" in his childhood.2: Hitler the Mystery-Man aim of the present chapter will be to provide a portrait of the man himself—the man behind this theory. this has been challenged. and all are unanswered. Gypsies. 36 . and every other minority—even against Slavs. with the writings of historian David Irving and others. Everyone knows that this was so. the disabled. even though he did assert late in his life that as a child he had become "completely master" of this book of "history. we won't have to take Hitler's word for it. Even the question itself is debated: did Hitler actually single Jews out? Since at least the late 1970's. One can read all the biographies that have been written of him and still be left with the question: how did these parts fit together? Did he make sense even to himself? Did he seek and obtain power for a purpose. The great historian of the Nazi era. the "Monumental History of Mankind. some have gone so far as to admit that the man still baffles them after all the years of study and of interviewing Hitler's acquaintances and poring over his voluminous writings. as "the poisoner of all nations. infamously intolerant. Adolf Hitler was. It will be the first objective of the present book to answer this question: Hitler's own words will answer it in painstaking detail. however. nobody knows what the source of this genocidal hatred was. and even after all the tragic stories he had to tell. produced in 2000 his The Nazi Persecution of the Gypsies. homosexuals." meaning Jews in all countries. exploring that particular aspect of the Holocaust. or that Jews were not its special focus.

concluded a long tirade against Jews saying. Furthermore. and which would shape him. in his Secret Conversations (Table-Talk) which have been widely available for decades." and even his own soldiers who carried out his war would "have no idea" how great that service was. focus. Indeed. Adolf Hitler was born in 1889 in the rural north Austrian town of Braunau. icy. His father. Slavs. were natives with ancestral roots there that went back hundreds." Here. But if the beast of Hitler's bigotry did not then roar and attack with violence and bloodshed. but deadly ultimate intent. an Austrian Government customs-clerk who 37 . who had come to settle in Austria. The society into which Hitler was born. but nonetheless the vast majority of the people. and systematic nature of the anti-Semitic Holocaust were different in kind. pre-industrial culture. Up until that time. Perhaps the biggest historical consensus that indeed has emerged is that Hitler did intend to exterminate "the Jews. its eyes glowing with the cold. of years. who would achieve gratification by simply going onto the street himself and attacking or murdering Jews or anyone else. was the twilight of an imperial Austria that was just beginning to emerge from the long sleep of medieval. there was never an instance in which he did so. "By exterminating this pest. But part of the mystery of Hitler is also that he was no common bigot. it seems that Hitler felt no personal reason to act upon the basis of that then-widespread Austrian bigotry. Indeed.2: Hitler the Mystery-Man Lewy concluded that the ferocity. and others—were remarkably cordial. stare of an animal of prey. Hitler's personal relations with the few Jews he knew in his youth—his mother's physician. with full belly for the time being. in private. it was simply the common contempt for Jews that prevailed in Hitler's own rural Austrian lateNineteenth-Century culture. then at least it leered quietly from the dark corners of Hitler's emerging mind. there were a number of relative newcomers from the East. Yet no one has explained why. as we have noted. on 21 October 1941. "the final solution to the Jewish problem"—as his own. if not thousands. Hitler was proud to claim the Holocaust—or as he otherwise put it. prior to the age of 30 (the year 1919) there was nothing whatsoever unusual or exceptional in Hitler's anti-Semitism." How amazing it is that this was previously even in question. which formed the border separating Austria from Germany. he would "do humanity a service. on the Inn River. Because Austria had ruled over an entire Austro-Hungarian Empire. church-centered. his own art-dealer when he was a struggling artist in Vienna. After all. not merely in degree. especially outside the Imperial capital of Vienna. Hitler. we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea.

Adolf Hitler. she was a very normal woman for her culture. Vienna itself was to remain an unknown world to the provincial child. Vienna was the only "melting-pot. Both Hitler's father and mother came from long lines of Austrian peasant stock. as the mother/housewife that her society and era expected of her. minorities of any kind were viewed as unwelcome and inferior strangers—and definitely as outsiders. virtually entirely Christian. whose actual biological father was never known to a certainty. Hitler was born provincial. especially in such border areas. Unification was to be instead with the North—Germany." but even in the Imperial Capital. Science and technology were newcomers in what was otherwise a traditional. and seems to have thought none the less of him for it. In any case. the signs of modernity were yet to appear. solidly Catholic. culture. Associated with this impulse was often an antipathy to the more cosmopolitan. though the early stages of the industrial revolution— such as the introduction of railroads and of steamboats as the first forms of mechanized transportation—were just beginning to shape the landscape. and he died provincial. small-town environment—never knowing anything more cosmopolitan than the Upper-Austrian provincial capital of Linz— Adolf grew to his young manhood as a Catholic in a Catholic country. inter-ethnic relations were hardly warm enough to melt anything. and traditional in every way—including even the violations of "tradition. This was a political sentiment that was then widely shared. Furthermore. eastward-looking. a 38 . politics of Austria's own Imperial Government. which was Austria's only cosmopolitan city. until his eighteenth year. The church was the central social institution of Hitler's youth. By the look of the countryside. Outside of Vienna. and fit comfortably into the subordinate role in the marital relationship. Austria in that era was an almost monolithically Roman Catholic culture. Hitler's mother had been a lover of this man when he was married to her predecessor. such as Hitler's own father. such as the younger Hitler ultimately brought about. by which time his own personality was already set in cement. such as Hitler knew as a child. In such a rural. and who himself had had illegitimate children and not only legitimate ones." with out-of-wedlock births. the prevailing values and intellectual outlook were overwhelmingly conservative and backward-looking. religious. which favored a unification of the Germanic Reich into a single country. and especially in the small towns and rural areas. one could hardly tell that the Medieval Age had passed. was a follower of the Pan-Germanic movement.2: Hitler the Mystery-Man was uniformly described as possessing an authoritarian temperament. and his family were typical Austrian Catholics in every way. In any event.

"people." but "them. and home. were. and they attended the same Roman Catholic Austrian churches as did Hitler himself. looked back with pride at the extent to which he knew the Bible as a child. Christian. Virtually everyone that he knew was Christian. Only Jews were not Christian. Eastern Orthodox." And we know that this was no idle boast—and not only because Hitler's personal secretaries. and such as statements by other adults who were similarly trained." To the boy Adolf Hitler. such as the Bible and religious trainers who teach it." or Volk. furthermore. viewed himself as a member of an Austrian/German. Nor is it surprising that to the extent that he considered anyone as being not a member of this cultural community. and in Germany nearby. recounts the young Hitler's saying as they passed a synagogue in Linz. but their background also was Christian. he was typical. From his earliest years. In his Secret Conversations or Table-Talk. aides." However. As a child or very young person. and. To be sure. not all of the individuals that Hitler knew as a child were prejudiced in this sense. he bragged near the end of his life on the night of 8-9 January 1942. and through his religious instructors in church." "race. August Kubizek. Slavs also were a minority." but instead acquire almost all of your knowledge about them through incidental references in secondhand sources. just like himself. but the exceptions were few. Hitler's main knowledge of Jews was derived from the Bible. "That does not belong here. And Jews. and others who knew him well. Protestants. if you don't know much about an ethnic group "in the flesh. Jews clearly were not "us. then those secondhand sources will very likely come to mold and shape your views of that group. Waite. too. Virtually the only minority individuals that he encountered—and only a few—were Jews. school. 56). L. weren't the majority even in the neighboring lands.2: Hitler the Mystery-Man native Austrian in Austria. too. he viewed that person as inferior. 94). in his 1953 Adolf Hitler. as an adult. they were the majority." as his best psychobiographer. as a person to whom the experience of being a minority was as alien as the Martians landing. as an adult. he had no personal reason to think much about Jews. both through his own reading of it. Hitler's childhood friend. about how much he had absorbed as a child from his religious trainers at school who taught the Bible: "I was completely master of the material. Robert G. mein Jugendfreund (p. referred to it in The Psychopathic God (1977. in every other way. We know it above 39 . Hitler. community. p. In this sense. And as yet. he gave them little thought. in a sense. but at least they were Christians. and Hitler was not one of them. were amazed at his "phenomenal memory. It is thus not surprising that Hitler.

Your house is left to you desolate. and writings. . . "Jerusalem. in other words. that too was retrospectively placed into His mouth. . conversations. This particular passage is a good example of why that was the case: no less a personage than Jesus Christ is so quoted in Matthew.' Such was Hitler's first impression of Jews. saying. the New Testament. Eyewitness to Jesus. . who would have made a negative impression as a politician if he had cited chapter-and-verse of the Bible. beyond a doubt. In the specifically Jewish portion of it. even though he never identified them as such. . He was. But in the distinctively Christian part of it. Jerusalem! You are the city that kills the prophets. your house is left to you desolate. You snakes. . which virtually all scholars date as having been written after Rome sacked Jerusalem in 70 A. however. Fill up then the measure of your ancestors. In private notes he scrawled in 1919 at the age of 30 (and which will 40 . For the child Hitler. but rather a man of the world. For I tell you. . and slaughtered essentially all of its inhabitants for the rebellion of Jews against Rome's rule. after all. has been exposed in Graham Stanton's 1995 Gospel Truth?.) Likewise.2: Hitler the Mystery-Man all because Hitler laced his common.. was constructed after that event. This is what Christ is referring to here. the Bible carried a very special authority—the Word of God. George Wells' 1999 The Jesus Myth. you children of snakes! How can you escape being sentenced to hell? . everyday speech." This quote. with hundreds of biblical references. Mein Kampf. they are now (Matthew 23:31-8): .D. 'Blessed is the One who comes in the name of the Lord. Jerusalem. and articles by several scholars. This will happen even in the present generation. Upon you may come all the righteous blood that is shed on earth." who. But the numerous biblical references in Hitler's recorded statements nonetheless demonstrate. disappoint God time and again. when Christ here was quoted as predicting His own crucifixion by "the Jews" ("This will happen even in the present generation"). . (A hoax. as well as his most famous book. . a practical politician. you will not see Me again until you say. by Carsten Thiede in 1995. But Hitler was unaware of such facts. .. "documenting" an earlier composition-date for Matthew. that he really was "master of the material." The Bible presents a very mixed image of Jews. they are "God's Chosen People. . the Old Testament. It remained his last. and placed into Christ's mouth retrospectively. descendants of those who murdered the prophets. not a clergyman whose aim was to teach the Bible.. ..

His life is really only of this world. who even then as always saw in religion only a means for his business existence. another for "all humanity". the latter made no secret of His disposition towards the Jewish people. also allegedly quoting Christ).2: Hitler the Mystery-Man subseqeently be discussed). you children of snakes!" But later. of course. and his spirit is as alien to true Christianity. "after an intense inner struggle. after he had already formulated his life's goal of exterminating these "snakes" or "spawn of Satan" (see John 8:44. of course. p. another for "this adversary". Thus we shall see that on several occasions. that he had. the Jew himself." in line with Christ's supposed words: "You snakes. . . 1943." not myth or legend.. This little passage was loaded (as will be shown later on) with five specific biblical references: one for "He even took to the whip in order to drive out of the Lord's temple". And Hitler's passion for that wine remained. 423. Old wine was simply poured into new bottles. and when necessary He even took to the whip in order to drive out of the Lord's temple this adversary of all humanity. p." which had to be eradicated. Christ was crucified. another for "for this.. it is clear where Hitler got the belief expressed in 1924 in Mein Kampf (1939. The wine was still religious. the Bible was "childish imaginings. and yet another applying this Deicide-guilt not only to ancient Jews. and this against his own nation. But for this. he confessed in a speech on 29 October 1937. so that instead of Jews carrying the blood of Satan. Hitler after 1937 increasingly tried to cast his old biblical beliefs in scientific terms. as his nature was two thousand years ago to the Sublime Founder of the new doctrine. but to 41 . till the bitter end. I feel myself now as free as a colt in the meadow. to Nazi propaganda ministers in the wake of the Pope's 14 March 1937 encyclical "Mit brennender Sorge. 307) concerning: . . while our present party Christianity disgraces itself by begging for Jewish votes in the elections and later tries to conduct political wirepulling with atheistic Jewish parties. they carried blood that was "infected" by "the Jewish virus. of religious intensity." As we will show in subsequent chapters. he referred to "The Bible—Monumental History of Mankind. he had come to his understanding of "the Jews" on the basis of that very same "Monumental History of Mankind. for instance. Thus. Hitler referred to "the Jews" as "this international snake" or "the brood of vipers and adders. been freed from the still-current and childish imaginings of religion. Of course." reasserting church supremacy over the state on moral issues." From then on." But ever since the crib." Hitler saw the Bible as "history. Christ was crucified".

saying. and which virtually places into Jesus' mouth these words of Paul. "As for those enemies of mine who do not want me to be their King. (In Part Two.D." but only a few verses later. not really by Jesus'.. However. was that the words of the biblical Jesus preceded the words of Paul. or races (for in the Bible a "people" was a "race").. the Jews. that he was "the Messiah. He was unaware that they had been manufactured afterwards by Paul's followers. there are conflicting images of what the Bible says. Completely destroy all the people. of right and wrong." Even Christ Himself. the Bible was not only the "Monumental History of Mankind". but of "all humanity" (1 Thessalonians 2:15-6). But what Hitler had learned of the Bible when he was very young (which is to say.) Of course.D. on the one hand.2: Hitler the Mystery-Man Jews in subsequent generations such as Hitler's. the reasons for this. when the learning came early enough to shape his personality). right after the Roman Emperor Claudius (according to his biographer Suetonius) had expelled all Jews from Rome on account of disturbances stirred up there by the followers of "Chrestus" (the common term then for Christ). hindering us from preaching to the non-Jews and bringing them salvation. Rome's destruction of Jerusalem." referring to people. according to Mark 14:62. a grudge.D. closed a parable about a king. that were written in 50 A." which meant that God Himself had anointed Him as the King of the Jews in 42 . is the passage that calls "the Jews" enemies not only of Jesus. in verses 20:16-7. When Hitler used this passage. who are not "God's People. "kill everyone. he did not know that it was actually written prior to Matthew 23:31-8. Deuteronomy 5:17 says. Jesus claimed. "Do not commit murder. quoted by the Paul-follower who wrote Luke and Acts. speaking of "the Jews": .. who displease God and are adversaries of all humanity. Paul here celebrates a misfortune to Jews in 49 A. it was the source of values. and now God's retribution has at last come down upon them. his follower who wrote Matthew paraphrased Paul (as "Christ") decades later to celebrate a different misfortune to Jews in 70 A. in Luke 19:27. and the source of Paul's hatred of Judaism—and ultimately of Jews—will be explained. bring them here and kill them in my presence!" Of course." Later. . 7:2 says that these same people who must "not commit murder" must "put them all to death. which we quoted earlier. who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and drove us out. . for the young boy Hitler. For example. it makes absolutely clear. it was very personal. All the while they have been filling up the full measure of their guilt. for example. Here.

other "outsiders" as well. or Protestants in Catholic regions. Even "turn the other cheek" (Matthew 5:39.. and whom the king ordered to be killed." For him. These differences could sometimes be seen as being between "peoples" or "races. as a Christian." To Hitler." Yet. "establish once again the sovereignty (independence) of Israel. but who rejected Him-just as the people in the parable who rejected their king. Slavs. cites the following revealing incident regarding Hitler at about age 13: The question of whether someone was 'Germanic' or 'Slavic' played an important role even among the high-school students of Linz. chosen according to the purpose of God the Father. you have dark eyes and dark hair!' Another time he is said to have divided his classmates at the 43 ." because these were the pureblooded Christians. it says. He was the One who would. which." such as 1 Peter. there were. and especially not children of the devil (John 8:44).2: Hitler the Mystery-Man restoration of the Davidic dynasty. the Holy Nation. such as Slavs (associated with Eastern Orthodox cultures). "children of the devil. religiously defined "outsiders" to this categorization. which opens with greetings "to God's Chosen People . as applying only to how one should treat others of "God's People." Later (2:9)." But the Jews that Hitler knew of as "Jews" were not the people who accepted Jesus as their King." This was "the Chosen Race. as previously mentioned. and even Catholics in Protestant areas. as Jesus' own disciples expected in Acts 1:6. Luke 6:29) can be understood consistently with this. and to be purified by His blood... Brigitte Hamann's 1999 Hitler s Vienna (p. 'You are not Germanic. One day he apparently told Keplinger. 17). since it is not in the Bible. Hitler had believed it since childhood. the source of the idea can be found in any of the many epistles of the New Testament that open with greetings "to God's People. young Hitler diligently studied the alleged differences between races. That word was "Aryan. Hitler was no different from many other people. "you are the Chosen Race. to obey Jesus Christ. there was a need for only one word. in believing that he was one of "God's People." It was the People "purified by His blood. For example. Nowhere was Christ quoted as calling say. such bigotry still was real. the Holy Nation. even if less." but the moral authority of "the Holy Book" did not back them up. would not make him come across as a religious fanatic. Although Jews were the archetypal.. According to a statement by his schoolmate Josef Keplinger. including even nonChristians and non-Jews." not inferior races.

In the early pages of Mein Kampf. and as being a murderer. saying in Matthew 27:25. in John 8:44.' according to purely external characteristics. The reason is that he was the darling of her eyes. And did not Christ. that were the common reading throughout Austria during Hitler's childhood. 44 . and even the Old. the New Testament. He was a murderer from the very beginning"? And did not the Jews depicted by the Bible even accept this. In fact. and it quoted the Linzer Post [serving the young Hitler's own area] approvingly for having written that anti-Semitism 'is no more than the healthy egoism of people to permit their self-preservation. these things came from the Bible. and Christian lynch-ings of Jews were commonplace] while at the same time warning its readers against the 'Jewification' of the Tyrol. and to many who would read them. This Catholic paper wrote what Hitler himself would often repeat. Hitler confessed as an adult that he had been brought to tears on only two occasions: one was Germany's defeat in World War 1: the other was the death of his mother. and you want to carry out his wishes. especially when the outcasts were Jews. As a child. Amongst the numerous examples: "Die Tiroler Post. She probably took little Adolf with her most of the times that she herself went to church. His mother attended mass daily. that the goal of the Jew was world domination. present Satan as seeking world domination. but as a devout one.'" To the people who wrote such things. from daily newspapers to monthly magazines. What group the dark-haired Hitler joined we do not know. because they were so commonplace. and the very special bond was mutual between them. 'Aryans and Non-Aryans. they must be true. these beliefs and attitudes in Hitler did not stand out.2: Hitler the Mystery-Man entrance of their classroom into two groups left and right. even in the Deicide itself. Eugene Davidson's 1977 The Making of Adolf Hitler devotes the mid-section of its first chapter to an itemization of the anti-Semitic popular press. a Christian Social paper. on March 7. that he was the carrier of the bacillus of destruction. It is not difficult to figure out how Hitler came to believe this way: Hitler had been raised not only as a Catholic. and was declared by all who knew her to have been an exceptionally devout person. told again the story of the murder of a Christian child by Jews in the fifteenth century [when ritual murders of Christians by Jews eager to drink their blood were part of the prevailing mythology. say of the Jews: "You are the children of your father the devil. these assertions must have seemed naturally to be true. after all. so they represented history. "Let the guilt for his death fall on us and on our children"? To the young Adolf Hitler. 1903.

his mother favored the impulse. and it remained so even after 1937 when the church/state power-struggle between the Nazis and the leadership of the various churches (which we shall discuss in Chapter Six) left him embittered and disillusioned regarding the real motivations of the clergy. the Jesuitical model especially was admired and followed. but in a similarly disciplined and selfless type of organization.2: Hitler the Mystery-Man Hitler mentions that as a child he had aspired to being a priest. he thought. He claimed that as a child. who had once entertained the same goal for himself. p. 405). serving "God's People" in a different capacity. only self-interest—precisely the thing that Jesus in John 2:13-7 whipped "the Jews" for. Like so many in his culture. removing the merchants and moneychangers from God's Temple. this selflessness was alien to Jews as Satan's children: they knew. Hitler 45 . After 1937. organic. Hitler was delighted to enter the military service when World War I broke out only a few years later. The religious proclivity exhibited itself also subsequently." To Hitler. on religious organizational principles. Throughout Hitler's life. p. He had a penchant for sketching. obliged and bound by nothing but a command of the Church. That this is possible must not be denied in a world in which hundreds and hundreds of thousands of men voluntarily impose celibacy upon themselves. The Christian influences in his childhood left a permanent impression on him as an adult. Church architecture also enthralled him. 1943. causes—"racial" causes: it must have been something about Satan's blood. When the Nazis came to power in the 1930's. Hitler attributed such evil "Jewish traits" to constitutional. For Hitler. and in music became enamored with Richard Wagner's operas set to medieval Nordic and Christian themes. Instead of being a soldier for God. Hitler urged. he became now one for Germany... they carefully modeled not only the regular army. "In the folkish state the folkish view of life has finally to succeed in bringing about that nobler era . was opposed and quashed it. and could understand. for which (Mark 11:18) Christ was crucified. this was beautiful. in which the one knowingly and silently renounces and the other gladly gives and sacrifices. In Mein Kampf (1939. the Church continued to hold a special place in his heart on account of the splendor and magnificence of its architecture and music. 610. It thus is also natural that after Hitler's artistic aspirations were dashed by his rejection at an entrance-exam for study at an art-institute in Vienna. but his father. but even more so the SS. He also never lost his admiration for the disciplined selflessness that the Church demanded in its service. when the boy's inclinations drifted more and more toward the arts.

Hitler universalized his personal problems. 1939." These expressions were usually cast in the collective "we" form. That is an example of one of the mostfrequently made observations by Hitler-biographers: that he routinely filled his speech with references to himself and to events that he personally experienced. This. with no overt self-reference. which was perhaps natural for him. . 24). and stated them as issues that must be addressed for the benefit of the broader society. "The life of every living thing is in the blood". . Morell. "Blood. How can we purify ourselves . syringes suggests that he suspected there was something the matter with his blood." even while rejecting communism as "Jewish atheistic bolshevism. but cast them in abstract terms. since—just as in the Bible—the collectivity always preceded the individual in the way he approached things.. but by the loss of that force of resistance which is contained only in the pure blood." (Mein Kampf. all Nazis considered themselves "socialists. of people having "corrupted blood. takes away sins. In this statement." Hitler's Mein Kampf and other writings and speeches ranted interminably about the threat to the people of "contaminated blood. As Robert Waite noted in his The Psychopathic God (pp. "All of us are suffering from the ailment of mixed. corrupted blood.] as they sucked it out. 128). In this sense. This gave him a means of veiling 46 . state and repeat that. "The people do not perish by lost wars. for example.2: Hitler the Mystery-Man increasingly identified the precise Satanic mechanism as a "Jewish virus'' or "Jewish bacillus" in their blood. He enjoyed telling his secretaries what fun it was to watch leaches [sp. ." Thus.. "Hitler's habit from childhood of having his own blood sucked out by leeches or later by ." Ever since his childhood. 17:11 also says. he viewed himself. He wanted to get rid of it. in a sense. He also had his doctor. . in fact. Leviticus 17:11& 14. "Race" and "blood" were identical for Hitler. ?" This is a very carefully crafted assertion/question: Hitler includes himself in a class. draw his blood and save it in test tubes so that he could gaze at it. 128. But he is here saying that "all of us" have this problem." "poisoned blood. There were deep cultural roots to this. It is impossible to overestimate the significance that "blood" had in Hitler's mind. is the consensus meaning for "socialism" that was accepted within National Socialism that held the Party together: the collective reality takes precedence over the particular individual or the specific case. as Everyman.. . Hitler said (Waite." For example. 406).. he is placing himself in a class of people that his own Nazis carted off to gas chambers." which in his own system of values was very bad. And Hitler always expressed privately a doubt that his own blood was "pure. which is life. ." and "impure blood. p. p. Hitler was obsessed with his blood.

what is certainly important regarding Hitler's fears about his health is that his nagging symptoms never managed to be definitively diagnosed. For example. "In 1923 his left arm and left leg had trembled. 352) noted of the latter. the test came back negative. However. public-spirited comments.2: Hitler the Mystery-Man from the public his own. he was plagued by recurring. his tirades in Mein Kampf against the 47 . bouts of vague malaise or unexplained symptoms. perhaps caught from a Jewish prostitute in the years just before World War I. "On Spurious Sources." that book was among the many that were hoaxes. these fears led his physician at that time to order a Wasserman test in order to find out whether syphilis indeed was the cause of Hitler's symptoms. Again after Stalingrad in 1943 the same symptom was observed. then. But. motivations. This story was given currency by a "Dr. actually personal. and to stare at it afterwards. light have been the actual personal reference to Hitler's many statements about the need to protect the "purity of the blood"? Throughout Hitler's life. especially "bad stomach" and "the shakes. What is true. Whatever the answer may be to that question. however. but the condition went away. but was not apparent later that year. stories circulated that Hitler was mad. at least raise the question whether it was this concern that led Hitler to have his blood drawn repeatedly. even that his brain had been rotting in his final years as a result of advancing syphilis. intermittent. as Waite demonstrated in his appendix. Kurt Krueger" who had published a book claiming to tell about his own psychiatric treatment of Hitler. And Hitler was a prudish man. This fact alone has produced endless speculation. During his last years." "impure. It came on strong in 1944. and then it disappeared. Much as Hitler sought help for them—and it is clear that throughout his life he did—these symptoms remained unexplained to his dying day. some of it fraudulent. What. is that Hitler undoubtedly did fear that he was suffering from syphilis—a disease whose honors occupy page after page of Mein Kampf. Hitler's personal secretary considered him a hypochondriac. Why did Hitler fear syphilis in particular? Had he been with prostitutes (whom he in Mein Kampf associated with this "scourge")? The reality is that there is no evidence even suggesting that he ever had. during the first few decades after the second world war. Physicians simply never were able to tell Hitler what the source of his problem was." As Waite (p. and Hitler's repeated references to his own "corrupted. when he had been living in Vienna. by re-expressing these politically more acceptable." or "poisoned" blood." Virtually nothing certain is known of Hitler's health record prior to his having entered public service during World War I and later as a politician.

" but he was almost certainly convinced throughout his life. frequently confused such infectious ailments with authentically genetic ones. to Hitler. including Mein Kampf. syphilis appeared to be. transcribed during the 1940's. only the fact itself is relevant. essentially.2: Hitler the Mystery-Man sinfulness of life in Vienna were consistent with everything that is authentically known about his beliefs. it could only have come from his father. that his father's father either probably or certainly had been "a Jew. Hitler was no Lothario. In Hitler's view. he even bragged to Himmler. a genetic disease. it is not particularly likely that his fears of his own possible syphilis came from his having visited prostitutes. by the fetus. but prudishness and sexual masochism are by no means an inconsistent combination. if not altogether impotent. It also presents a case that what sexuality he did exhibit with his few lovers was masochistic. which no physician had succeeded at doing. As Waite well documented (as also did Fritz Redlich in his 1998 psychobiogrpahy. Because of Hitler's relative disinterest in sex." In that moment. or otherwise one that can be passed down from generation to generation. But syphilis is not caught only by means of sexual intercourse. "The discovery of the Jewish virus is one of the greatest revolutions that have ever occurred. and Hitler was aware of this fact. Hitler was likely descended entirely from Christian "stock. . Furthermore. it can also be contracted in the womb. Hitler). The battle in which we are engaged today is of the same sort as the one waged last century by Pasteur and Koch." (I refer the interested reader to Waite for the documentation. We shall regain health only by eliminating the Jew.) Hitler thought himself to have gotten "the Jewish infection" via his father. he explained the Holocaust against the Jews as essential for the public health—a public health measure comparable to a protection against 48 . It is much likelier that his fears of his own possible syphilis reflected precisely such a "racial" curse. In Hitler's Secret Conversations (Table-Talk). Hitler's writings. and that some women who knew him intimately were repelled by what he wanted them to do to him. How many diseases have their origin in the Jewish virus! . such as to urinate onto his face. but Hitler never permitted any expression to pass from his lips countenancing adultery or even promiscuity. he used his magnetic appeal to women in order to advance his political career. here. Waite's The Psychopathic God—which remains to the present day the single most informative carefully documented source on Hitler's personality— concludes that Hitler was actually somewhat asexual. Furthermore. he showed himself to be scientifically so naive that on 22 February 1942. And he was proud to have diagnosed his condition. from early childhood on. . whatever the curse was. and because of his moralistic loathing of prostitutes.

It has to make the child the most precious possession of a people. It has to care for its preservation in perpetuity. (This was a reflection of his tendency to universalize his personal concerns. but one highest honor: to renounce this." Hitler's conception of eugenics also was subordinated to this ultimate goal.. physical education was to precede the intellectual enhancement of "the spiritual material" so as "to give the Almighty Creator beings as He Himself created them." In other words. This is even described as the foundation for a good spiritual life.2: Hitler the Mystery-Man the deadliest of infectious diseases. in the face of which the wish and the egoism of the individual appears as nothing and has to submit. exterminate the "virus" so as to restore "Paradise." a disease-free world. . and kept away from all "degenerate" influences. all disease was "racial." But he was also concerned about future generations. it will be found cited in Appendix 1." Hitler recognized that exterminating the Jews would not remove this "virus" from his own "poisoned blood. restoring "Paradise. It has to take care that only the healthy beget children. In Mein Kampf Hitler stated that the most important function of the state was precisely this physical one. Mein Kampf goes on at length about the sacrifices that the current generation must make in order to bring about a future "Paradise" after Man has obeyed God's "admonition finally to put an end to the permanently continuous original sin of a racepoisoning and to give the Almighty Creator beings as He Himself created them. It has to put the race into the center of life in general." The Holocaust was part of this long-term program: Hitler could not get "this curse. he was committed to the future. throughout Mein Kampf and elsewhere. the "blood poisoning" of "the Aryan" by "the Jew" was a "racial poisoning" by means of a "virus." (From here on. To Hitler. And so he continued: "Thereby the State has to appear as the guardian of a thousand years' future. that there is only one disgrace: to be sick and to bring children into the world despite one's own deficiencies. and as Mein Kampf put it: "The folkish state has to make up for what is today neglected." where ailments such as he suffered did not exist.. Youths were to be made healthy and vigorous. if page-reference in Mein Kampf is not specified. To Hitler." as he 49 . And healthfulness was always a major social concern for Hitler.) Mein Kampf praises the healthy." refrained from having children." but to him even "the man of genius" relied upon a healthy body." He wanted to restore "Paradise. not merely a personal worry.) For Hitler." Hitler himself renounced it. vigorous body. this man who built a whole theory about "the child the most precious possession of a people. "Paradise" was above all a place where disease did not exist. Hitler always also praised "genius.

and at church.2: Hitler the Mystery-Man called it." as the knight in shining armor rescuing "the Aryans" from this "virus. out of his own "blood. Furthermore. Hitler's religious training at home with his parents. formative. was both extensive and. in his mind this defensive war was required by God Himself. Who destroys His work thereby declares war on the creation of the Lord. evidently. As Martin Bormann interjected during Hitler's monologue (which is what his Secret 50 . were extensions of the man's religiosity. the people who knew him best. including both his friends. but also in his letters. and in his private notes to himself." This meant that all individuals with "contaminated blood" would have to be exterminated—or. If anything. but his entire approach to his mission in politics. his only knowledge of science consisted of stereotypes that he acquired from the popular press. each within his own denomination. The middle ground was compulsory sterilization." appear frequently not only in his public writings and speeches. Because God's will once gave men their form. were unanimous in their opinion that Hitler was deeply religious. and he never had any interest in studying science." That is what Satan's people (see John 8:44) were doing to God's People (see 7 Peter 1:1-2 & 2:9) by intermarrying with them and poisoning their blood. The entire program was based on Hitler's self-diagnosis of his ailments. analysis or knowledge. he was determined that his distant posterity wouldn't suffer as he did. References by him to "the Almighty. the divine will." and "the Creator. to see to it that God's will is not simply talked about outwardly. at school with his religion-teachers who were priests. scientifically untrained. so he accepted that they were incurable. As will be amply documented in the coming pages. However. Hitler was. and all other "blood poisonings. Hitler was determined to strike back. so that "Paradise" would finally be restored. at least (as in his own case. Hitler's physicians couldn't cure them. but that God's will is also fulfilled and God's labor not ravished." had to be eradicated. As Mein Kampf expressed the matter: "Precisely he who is folkishly oriented has the most sacred duty." "Providence. in fact. and their faculties. Where could he have gotten such an idea? One thing is certain: Hitler's eugenic plan (given in full here in Appendix 1) didn't have its source in any sort of scientific thinking. The "virus" that he suffered." but he was going to do it for "my people. which he also sponsored. it was the reverse: an application by Hitler of his own religious thinking— a religious-based plan of eugenics. to refrain from having children." "the Lord. not only Hitler's theory for the Holocaust. since he knew that he possessed the will to carry this out). and colleagues closest to him in the Nazi Party. their being.

and even literal. "Mit brennender Sorge. Throughout the Secret Conversations (Table-Talk). "You have always been very religious. In this "scientific" framework. the True religion." like Haeckel himself. by that late a period. to put all that behind him and to be "as free as a colt in the meadow. constituted new clothing for his same old religious-based ideas. as in the Christian myth (John 8:44) the children of Satan." it must indeed—considering how unquestioning. but that is the core of faith). and why one German edition of them even titles them Monologe) on the night of 12-13 January 1942. it seems that "the straw that broke the camel's back" and turned him away from his formerly solid faith. The anti-Semitic Haeckel had been a devout Evangelical until his early twenties. held "science" to be. who must be overcome in their Darwinian competition against the stronger and superior race of the (Christian) Germans. the only path to Certainty (a goal that actual science repudiates as impossible. The Nazis insisted. As with 51 . instead they were an evil and inferior race. to the contrary. By the time of Hitler's 29 October 1937 speech to Nazi propagandists." so that "I feel myself now as free as a colt in the meadow. Jews were no longer." But even so." of 14 March 1937. he remained unaffected. had been his earlier belief—have been for Hitler "an intense inner struggle" that caused him now to label that earlier faith as "childish imaginings." And Hitler's subsequent Secret Conversations (Table-Talk) do exhibit amply his attempts. and that the churches were subject to the rule by the state. was the Papal Encyclical. in essence. But in fact. Many of these "scientists. at least on a conscious intellectual level. Hitler now cast the very same viewpoints in the arguments of Ernst Haeckel and other quasi-scientific social-Darwinist German popularizers of Charles Darwin's theory ot evolution. For him. in which he made the monumental confession that he had. The issue was: who is subordinate to whom? Did the State have the ultimate moral authority? Or did the churches? The sole focus of the encyclical was the reassertion of the supremacy of the Church over state authority. that there could not be two separate final authorities. Hitler's previously unquestioning fundamentalist Christian Roman Catholic faith was no longer unquestioning. Hitler was not "free". Hitler's rationalizations had changed. deep inside. which culminated for him a four-year-long power struggle with a number of Germany's Christian churches. been freed from the still-current and childish imaginings of religion." Hitler did not deny it.2: Hitler the Mystery-Man Conversations or Table-Talk actually were. faithful. his numerous references to "science" as the basis for his views. but the ideas themselves—built into his personality by his childhood exposure to the Bible and to Christianity—did not change at all. "after an intense inner struggle.

Hitler. declared himself as "pious" in his conviction "that whoever fights bravely in defense of the natural laws framed by God and never capitulates. he was not just "pious".2: Hitler the Mystery-Man him. not only did all of Hitler's old Christian prejudices and stereotypes— such as of Jews—remain in place unaffected by his new religious questioning and repudiations." And. he did not object when Bormann observed the same about him. will never be deserted by the Lawgiver. more specifically. He remained so. Hitler. but will. but even the very beliefs that had given rise to them continued to surface again and again. receive the blessing of Providence. "deep down. through and through. Jesus Himself was. I am a religious person all the same. including the admission that." And in speeches on 10 September and 8 November 1943. as we earlier mentioned. after all. His personality really was changeless. In fact. even after his power struggle with the churches. was not just "religious". right up to the very end. Some would consider such changelessness a flaw. In a speech on 5 July 1944 to leaders of the armaments industry. echoing his New Year's Proclamation of that year. in the end. and on 26 June 1944. Hitler made similar expressions. 52 . and God was Hitler's model. he was Christian. but God was changeless. Hitler always bragged that his personality was changeless.

500 years. v. I shall finish. the work that Christ began. And second. 1992. Cardinal Bertram had specifically interceded in support of Hitler's anti-Semitic policies by issuing a decision not to oppose the Nazis' first official act against Germany's Jews. I am simply finishing the job. He gave (pp. 105-6). Similarly. and the Cardinal was thereby implicitly here accepting the Nazis' racial concept of who was a "Jew").. "the press. had good reason to expect that the Catholic Church would support his policies in this regard." not "outsiders. Schriften. so it came from the heart. pp. Anordnungen.) Hitler. Katholische Kirche und Nationalsozialismus: Dokumente 1930-1935. he held that. which is overwhelmingly owned by Jews. has consistently remained silent about 53 . Hitler felt that the Roman Catholic church. in fact. Already on 1 April 1933. were "my people. and the other Christian denominations." So it was with sincerity that Hitler. "I am doing what the Church has done for 1. in a speech to the Nazi Party (Barbel Dusik. at the beginning of his reign. prior to his power struggle with the churches culminating in 1937. a boycott against Jewish-owned businesses. it expressed his true convictions. addressing his followers on 18 December 1926. First. not as enemies. ed. 98-9) two primary reasons. 118-9." Thus did Hitler summarize his mission." much less "the enemy.3:Bible "The teachings of Christ have laid the foundations for the battle against Jews as the enemy of Mankind. pp." (Hans Muller. 1963. He was speaking to people he viewed as supporters. Hitler: Reden. reassured Bishop Berning in conversation on 26 April 1933. he opposed "intervention in an area having little relevance to the episcopate's field of activity" (even though some of the boycott's targets were Catholics who had one or more Jewish grandparents. 2.

so as to judge whether the implicit accusation of an anti-Catholic bias on the part of Jews bore even minimal validity). The interpretation of them that will now be offered— quoting directly from the notes themselves—is fully informed by Hitler's subsequent writings and statements to intimates. this is a summary of Hitler's theory for the Holocaust that is presented in full in Appendix 1: On the basis of "The Bible—Monumental History of Mankind." Hitler's private notes to himself in 1919 document the very moment of the Holocaust's likely conception—the first recorded statement by Hitler of what was to become. is to understand the Roman Catholic concept of "original sin. As Waite's The Psychopathic God observes in its first chapter. "when. a book to which Hitler paid scant attention in Mein Kampf. had come in 1919. "What is remarkable about these notes is that they contain so many references to the Bible. actually completed Mein Kampf. the seed from which the Holocaust ultimately grew.3: Bible the persecution of Catholics in foreign countries" (which latter charge he did not document so as to enable a reader to know what. The Germanic Revolution.'" the real start. more theoretical." Hitler in these notes identifies the meaning of "original sin" as consisting of the "blood poisoning" of "the Aryan" or "Children of God" by "the Jew" via "miscegenation. He was sketching out notes for what he intended to be his first book." documenting his view that "Hitler saw himself as a Messiah with a divine mission to save Germany from the incarnate evil of 'international Jewry. As Werner Maser observed of them in his 1973 Hitler's Letters and Notes. instances he was referring to." violating "Racial purity the highest law. 54 . "Purification of the Bible—what of its spirit remains?" What he is referring to here is the Garden of Eden. in fuller flower. Paradise lost. and generally Part I of this book). Things were off to a flying start. Also a prerequisite in order to understand these momentous private notes of Hitler." On this basis." It is impossible to interpret these notes without examining Hitler's subsequent full exposition of his theory. after long internal struggles. such as in speeches on 10 February and 23 November 1939. I became a politician and took up the battle against my enemy." which itself has its roots in the story of Adam and Eve in Genesis. according to Hitler's repeated testimony twenty years later. In a sense. Hitler's theory behind the Holocaust. work than his later. of "Hitler as Religious Leader. Hitler asks." and so constituting "a terrible fact" that produces "misery forever. then. if any. Volume I—a less biographical. where these notes are fleshed out (see especially Appendix 1 herein. in the Bible.

. essentially." Here Hitler was expressing his own. His sin. and then later on in Mein Kampf and his other writings and statements. . only once did he pay homage to the Bible. the Church teaches that from Adam original sin has been transmitted to all men. persistent ailments and malaise. Did he formulate the Holocaust on the basis of the "Monumental History of Mankind"? Why would he do so? Hitler had been struggling all his life with his ailments. some of them in Mein Kampf itself. "All of us are suffering from the ailment of mixed." and asking "How can we purify ourselves and make atonement" for "the ailment of mixed. How can we purify ourselves and make atonement?" In the same place (p. has affected all his descendants. . The original sin each person inherits is not an actual sin he personally commits." Furthermore. Basing its teaching firmly on Scripture (esp. It is equally noteworthy that this occasion occurred at the very time that he ever afterward referred to as the time when "I became a politician and took up the battle against my enemy. he paraphrased passages from the Bible.' I must perhaps fulfill this curse. the whole human family. of collective or inherited guilt was not Hitler's invention. it occurred in his private notes." In fact. It is prominent throughout the Bible. "The sin of Adam was in him an actual sin. both the New Testament and the Old endorse the concept of collective guilt. as a "curse. and the very basis of the concept of "original sin. Waite quotes Hitler as having speculated to an associate. when "justifying" the Holocaust. The concept. . . . Romans 5:12-19). in which Hitler makes references that are difficult if not impossible to interpret any other way 55 . his source for knowing and understanding history.. but without attribution. medically unexplained. Hitler. corrupted blood.." Finally. and that on that occasion. "We do not know the exact nature of the first human sin". which he believed had their origins in some kind of "blood poisoning. a communication only to himself. it is remarkable that afterwards. however. filled in the blanks on that. corrupted blood?" There are likewise numerous other occasions. "In the Gospels [Matthew 27:25] the Jews call to Pilate when Pilate hesitated to crucify Jesus: 'His blood comes over us and over our children. even in the context—widespread in the Bible—of a "people" as. . a race.3: Bible As stated in Ronald Lawler et al's 1976 The Teaching of Christ: A Catholic Catechism for Adults (p. first in outline in these notes. 84). As we have mentioned. 128). Waite also has Hitler saying to another friend. perhaps via his father's original sin of having been born from one and so inheriting and passing on the contamination. It is very striking that in all of the many thousands of pages of writings left to us by Hitler." The question gnawed at him whether the source of this "poisoning" was Jews. however.

" not myth." and also "the father of lies. By means of every device. in fact. 'If God were your Father. as follows: "For hours the black-haired Jew boy. . he meant that literally. But why did he view this as a "curse" constituting his own "original sin." Hitler felt himself to be enslaved by ailments that never left him. who was "a murderer from the beginning. When Hitler learned the Bible as a child." Hitler made reference to "The Bible—Monumental History of Mankind. it." Consequently. applying the term only to American Protestants who believed this way in the early Twentieth Century." This means that Hitler believed the Bible to be "history. likewise. children of the devil. Moslem fundamentalism is defined by one's taking the Koran to be the literal and infallible Truth. Here is how: In his momentous 1919 private notes penned at the very moment "when I became a politician and took up the battle against my enemy. . The belief is derived from the more basic one that the given Scripture is inerrant. you would love me. You belong to your father. Hitler took that literally—and he feared that this referred to himself. waits in ambush for the unsuspecting girl whom he defiles with his blood and thus robs her from her people. he tries to destroy the racial foundations of the people to be enslaved. he learned that Jews were "snakes" or "vipers. Elsewhere in the New Testament. . just as. infallible. say. defines Christian fundamentalism." so that Jews. when John 8:44 refers to "the Jews" as the children ot the devil. when he later referred to "this curse" from the Gospel of Matthew. And also. but that is not our usage. the devil. the literal Word of God. he learned that "the Jews" were. Most people use the term "fundamentalism" in this way. literally true.3: Bible than as expressions of his personal fear that he was contaminated with Jewish blood coursing through his veins (in accord with John 8:42&44: "Jesus said to the Jews. in Mein Kampf. and as such. He was a murderer from the beginning. diabolic joy in his face. Hitler was a Roman Catholic fundamentalist or believer in "The Bible—Monumental History of Mankind." for which he had to "make atonement"? To answer that question is to clarify how Hitler reached his self-diagnosis by means of his having relied upon the Bible as the Word of God." which represented Satan in several places in the New Testament.'") For example. That constitutes the core belief of fundamentalist Christianity. were murderers and liars. he introduced a passage explaining how Jews "pollute the blood" of Aryans as Hitler might have imagined some Jewish grandfather of his own doing to Hitler himself. and you want to carry out your father's desire. there is a different definition. as Christ was quoted in John 8:44 as calling them. Hitler's self-diagnosis that caused the Holocaust was rooted in his fundamentalist Christianity. 56 .

Thus. was therefore that much more inclined to seek the cause of his ailments in religion. Here is how: Clearly. did not believe that God was punishing him for any sins that he had personally committed. The snake or serpent was not specifically identified with Satan until the New Testament (e. the snake (or serpent) was the most cunning animal that the Lord God had made. as described in the Bible. who had faith in any event. He was one of "God's People. was caused by the snake. Jews repeatedly disappointed God's expectations of them.) Hitler." and always strove to follow God's will. his answer must lie elsewhere: it must lie in original sin itself. not in medical science." but as actually the people of Satan. even as early as Genesis. meaning both the Old Testament and the New. (Only later was Hitler to try to integrate the two." Hitler's main guiding principle seems to have been to accept the Bible as inerrant and as therefore containing no contradictions. Thus. his physical maladies stumped his physicians. medical science was unable to explain them. and especially his conception of "original sin. Hitler. he tried to fill in these blanks as logically consistently as possible with as much as possible—if not with everything—that is in the Bible.g. Revelation 20:2). evidently. In the Old Testament. Hitler therefore had a very practical need now to solve this great mystery of Christian theology.3: Bible Now we really enter Hitler's mental world. Precisely when this transformation—if that is what it was—took place is not stated. What the New Testament did is to expose "the Jews" as not only no longer "God's Chosen People." in which he did his best to fill in the blanks that the authors of the New Testament had left as blanks regarding "original sin. Hitler was convinced that his ailments must constitute God's punishment of him for something. The very opening of Genesis 3 is: "Now. by his conviction that Satan's blood poisoning of Aryans worked by means of a "virus" or a "bacillus" that Jews carried. But it was not until John 8:44 and other passages in the New Testament that "the Jews" were identified as today's incarnation 57 . but this serpentine diabolicism was implicit all along.. Genesis 3 contained the solution: Original sin. This is what God was punishing him for. but for what? Original sin became his answer to this vexing question. for which God expelled Man from Paradise or the Garden of Eden and so ordained the Fall of Man. He went to its origins. and the result was the Fall of Man." The diabolical nature of the snake was evidenced even at the start: the snake tempted Eve with the apple that God had forbidden to her.

Sixty percent of the way through the Chapter." Each time." by asserting that 58 . Christ was The Great Healer. Hitler concluded the tirade with: "The struggle against Jewish bolshevization of the world requires a clear attitude towards Soviet Russia. Hitler's original sin was his own "blood poisoning." In other words. And in Matthew 23:33 and other New Testament passages. once more pitches the stormer of the heavens back to Lucifer." Hitler had his answer. Lucifer." Hitler went on to refer to "the Jews" as "this international snake.e. the Devil. passages such as Matthew 23:33 and Revelation 20:2 in which Satan and/or "the Jews" appear in the form of a snake. and John 8:44 calling "the Jews" the children of Satan. in a mighty struggle." Seventy percent of the way through. You cannot drive out the Devil with Beelzebub. under "Eastern Policy." Hitler demonized Jews in not just one." and that the Jew "continues to move farther on his fatal course." after." His physical ailments—undiagnosable by medical science—were thus finally understandable to him. represents or else is represented by "the international Jew. Hitler's disease therefore was revealed to him as the Jewish curse: Satan! Hitler referred on a number of key occasions to the "diabolical" nature of "the Jew. he received it from Christ Himself. but four different contexts. with German Christians) except by enslaving Christians in Germany just as Christians in Russia had been enslaved by this Satanic force. and He cured this person "whom Satan had bound for eighteen long years." by his asserting that "the international Jew today rules Russia absolutely. he said that princes who became "allied" with Jews found themselves allied with Satan and "ultimately discovering that they were in Satan's embrace by permitting themselves to be entangled in the net of the Jew. in the book's most important chapter. respectively. who knew what the merely mortal human physicians did not and could not. or Beelzebub. until another force opposes him and.. Christ was quoted as exposing them as "a brood of snakes" who are "sentenced to hell. For example." who can never be a partner with Germany (i." Hitler placed Russia in the context of "Jewry's twentieth-century effort to take world dominion unto itself. near the end of Mein Kampf. In Luke 13:11 & 12& 16. Chapter 11 on "Nation and Race. Earlier. Hitler wound up his explanation of why "the Jew" had "invented" "the Marxist doctrine. Christ took a woman who had been crippled eighteen years by a demon. Hitler was being punished for Satan's blood. the biblical origin of the characterization— including especially John 8:44—is unambiguous.3: Bible of Satan." just as Hitler himself was now." and "this spawn of hell.

312-3." The phrases "the 'pure' one" and "throw the guilt" in turn are reminiscent of 2 Corinthians 11:13-4. 1943." who "have been nailed down forever.3: Bible "this Great Master of Lies [taken straight from John 8:44. 312). where he states that during 1932-3 he had the following verbal exchange with Hitler: "There cannot be two Chosen People. Well. . pp. They cannot be human in the sense of being in the image of God. which refers to Satan as "the father of lies" and also as the father of "the Jews"] knows how to appear as the 'pure' one and throw the guilt onto others.'" paraphrasing Christ's reference to the devil in John 8:44. We are God's 59 . which the annotator to the 1939 English edition described by saying that the German people "were utterly stunned by the suddenness of their defeat. presumably by means of this extermination. 241). "The Jews are undoubtedly a race. for which nothing had prepared them" (p. Revelation 12:9). Hitler (pp. Instead. diabolic joy in his face. by one of the greatest minds of mankind. 238 (p. no wonder! Even Satan can disguise himself to look like an angel of light!" Eighty-five percent of the way through. which refers to Jews who are "false apostles. the Eternal. It is therefore not at all surprising that a 24 February 1943 speech by Hitler that promised to exterminate all Jews in Europe pointed to "the devilish plot of the Jewish global criminals. John 2:13-22). Hitler supportively cited "our people" on the matter: "One really cannot be surprised if in the view of our people the Jew appears as the living incarnation of Satan. the Jews are in the image of the devil. 1939 (The Voice of Destruction. Matthew 12:34. he called them 'the great masters of lying. Germany's loss in World War I. Another example of this anti-Semitic demonization in Mein Kampf refers to Hitler's most traumatic period. but not human. In a theoretical vein. "the Jew" is referred to as a "snake" or "serpent." A remarkably similar assertion is alleged by Hermann Rauschning." which is a common New Testament form of reference for Satan (e. . 231-2) attributed this military loss to Jewish "moral poisoning" of Germany. Hitler launched into the previously mentioned "For hours the black-haired Jew boy. . p. 1940). who lie about their work and disguise themselves as real apostles of Christ. in his Hitler Speaks. and described the press accounts of the military failures of Germany's wartime leadership as having been nothing but another example of the "bottomless lying of Jewry. in an eternally correct sentence of fundamental truth." And shortly after that." and vowed to "wreck" the plot.. such as his 12 April 1922 Munich speech referring to Jesus whipping "the brood of vipers" or snakes out of the Temple (Luke 19:45-7. Hitler said in a speech in May 1923 at the Circus Krone in Munich." In many statements and writings by Hitler.g.

. . but instead from the very "Word of God.3: Bible People." the Bible itself. and you want to carry out your father's desire. and see who have the time and leisure and money to enjoy nature and the spectacle of Christ's sufferings. I set the Aryan and the Jew over against each other. In Mein Kampf. for he is a liar and the father of lies. many children are first exposed to the Bible in a red-letter edition. this was not inspired by God. then. the devil. or some other abstruse philosopher that the boy Hitler was never exposed to. of course. The two are as widely separated as man and beast. Plato.. . So this Hitler-statement drew on five New-Testament passages. "Symbolically? No! It's the sheer simple undiluted truth." which actually combines also Mark 11:18. the creature of another god. Hitler's Munich speech of 12 April 1922 drew indirectly from these and other passages when it said. and these are red-letter words. not black-letter ones. and if I call one of them a human being I must call the other something else.'" These words do not come from Fichte. Where. and when necessary He even took to the whip in order to drive out of the Lord's temple this adversary [as 'children of Satan' would be] of all humanity." Such anti-Semitic passages were deeply rooted in the whole culture. Docs not that fully answer the question?" "That is to be understood symbolically?" Again he banged the table. who even then as always saw in religion only a means for his business existence. it was God speaking. would Hitler have gotten his idea that "the Aryan" or pureblooded Christian constituted "the Men of God"? About one-third ot 60 . The view expressed in all of these passages comes straight out of John 8:42&4: "Jesus said to the Jews. Furthermore.. Hitler based a passage on this portion of John and also on John 2:13-22 describing Jesus taking the whip to beat "the Jews" out of the temple for having been changing money and selling goods there: Hitler referred to "the Sublime Founder of the new doctrine. Of course. Two worlds face one another—the men of God and the men of Satan! The Jew is the anti-man. He was a murderer from the beginning. Christ was crucified. But for this. . Matthew 27:25. 'If God were your Father. You belong to your father. you would love me. which he had mastered as a child. "Watch the Oberammergau Passion Plays [which are based on these passages] this summer. To Hitler. the latter made no secret of His disposition towards the Jewish people. and 1 Thessalonians 2:15-6. and is not rooted in the truth. He must have come from another root of the human race.

The performance of the Eucharist sacrament at the mass includes the breadwafer." Hitler's culture took this belief for granted. Hitler's literalist." such as 1 Peter. a people belonging to God." which for Hitler was Aryan blood. fundamentalist Christian. Or. representing Christ's body. "God presented Him as a sacrifice of atonement through faith in His blood." and a few verses later. the blood of God's People. thus implicitly 61 . who thought he suffered from a disease of the blood. Paul said. even asserts that failure to honor the sacrament "is why many among you are weak and sick. and the blood of Jesus is upon them as a curse for their being so." "people.) It is understandable that the blood of Satan would have terrified the young Hitler. a holy nation. theology retrojected or readback into the ancient Jewish Old Testament account of Man's Fall. chosen according to the purpose of God the Father. and the red wine as Christ's blood. at the Last Supper (Matthew 26:27-9. and Luke 22:17-8)." and suffered his ailments. to obey Jesus Christ and be purified by His blood. then. "we have now been justified by His blood. backed up in Hitler's experience every time he took communion. Hitler's theory behind the Holocaust. . ." but Hitler was a Catholic." In Romans 3:25." can even be viewed as a direct extension from his culture." this referred to Hitler's interpretation of the meaning of "original sin. "You are a chosen people. was based on his own answer to the question that the Catholic catechism could not answer: "We do not know the exact nature of the first human sin. When Hitler's 1919 notes mentioned "miscegenation. such as "death. later-written. and because Jews cany this blood within their veins they killed Jesus for His having whipped them for their greed and evil." Hitler's answer was based on John 8:44 and Matthew 27:25: Jews are the children of Satan. references to the symbolic sacrificial purification of the believer by Christ's blood (represented by wine)." and "race. 5:9. The other." (A few of the Protestant bibles mistranslate the Greek term for blood by a supposed synonym. as 1 Peter 2:9 put it.3: Bible the epistles in the New Testament open with greetings to "God's People.. Given Hitler's devout Catholic upbringing. Jewish blood is Satan's blood. his equation of "blood. 1 Corinthians 11:23-30.." which might have had special resonance for the little boy Hitler." And this was the "original sin" for which Hitler himself had to "atone. can only have reinforced for Hitler the spiritual significance of "the blood. The earliest-written surviving record of the sacrament. "To God's Chosen People. the distinctively New Testament equation of snake=Satan=Jew. . Mark 14:23-5. a royal priesthood.

" Diseases such as Hitler complained of were. on 12 April 1922. as reflected in passages such as John 8:44. Matthew 23:33 and 27:25." He passionately meant it when he said in Mein Kampf that he would heed God's (Deut. Because God's will once gave men their form. Count Lerchenfeld. their being. According to Hitler's theological interpretation. Hitler recognized.3: Bible explaining why it was that in the Old Testament the Jews repeatedly disappointed God. or else in mixed company such as to religious liberals. Who destroys His work thereby declares war on the creation of the Lord.. . sometimes glints even of such "blood" passages appeared through. which came to a climax in the Deicide. not Jews). He said in the last session of the Landtag that his feeling 'as a man and a Christian' prevented him from being an anti-Semite. in his view. the divine will. . that there were certain aspects of his antiSemitic theory that were of too personal a nature to himself for them to be suitable for expressing either outside his own circle of followers. "the people of the devil. which Hitler seems to have understood as Godly authorization for the Holocaust. however. Especially John 8:44 and Matthew 21:25 had to be suppressed when addressing such audiences. and Luke 19:27. Hitler would "atone" for his own "curse" of his personal "original sin" of his "blood poisoning. as a new-dispensation version of such Old Testament instructions or commands from God as Deuteronomy 7:1-3 and 20:16-8 (only now.." The leeches and doctors had failed. as the following in Munich. The Aryan gave up the purity of his blood and therefore he lost his place in the Paradise which he had created for himself. so Hitler relied upon the Bible. some of whom might have taken exception to Hitler's literal interpretation of anti-Semitic biblical passages. he gradually lost his cultural ability more and more. The sin against the blood and the degradation of the race are the hereditary sin of this world and the end of a mankind surrendering to them.. the consequence of such a "race poisoning"—from the worst of all sources. "God's People" were Christians. . Yet nonetheless." The Holocaust was Hitler's "atonement" for his own "original sin. seeking to convert a religiously liberal legislator: I would like here to appeal to a greater than I. I say: my feeling as a Christian points me to my 62 .. there was a constitutional defect in the Jewish people. even in such addresses. till at last not only mentally but physically he began to resemble more and more the subjected and aborigines than his ancestors. and their faculties. He became submerged in the race-mixture.7:1-3) "admonition finally to put an end to the permanently continuous original sin of a race poisoning and to give the Almighty Creator beings as He Himself created them.. .

but a very devil. Today.3: Bible Lord and Saviour as a fighter. but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice. and one day this passion will break out in one way or another: and now I would ask those who today call us 'agitators': 'What then have you to give to the people as a faith to which it might cling?' Nothing at all.' And then I say to myself: Passion is already stirred through the rising tide of distress. surrounded only by a few followers. And many may say. And as a man I have the duty to see to it that human society does not suffer the same catastrophic collapse as did the civilization of the ancient world some two thousand years ago—a civilization which was driven to its ruin through this same Jewish people. it is the distress which daily grows. after two thousand years. as did our Lord two thousand years ago. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people. with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. And through the distress there is no doubt that the people has been aroused. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated. turn against those by whom today this poor people is plundered and exploited. 'It is an accursed crime to stir up passions in the people. wretchedness and misery. When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces. if Germany collapses today. but within there is ferment. Externally perhaps apathetic. if I felt no pity for them. but. And when I look on my people I see it work and work and toil and labor. Then indeed when Rome collapsed there were endless streams of new German bands flowing into the Empire from the North. if I did not. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. then I believe I would be no Christian. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and of adders. God's truth! was greatest not as sufferer but as fighter. for you yourselves have no faith in 63 . It points me to the man who once in loneliness. and at the end of the week it has only for its wage. who is there to come after us? German blood upon this earth is on the way to gradual exhaustion unless we pull ourselves together and make ourselves free! And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly. recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to the fight against them and who.

and a whip appears only in the John version.' I remember him saying. That man was dragged before a court and they said: He is arousing the people! So He. That is the mightiest thing which our Movement must create: for these widespread. was an agitator! And against whom? Against 'God. 'something has gone completely wrong with Adolf. on which they can build so that they may at last find once again a place which may bring calm to their hearts. 86). unburdened himself for hours about Hitler: 'You know.3: Bible your own prescriptions. John 2:13-22). The man is developing an incurable case of folie de grandeur. to which they can pledge themselves. biblical symbols of Satan. seeking and straying masses a new Faith which will not fail them in this hour of confusion. He is agitating against the 'god' of the Jews. The biblical account of Jesus driving the merchants and moneychangers out of the temple appears in all four of the Gospels (Mat. in his mind. . And." and more nonsense of that sort. because that 'god' is nothing more than money. when the poet. . . and Hitler's speech could have been referring to all or any of these—but definitely included Mark and/or Luke. As recounted by Hitler's friend. "I must enter Berlin like Christ in the Temple at Jerusalem and drive out the moneylenders. I tell you if he lets this Messiah complex run away 64 . Indeed.' they cried. against the very same enemy. by a race which agitates everywhere and which regards any opposition to it as an accursed crime. Last week he was striding up and down in the courtyard here with that damned whip of his and shouting. Hitler suffered from disease. Hanfstaengl. in his 1957 Unheard Witness (p. Two thousand years ago a man was similarly denounced by this particular race which today denounces and blasphemes all over the place. the only ones to link this incident directly to Jesus' crucifixion. Dr. However. only now emphasizing Jesus' specific use of the whip to drive the money-changers away. little over a year later. Mark 11:15-8. 21:12— 3. Ernst Hanfstaengel. Luke 19:45-8. Hitler and his buddies were bantering one evening at a Berchtesgaden inn. 3:7 and 12:34. is also found in Mat. Hitler again drew upon this story. The Jews as "vipers" or snakes or serpents. And he believed that Christ "was greatest not as sufferer but as fighter. too. Dietrich Eckart." Hitler determined: he too would be greatest not as sufferer but as fighter.

I shall finish. including the Sermon on the Mount. as a friend during the years 1930-33. Hitler felt so passionate about that as to make Jesus' having "seized the scourge" (or whip) central to his 12 April 1922 speech. who. Matthew 22:37-8 and Mark 12:30.") By contrast. (Maser reproduces one of them on page 160 of his book cited." What did Hitler mean by "The teachings of Christ"? Of course. with less specific biblical references or origins. "The teachings of Christ have laid the foundations for the battle against Jews as the enemy of Mankind. but passing. had discussed with Hitler issues ranging from the books of Moses through the New Testament.) No one has ever commented that in doing so. Whereas some of Hitler's statements—such as the one we cited from Mein Kampf about "the Sublime Founder of the new doctrine" who "even took to the whip in order to drive out of the Lord's temple this adversary of all humanity"—contain easily identifiable specific biblical roots. there are innumerable passages in the New Testament that Hitler might have had in mind that could have. 1966. retrospectively." (John 8:44. and Luke 19:27. in his view. p.' Shortly thereafter. Matthew 27:25." reiterates the phrase "this adversary of all 65 . Schreber. However. as Hitler saw it. warranted the Holocaust as "the final solution. the work that Christ began. Hitler even posed for photographs holding a whip. and forgiveness toward one another. the Holocaust itself provides an answer to that question. 126). Hitler wrote into Mein Kampf (as previously noted) another. Steiner. and to have exhibited his "Messiah complex" with this same image a year later: Hitler as "Christ" carrying the whip. Hitler's model was the Jesus of the Gospel of John—but it was: the whip symbolized what Jesus did to "the Jews" in John. One example of the latter type is the 1926 quote that started this chapter. Max Domarus also gives detailed biblical origins of Hitler's rhetoric in his commentaries accompanying his edition of Hitler's speeches of 30 January and 11 September 1936. by Otto Wagener. are certainly strong candidates. Further exposition of his interpretation of various biblical passages is presented in the 1985 (1978) Hitler: Memoirs of a Confidant. "the enemy of Mankind. for all followers of Christ to have love. and the supreme requirement. which represent the Deicidal Jews as being in the state of most extreme violation of Christ's First Commandment. And according to Wolfgang Treher (Hitler. "Love the Lord. Hitler carried a whip with him at all times from 1923 to 1934. particularly the first two of these.3: Bible with him he will ruin us all. compassion. others are more generally rooted in the Bible. reference to the version in which the whip appears. Hitler's phrase in this 1926 quote.

lifted straight out of 1 Thessalonians 2:15. Regarding. if not Hitler's whole approach to politics. then. rituals. This question brings us to biographical speculation about the man. and biblical tales and readings. He had given his all for the war. 312-3). set Hitler toward searching and crisis. that we cited in Chapter 1 as having been. 66 . Hitler's medical condition could not be diagnosed." at this crucial moment? After all. or plagiarized from the Bible. (Ludendorff. to which Hitler had been exposed during his childhood. of the religious training. for him. and sought the answer to both in "original sin" and the Bible. pp. but as a Christian fundamentalist—a believer in "The Bible— Monumental History of Mankind"— Hitler looked up to an even higher source than medical science to find "Truth. at least the Holocaust against the Jews. 264-5). the signs are evident. during which on 10 November 1918 he was shocked into psychologically induced blindness and raging sobs at the wholly unexpected announcement of Germany's World War I capitulation (Mein Kampf. and were not disabling in any case.) I think that Hitler was just as bewildered at Germany's war loss as he had always bcen at his physical symptoms. and to him. and unmistakable. reciprocated by becoming a Nazi during the 1920's." The Bible supplied him the answers that the doctors could not. 1939. My guess here is that Hitler's hospitalization for war-wounds. Might there have been a particular event in his life that precipitated this searching for the meaning of "original sin. a rabid anti-Semite. essentially. Ludendorff was a demigod. iconography. "Truth" was a deeper truth. a turning-point. Hitler did not possess originality.3: Bible humanity. To Hitler. All of these anti-Semitic biblically based statements from Hitler occurred in the wake of Hitler's having in 1919 honored in his private notes "The Bible—Monumental History of Mankind. his physical ailments had been of long standing. And it gave him a mission." That seems to have been. twice being awarded the Iron Cross for valour." in Mein Kampf. followed by the attacks in the German press against General Ludendorff's stewardship of the failed war effort (pp.

12:30-1. . and they will rule with Him for a thousand years.4: Mission "Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven.10:14-5&33. Mark 3:28-9. Luke 12:9) "The hour will come when the worst enemy in the world will have finished his part for at least a thousand years to come. Then I saw thrones.. They shall be priests of God and of Christ. . 30 January 1942 67 . bring them here and kill them in my presence!'" Luke 19:27 (compare:Mat." Revelation 20:1&2&4&6 (Compare 1 Corinthians 6:2-3) *** "[Christ concluded a parable with] 'As for those enemies of mine who did not want me to be their King. ." Hitler speech. . Satan—and chained him up for a thousand years.. and those who sat on them were given the power to judge. He seized the dragon—that ancient serpent. holding in his hand the key of the abyss and a heavy chain.

such as his expression in Mein Kampf (1939. tearing itself apart. we have changed. be just as thou always wert. "I proceed as Providence dictates. "by defending myself against the Jew. not just a metaphorical reference—something that. faint-hearted. Now we bless our fight for our freedom. 1943. God. he asserted that he was guided by "Providence. 84. p. Typical was Hitler's conclusion of his speech to the German people on 1 May 1933. about what he felt to be the successful start of his reign: "Lord. these are not mere figures of speech: the commitment to "The Bible—Monumental History of Mankind." And this frequent reference to what Hitler believed to be his own special relationship to. as will now be discussed. No. 1943. it pervaded his entire world-view. p. the literal reality of God. preceded his political career all the way back to his earliest records. in which he said. as we previously noted. in any event. and under His protection—such as in his Munich speech of 14 March 1936. and profoundly shaped a wide range of aspects of both the style and the substance of his governance. It can therefore be expected. we do not desert you. strong in its endurance of all sacrifices." as Hitler expressed it in his private notes upon the beginning of his political career. 633): "Almighty God. I am fighting for the work of the Lord. 65) that. Lord. p." or some other (essentially) synonymous reference to God. When a fundamentalist makes such references to God." This prayer was specifically perhaps a continuation of Hitler's prayer in Mein Kampf (1939. and is found in his private communications. and protection by. you see. p. the Gentian people is strong again in its will-strong in its steadfastness. The German people is no longer the people without honor. Lord. and thereby our German people and Fatherland. as a "sleepwalker" doing God's bidding. and weak in faith." "the Almighty. judge now whether we deserve freedom. that Hitler would have expressed his gratitude and joy of service to God on any occasion in which he was commemorating what he felt to be an achievement in that service.4: Mission Hitler's religious sense of mission was by no means restricted solely to the Holocaust. Lord. was virtually alien to Hitler's verbal constructions. not only public ones. entails. And examples of this are abundant. confident as a sleepwalker. of disgrace. bless our arms. Throughout Hitler's political career. bless our battle!" And here is how he interpreted to the nation of his birth his 68 . for example." Instead. 921. and that is even alien to fundamentalism itself." "the Lord.

to raise him to be the leader of the nation so as to enable him to lead back his homeland into the Reich. And that which then took place in three days was only conceivable as the fulfillment of the wish and the will of this Providence. are now dead." as if to suggest his own divine election. p. "I can only be grateful to Providence that it entrusted me with the leadership in this historic struggle which. it seems.. he expressed his gratitude to "the Lord.. who in a few weeks had wrought a miracle upon us! In the same mode. and said that he intended to keep the memento "as a keepsake if the Lord should spare my life" (Maser. then in that second I felt that now the call of Providence had come to me. There is a higher ordering and we all are nothing else than its agents. I would now give thanks to Him who let me return to my homeland in order that I might now lead it into my German Reich! Tomorrow may every German recognize the hour and measure its important and bow in humility before the Almighty. 69 . When on March 9 Herr Schuschnigg broke his agreement. 9 April 1938: I believe that it was God's will to send a youth from here into the Reich. "Most of my comrades who deserved it [the Iron Cross] just as much as I." One example is a letter of 4 December 1914—which of course was prior to his having entered politics—that Hitler wrote from the battlefield to a friend. not only for the history of Germany. 57).' declaration of war against Japan for the Pearl Harbor attack. Already." During the final crises of his life. will be described as decisive.. 1973. Hitler was "sleepwalking.. Similarly. but for the whole of Europe and indeed the whole world.S. And to me the grace was given on the day of the betrayal to be able to unite my homeland with the Reich! .. Hitler on 11 December 1941 declared war on the United States in response to the U.." Hitler was eager to carry his blood-purge of "Satan's people" worldwide if possible. to let him grow up.4: Mission Anschluss swallowing-up of Austria. In three days the Lord has smitten them! . He reported his joy at having been awarded the Iron Cross for valour.. A historical revision on a unique scale has been imposed on us by the Creator. saying. for the next five hundred or a thousand years. It was probably also this same belief on his part that enabled him to continue with the observation that. at times of Hitler's survival of conditions of physical threat to himself. a similar conviction was expressed.

the common people are Satan. and he will praise you... and anyone who does so will bring His punishment upon himself.' His valet remembers that Hitler was very calm.' When the Fuhrer announced that the weather had been good and had produced a record crop. 'Because I have been saved while others had to die. 28): After the failure of the bomb plot of 20 July 1944 he told a naval aide. . Like Hitler himself. through whom God sometimes. but only by those who do evil. and the existing authorities have been placed there by God. for he is God's servant and carries out God's punishment on those who do evil. . 'Now the Almighty has stayed their [assassins'] hands once more. "The princes of this world are gods." The religious model was decidedly not democratic. We would have gradually yielded to the poisonous decay of the Volk. because in retrospect. in Romans 13:1-5 (and with additional support in 1 Peter 2:13 and Titus 3:1): "Everyone must obey state authorities." Martin Luther. In the religious view of things. As Saint Paul had put the matter. . he did not try to claim the credit for that: it was "by the grace of God. Providence shows its deepest love for its creatures in an act of punishment!" Nazis. "the Almighty" and moral perfection or authority 70 .' And again. Rulers are not to be feared by those who do good. looked to Hitler not as a priest who would admonish his faithful about right and wrong. "victory would probably have had grievous consequences. Whoever opposes the existing authority opposes what God has commanded. he announced that even Germany's defeat in World War I showed God's wisdom. concurred in his Treatise on Good Works.4: Mission such as Waite noted (p.. makes rebellion as a punishment for the people's sin. because no authority exists without God's permission. Nazis had been trained as children that God dictates what is right because He is Himself almighty or all-powerful." And on 13 September 1937. it is clearer than ever that the fate of Germany lies in my hands. . Do you wish to have no fear of the man in authority? Then do what is good. That is new proof that I have been selected from among other men by Providence to lead greater Germany to victory. saying. one of Saint Paul's great admirers. but rather as himself divinely inspired and carrying out or executing God's authority. .. going so far as to state that. for their part... Don't you agree that I should consider it as a nod of Fate that it intends to preserve me for my assigned task. I would rather suffer a prince doing wrong than a people doing right.

And was not God at war with Satan? Besides. is God's. his boldness in the use of power was unprecedented. As Hitler had said in a speech on 13 April 1923.10:28-40. 7 Timothy 6:2. his effectiveness stunning. he continued to do his duty as a "soldier for God.4: Mission go hand-in-hand. the two are inseparable. such as in Romans 13:1-5 and 1 Peter 2:18.) were the new "God's People.) And did not both the Bible in Romans and Luther as well. For example. for God Himself had often commanded the death-penalty." This is in accord with Genesis 47:21-5. "God's People" can sometimes be called upon to do terrifying things. that's all there was to it. in his 1934 Germany Reborn 71 . The German people themselves—all of whom had been likewise raised with a worship of "the Almighty"—could not fail to have been impressed with the Fuhrer's evident mastery: It was frightening to behold. Deuteronomy 20:11. feared only by the evil ones? In the eyes of the Nazi. The devout Himmler himself vomited to see at Auschwitz the carrying out of his instructions. in the Bible. Dr. not only was genocide not a sin. "In the sight of God and of the world. what was there to feel guilty about? God's will must be done. and that was wrong—but not necessarily wrong. Although outside of Hitler's own entourage." and that in our time as in ancient times. "The organization of a State normally requires rule by a Master-Race. etc. Hitler instructed one of his elite corps on the night of 11 March 1939. 1 Kings 9:20.8:26. etc. the religious view of the Fuhrer on the part of his own coterie of supporters was unmistakable. just as. and for crimes far less than Deicide. Joshua 6:21. And just as the Bible recounted numerous examples of God's awesome and terrifying power—including even His commanding "God's People" to commit genocides against Canaanites and some other peoples (Deuteronomy 20:10-17." This is fully in accord with the Bible. of non-dominating people. it was necessary for Hitler to avoid projecting a biblical fundamentalism that would have appeared a cultural throwback in an age of rising science. prostrate themselves to their leadership. assert that the ruler is God's agent. And Nazis recognized in Hitler aleader like none other in his abilities in this regard. But like most of the leading Nazis. and beyond the circle of his close comrades-in-arms. 2:32 to 3:7. Joshua 9:23-7. Hermann Goring." He was killing. (Every Catholic knew that neither was amongst the Seven—or "Cardinal"— sins. 7:2&5. the stronger always has the right to execute his plans. and 11:11-15) and these terrifying commands were followed and were met with God's approval—the Gentians were likewise left with little doubt that they (in accord with 1 Peter 2:9. Extending the principle to God's People's rule over the rest of the world. while a subordinate mass. but neither was bigotry.

by virtue of representing the Word of God. that of faith. is simply infallible." said in the first issue of his magazine Auf Gut Deutsch. is not itself a fiction. but so long as he is merely thus he is and can only be totally apolitical. Furthermore. "besides giving support to all truly religious endeavors. . or any statement from any Pope or anyone else—even from a great scientist such as Albert Einstein himself—could possibly be viewed as infallible. for us the Fuhrer .. described Nazis in a letter of 12 August 1932 (Bundesarchive Koblenz. or "The Program of the NSDAP.. 7 December 1918: I call a man substantial when he is so deeply anchored in essentials—that is. 15 June 1926. and in science all assertions from all sources must instead be viewed with the systematic skepticism that characterizes science itself. "Just as the Roman Catholic considers the Pope infallible. it is consistent with such a view. Dietrich Eckart. and in his "thoughts about the Tasks of the Future. stated. appears. Goring's statement here bases itself on the contrary epistemological outlook. NS22/348) as "an entirely new type of preacher-soldier" who evangelized the new faith to the Volk. Only if he comes out of himself can he become able to do something for the common good. His means of transcending such a condition is introspection." Though Papal infallibility is not a necessary component of a Christian fundamentalist view. the sense of honor must be made central in the spiritual life. that he consequently also cannot fall victim to a lust for power. the deeds of such a man will be as valuable as his passion is strong.. Goring is here asserting Naziism as a new religion modelled on Catholicism." distributed and widely published in several places in 1920 and 1921. in spiritual matters—that he can never entirely submerge himself in worldly affairs. who died in 1923 after forming a very close friendship in which Hitler idolized Eckart as his "polar star. Gregor Strasser." And in the Party's 25 Points. and opposes Jewish materialism. he emphasized that. but only to the extent that this passion is restrained by a controlling spirituality. 79-80). Beside the spiritual man there stands the one who is pious. "The Party endorses a positive Christianity of no specific denomination." The early Party philosopher and organizer.4: Mission (pp. While science is impossible on the basis of an acceptance that any Scripture. 72 . and the belief in such infallibility is itself an extension of the most essential conviction of a fundamentalist: that infallibility exists-that inerrancy.. or totally inward." in NS-Briefe. the early Party leader who had first brought both Goebbels and Himmler into the Party and who helped mastermind the Nazi electoral victory. which in its purest form constitutes fundamentalism.

this "entirely new type of preacher-soldier. classmates. 10:34-5 and Luke 12:49-53 & 22:36.. that "Pacifism is merely undisguised cowardice"— much like the warlike attributions to "the Prince of Peace" Himself in places such as Mat. such as Origen. in his Secret Conversations (Table-Talk)." no mere myth. the renowned Bishop of Alexandria. Hitler condemned Paul himself for being a Jew. "We may assert with utter confidence that the Jews will not return to their earlier situation. all of the old Christian stereotypes of Jewish materialism. They never stop trying to finish off the sins they have begun. the people who put the Lord Jesus to death. However. it is found in "The Bible—Monumental History of Mankind"—it is "history. and 73 .. Hence the city where Jesus suffered was necessarily destroyed. which Hitler had had access to as a child any time he read his Bible. for perhaps the majority of the Gentian population. not just in regards to Jesus. school. and another people was called by God to the blessed election. quoted in the 1979 Anti-Semitism by Paul E. in forming the conspiracy against the Savior of the human race.D. And now they have been persecuting us. "the Jew" was materialistic and "worldly. writing in I Thessalonians 2:15-6 of "the Jews. greed. had continuity right into the early Church fathers. but concerning for example his fellow-Jew evangelist Paul. Hitler. for they have committed the most abominable of crimes. Grosser and E. the Nazis respected religion deeply.) And Paul's views. defined Judaism for Nazis-as.4: Mission Though the Nazis insisted that the churches must be subject to Nazi commands." They saw Hitler as being such a man. But even this ambivalence is authentic to the Bible.." while the Nazi was "spiritual". the problem was to find a leader who "comes out of himself" despite his being "spiritual. and usury.G. because they are hindering us from preaching to the pagans and trying to save them." who proclaimed in a Nuremburg speech. but retribution is overtaking them at last. (Yet even more ironically. because of their respect for religion. and acting in a way that cannot please God and that makes them the enemies of the whole human race. also revealed his disgust at the Jewish origins of Christianity. instead. and the prophets too. this was a source of evident ambivalence for him. Halperin. via his church. the Jewish nation was driven from its country. indeed. after all. and it was specifically the Christian religion that Nazis respected in this way." Hitler took seriously such statements as this of Paul's. they could not even accept that Judaism was a religion." Such sentiments about "the Jews" and their "conspiracy"—and about "the blessed election" of Christians as the next "People of God"—were imbibed by Hitler as a little boy from the Bible and other sources. as saying in 200 A. rather than the other way around. 2 August 1926. To the Nazis. mother.

" just as Christ had condemned in John 2:13-22. on 23 March. and the family as the basis of racial and political life. The national Government regards the two Christian confessions as the weightiest factors for the maintenance of our nationality. as follows: The Government. and that he see himself as "spiritual" in precisely that sense." And on these grounds. Hitler was thus a typical politicized religious fundamentalist in that he based morality upon religion. Christianity. held his own (Christian) religion to be the only proper basis for the nation's laws. so that the concerns of Jews "are not at all ethical" but merely economic. 200) that "a man does not die for business.4: Mission culture generally. when he said in speeches on 26 April 1933 and 30 January 1939. is creating and securing the conditions necessary for a really profound revival of religious life. 1939." and that "all character training and religion must be derived from faith." And for Hitler. that "an instruction in morality that lacks a religious foundation is built on air. he brought together the issues of religion. 74 . Thus. that his Government would impose "Christianity as the foundation of our national morality. The advantages of a personal and political nature that might arise from compromising with atheistic organizations would not outweigh the consequences which would become apparent in the destruction of general moral basic values. Indeed the conservative typically views religion as the foundation of morality itself. and thus favored theocracy rather than democracy (the latter basing the laws constitutionally upon the people. it is normal that he respect religion. being resolved to undertake the political and moral purification of our public life." he saw himself as drawing a line against "Jewish materialism. 152. taking the whip to "the Jews" in the temple. not actually a religion at all. p. p." However a conservative might appear to certain others. and atheism. "which makes this kind of 'religion' appear even odious from Aryan viewpoints. in a radio-address to the German nation on 1 February 1933. Consequently." He agreed with his friend Eckart that Aryans were more "spiritual. Hitler felt no compunction saying. but only for ideals." Little more than a month later. he concluded of "the Jew himself that "his life is really only of this world. Hitler reflected well the underlying conviction of the German people as a whole. this is something that Jews lacked: he said in Mein Kampf that Jews are a race." the very thing that he had railed against in his 12 April 1922 Munich speech. saying of "the Jews" that their "'god' is nothing more than money. When Hitler said near the end of the fourth chapter of Mein Kampf (1943. they formed him.

454). saying. and this is one of the reasons Hitler came to repudiate Rosenberg's ideas." Hitler's racism." Or. This is why Hitler was convinced that "Judaism is not a religion": only people of high "racial quality" can be religious. Hitler disagreed. . condemning "the Jews." and their "racial quality" was nil. p. prohibiting what Hitler would call "race-mixing" or "miscegenation" of "God's People" with "inferior races. that the sins of the fathers are visited upon the tenth generation. yet this does not change the fact that this condition does exist today. And also like the typical politicized religious fundamentalist. but actually went back to the Old Testament (Genesis 28:1&6. Matthew 27:25.." they possess no "spiritual achievement" at all.. with terrible correctness." In Philippians 3:8. This was consistent with passages such as 1 Peter 1:1-2 portraying Christians as the new "God's Chosen People. 1943. because the potential "for spiritual achievement lies in the racial quality of the given human material. and 1 Thessalonians 2:15-6. In his Christian theocracy. will be broken only by a new idea that is driven forward by a similar spirit. Deuteronomy 7:1-13. wanted to dispense with the Old Testament as purely Jewish.. as Mein Kampf had said of "the Jews. . Hitler's own writings and statements were sometimes based on direct references to the Old Testament.) Some Nazis. such as the Party philosopher Alfred Rosenberg. A view of life . and made a conscious decision about it. 675." or "excrement. he asserted. however. p. Ezra 9:2. but is 75 . 20:16-7. as being "only of this world.. 23:2-3. This may be right a thousand times. "the family as the basis of racial and political life"—he was a "family-values" type of politician. Luke 19:27. God further commands that the latter peoples be exterminated.. Such practise on his part was not done carelessly or thoughtlessly. did not rely only on passages such as John 8:44 and Matthew 27:25." (In passages such as Deut.. Jews especially were excluded from the national (or Volk) life. is fought for with the same strongest will. within this theocratic context. for example. when writing of syphilis in Mein Kampf.. and one may well regret this fact deeply. ." and passages such as John 8:44." "garbage." and the specification here of "the tenth generation" comes from Deut. either. He even made specific note of the matter in Mein Kampf (1939.4: Mission not upon God). Hitler was aware of this problem. Hitler attacked this "racial" curse by referring to "those of whom it is said. "Now one may very well raise the objection that with such phenomena in world history one has mostly to do with those of specifically Jewish ways of thinking. Saint Paul concluded a recitation of his own earlier studies and practises in Judaism by calling it all "rubbish.. and Nehemiah 13:23&25-7)." which is not far from Hitler's own "odious.

) Like other Christians. in his own mind. he never held himself to be accountable to the German people—not even to those who had elected him— for his was. he even considered it to be the "Monumental History of Mankind. Hitler respected the entire Bible. but this will be God's new fire. (Hitler's specific reference in that passage. is just a matter of time. and. was to the genocidal passages in the Old Testament. saying. "We want to prevent 76 . Hitler considered himself to be God's agent serving the long-term best interests of "God's People. God grant that it be soon." As he had put it in Mein Kampf "The State has to appear as the guardian of a thousand years' future. Concluding a long tirade against Jews in his Secret Conversations (Table-Talk) on 21 October 1941. victory. not to Man but to God. incidentally. Hitler always expressed his contempt for democracy. wrote joyfully to a relative after having visited and spoken for a half-hour with Adolf at Landsberg Prison. "How could a man shoulder this burden if he had not faith in his mission and the consent of Him who stands above us?" and also when he earlier declared in Mein Kampf that he was "fighting for the work of the Lord. we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea." Thus. that was solely between himself and God. Yet nonetheless." in bringing about a restoration of "Paradise." In other words: fight fire with fire." In a Munich speech on 20 April 1923. and his bond of shared culture with his people was authentic when he told the Reichstag on 30 January 1937." He pointedly had not been granted this authorization by the people. Hitler was in a culturally supportive environment as regards his vision of himself and of his mission. he was in accord with what all Christian Germans had been taught since the crib and had had repeated to them every day through their culture. but even of the Bible itself. "The goal. in his own mind a higher calling." in which there would no longer be any "blood poisoning" and instead of "degeneracy" only health would prevail. prior to 1937 as a fundamentalist. As he expressed it in a speech on 15 February 1942. "I am boundlessly proud that I was blessed by Providence with the permission to lead this battle." In this regard. as always. and whose daughter Geli Raubal was subsequently to become the dearest woman in Hitler's adult life. he would never state in so public a forum as these. "By exterminating this pest [the Jews]. 20:16-7. Adolf's half-sister Angela Hitler. that by his doing so he would "atone" for anything. he urged. who had been raised along with Adolf by the same two parents. and he was answerable.4: Mission pure and genuine throughout. such as Dent. he avoided mention not only of chapter-and-verse. Reflecting this spirit (if a picture-caption in John Toland's 1976 Adolf Hitler is to be believed). too. Hitler said." Of course.

"Once I am in power. The goal of total extermination developed probably at the same time as his theory of the Holocaust itself did (represented in his 1919 notes for his projected-but-neverwritten theoretical work. the death upon the Cross." This letter is widely regarded as Hitler's first Political act. as Another did. At about the same time in 1919. not just of the Gentian nation. after his death. In it. international Jewry. concluded with an impassioned call for the German people.000 represented virtually all the Jews in Germany at the Holocaust's start on 1 September 1939. The bigotry was more religious than nationalistic. Adolf Gemlich. It is directed against the poisoner of "all" nations. Hitler sent a letter. no matter how many generations their families had been German. in two ways at once. Hitler already was indicating killing as the likely form of "elimination. Hitler in 1922 told a journalist. 17.4: Mission our Germany from suffering. The Germanic Revolution. not against merely German Jews. Hitler was not restricting his genocidal aims to merely his own country. His concept of a German didn't even include non-Christians. the only "final solution" was the eradication of "the Jewish virus" that is carried in Satan's blood." That statement is universalistic rather than merely nationalistic. dated 16 September 1919. to carry on to victory the war against the only one. his "Thousand-Year Reich. was to exterminate totally "the men of Satan.) The very universality of Hitler's moralistic aim was itself a sign of its religious source—a source transcending even national boundaries. about 96% of the Jews that Hitler slaughtered did not come from Germany but from foreign countries." in which the only safe way to avoid a recurrence of the Fall of Man. by "poisoning" their "blood." But he also saw things in a Millennial context. I will have gallows built in rows—as many as 77 . In fact. though it was both. my first and foremost task will be the annihilation of the Jews. inborn to Satan's children." And as reported by Gerald Fleming in his 1984 Hitler and the Final Solution. his Political Testament right before his suicide. who had inquired about "the Jewish question. and it is directed against "international" Jewry. (Those 210. Hitler was a nationalistic German—that is true—but above all. but were at war against His People. p. By the time of a speech on 13 August 1920. Volume I). Jews specifically were excluded. only about 210." To Hitler. single. free of "the people of Satan." To Hitler. Joseph Hell. he wrote that the ultimate goal had to be the "elimination" of the Jews altogether.000 of the nearly six million had been Germans. Hitler used the German nation as a power-base to achieve his Christian Utopia." Hitler's last words. to an individual. As soon as I have the power to do so. enemy: "the poisoner of all nations. Unlike other genocides. Jews not only had murdered God. he was a Christian.

Then the Jews will be hanging indiscriminately. if for no other reason than that the cheapest way to do it was by maintaining for the victims the myth that stepping into cattle-cars was not the signing of their deathwarrant: the slaughterhouse-operator does not want a stampede. until all Germany has been cleaned of Jews. Fighting an enemy. heterosexual films aroused them about 10% less (again as measured by circumference) than normal men. as measured by their penile circumference when being exposed to homosexual films. The circumference of their penises on such occasions was twice that of the normal (less-homophobic) male. in a secret address to district leaders. . . Germany. Hitler was a practical man. . it was because they shared the same myths he did. I always go as far as I dare and never further. Adams et al in the August 1996 Journal of Abnormal Psychology. If the homophobic and anti-Semitic bigotries follow the same natural laws. then I deliver the thrust into his heart that finishes him off. the next batch will be strung up. But Hitler represented to the Germans myths they shared. and they will remain hanging until they stink. . found that the most-homophobic men were those who. . Hitler evidently hoped not to discuss the Holocaust publicly until after it was complete. p." Only during the Holocaust did it become manifest that this applied to Jews outside. myths he radiated." However. though not openly gay themselves. The study.. on 29 April 1937. On the other hand."1 Little over a year later. .. . nonetheless had the strongest homosexual urges. What this suggests is that if one happens to be bigoted against a particular group (in this case. is indicated by a fascinating psychological experiment that was done on a different form of bigotry (though likewise one promoted by the Bible): homophobia. However. It is vital to have a sixth sense that tells you what you can do and what you cannot. One reason why his intensity of the anti-Semitic myths in particular was so exceptional. . then that bigotry is intensified by one's belief that one is or might be oneself a member of that group. he said: "The final aim of our policy is crystal clear to all of us. he knew that leadership was not so simple as merely issuing Fuhrer-decrees. by Henry F. 946. Hitler wrote into Mem Kampf (1939. not only inside. then in Hitler's case his belief that he was or might have been "part-Jewish" would have intensified any pre-existing antiSemitism he had from having been raised with Christianity's powerful anti78 . 651) that the "elimination" of Jews must be "by the sword" and "bloody. and so on. As soon as they have been untied. I use my intelligence to maneuver him into a corner from which he cannot escape. . 1943. p. . gays). To the extent that the German people supported Hitler in this.4: Mission traffic allows.

themselves. just as it caused that of the people who elected 79 . regardless what its factuality was. Waite fails to explain that antiSemitism. and Richard Wagner.4: Mission Semitic myths. or perhaps Kershaw. because it begs the real issue. such as Ian Kershaw's in the opening of his 1999 biography of Hitler dismissing the entire question regarding Hitler's alleged Jewish grandfather on the grounds that no such Jewish ancestor actually existed—as if whether or not Hitler actually "had Jewish blood" were even relevant to understanding Hitler's behavior. just as Kershaw's contrary assumption is—though for a different reason). shaped their behavior (contrary to cultural materialist and structuralist theories. the fear. As opposed to Waite's theory about the cause of Hitler's anti-Semitism. "a Jew. who had been alleged to have descended from a Jewish actor. though for different reasons than Kershaw's). the Holocaust's chief." This possibility is given further support by the observation that at least two other historically exceptional anti-Semites were as well. loathed Jews. The core of Robert Waite's theory about the source of Hitler's antiSemitism is that it resulted from Hitler's belief that he might himself have been "a Jew. In any case. the experiment by Adams et al. Wagner. and Heydrich. people who like Hitler. then everyone who is Jewish would also be an anti-Semite (which. would believe). on other grounds." We reject that "explanation" (and will soon indicate that it. if his theory did explain it. who had always been taunted that his grandmother was Jewish (which caused his boss Himmler to believe that Heydrich was perfect for the job because those taunts would make Heydrich even more fanatical). The consensus of historians is that none of these three actually had any Jewish ancestors. But what is important is not that: it is the belief or fear the individual himself held. On the other hand. and the historical examples of Hitler. His hatred and fear of Jews—which would not have existed at all if he had not been anti-Semitic to begin with—would have been enormously enhanced or intensified by his belief that he was. why was Hitler anti-Semitic? He wouldn't have feared this possibility if he hadn't already. provide good grounds to believe that Hitler's own pre-existing anti-Semitism was vastly intensified by his belief that he had a Jewish ancestor. not the reality. "Jews": Reinhard Heydrich. is itself anti-Semitic to assume. is inherently anti-Semitic. This fear was the decisive reality. which only a racist such as Hitler. the theory presented and documented here is that Christianity caused it. too. feared or believed that they were. and who became one of Hitler's heroes partially on account of Wagner's own intense anti-Semitism. Indeed. which is: why did Hitler fear such a possibility to begin with? In other words. again. or might have been. it is absurd.

4: Mission him and who carried out the genocide. Der Sturmer. Hess' fundamentalist parents sent him at the age of 12 to the Evangelical school. and was trained by Jesuits. such as when Streicher wrote. "If the danger of the reproduction of the curse of God in the Jewish blood is finally to come to an end. they could as well have come from Hitler's own pen. that he was sent to us by God. Their inspiration serves as a model for those of 80 . and whom Hitler eulogised as follows as the closing words of Mein Kampf: "I want to bring before the eyes of our adherents and of the crusaders for our doctrine those eighteen heroes who most consciously sacrificed themselves for all of us." which appeared in the Christmas issue of 1941. Dietrich Eckart. for example. Streicher was the son of a Catholic primary school teacher. who died before the Nazis won power." Similarly. Julius Streicher meant it when he hailed Hitler's December 1924 release from Landsberg Prison as a "gift from God. These people can be considered to have been sincere in these views not only because in some instances (such as Goebbels' diary-entry) the comment itself was private. deep and unshakable faith. in the 1940's wrote anti-Semitic diatribes in his Nuremberg newspaper. For example. but also because such comments reflected the values and myths with which these people had been raised since infancy. Personally dearer to Hitler than any of these important subordinates was the early Nazi Party activist and theoretician. Hitler's Christian mission seems to have been profoundly shared especially by many of his leading subordinates. the poet and revered friend of Hitler's. Himmler's parents took the children regularly to Catholic mass—a practise that Heinrich himself chose to continue on his own as an adult. there is every reason to believe that Hermann Goring was sincere when he once famously beamed of Hitler. We have faith. And so it was that. then there is only one way—the extermination of the people whose father is the devil. "God gave the savior to the German people." And Joseph Goebbels meant it when he noted in his diary on 14 October 1925 that Hitler must be either Christ Himself or else John The Baptist. Rudolf Hess' pious Catholic father was happy that his son planned to become a priest. It has already been noted that Heinrich Himmler had no doubt: Hitler was the successor to Christ. he received Catholic scholarships for university-studies. who taught the Bible." And Rudolf Hess was also speaking from the heart when he wrote in a student-essay that the kind of man Germany needed as its leader was one as unyielding in his wrath as God Himself: "The Lawgiver proceeds with terrible hardness. Heydrich was brought up as a believing Catholic. no less than that. Goebbels' pious Catholic parents sent him to Catholic school. when Streicher.

When he sought to comprehend his personal problems. prior to fundamentalism's or religion's corrosion as a result of the onslaughts of science in the Renaissance with Galileo and others." Besides being a poet and Nazi founder." what set him apart from the millions of his countrymen was not the understanding of what that "History" was. it was 81 . from Der Hammer. "part Jewish. encompassed virtually all religious belief. traditional. September 1914: "Father in Heaven. O answeer us." and thus. understanding of that "History. dedicated his life to the awakening of our nation: Dietrich Eckart." Hitler's beliefs were widely shared not only within the Nazi Party. so that it would have been redundant then to apply a separate term such as "fundamentalism" to it—it was quite enough simply to say of the believer that he was a believer: "a Christian. was his never-diagnosed medical maladies. was based upon an acceptance of the Bible. and also his belief that he either was or might be. in the fundamentalist view of that "History. Hitler was part of what in his time still represented the traditional mainstream. culture. but previously no such distinction existed. then! / Does aught other people Thine awful command / More loyally follow than we Germans do? / Is there one such? Then." which. for they adhered to duty despite all consequences. to the holy crusade. resolved to the death / Kneel we before Thee. Eternal One. Can one imagine a more potent hatred of "a people" than that they killed God because they were born of Satan? Of course. Eckart wrote articles of Christian theology. send / Laurel and victory to it. in accord with John 8:42&4 and Matthew 27:25. And I especially count among them he who. himself. thou smilest? O joy without end! / Up! and onward. And it appears that key in this context among what Hitler's personal problems were. Here is one of Eckart's poems. and God's plan for his life. but within the broader culture—and this not only the broader German and Austrian Culture." himself a bearer of blood-guilt for the Deicide. as one of the best. / Father. fundamentalist or literal. Hitler's beliefs were widely shared also for another reason: he hewed to the old. And in his own time and culture. which. but the broader Christian. as the "Monumental History of Mankind. thoughts. in terms of that "History. and deeds.4: Mission weaker faith. was an exceptional ability to lead men. for Hitler. and even more generally religious. but especially the culture of the Christian faith itself. but rather was Hitler's personal problems and situation. after all. one has to make that distinction. quite evidently. by words. mighty with Fate. in its entirety. Part of that personal situation." In modern times. and the passages that support them." which was the foundational belief upon which Hitler constructed and carried out his political career.

of power or money. that he would reveal his real self only to individuals he considered to be "our people. and had no "Volkisch" sense of selfless sacrifice for the benefit of the community. and was sufficiently confident that Hell was a sympathetic Aryan as to then agree to meet alone with him for an interview. If Hitler had believed that he was a Jew. it was dangerously possible that this journalist would help publicize. It was one of the keys to his cunning. Hitler now realized. as he saw them. and suddenly a paradigm of "self-control" (which he had actually been even before). Hell. To understand what happened from here on." and put on a very different appearance to mislead "the enemy. as being based upon the purely financial or economic contest between a self-interested economic class of proletariats on the one hand." not at all for "them. then he would not have felt that being Jewish is something for which he had to "atone. and equally selfishly motivated bourgeoisie on the other." The statement as quoted was intended strictly for "us. measured. no sincere display. Hitler in private launched immediately into a stunningly impassioned anti-Semitic tirade. To Hitler. the way to achieve this necessary deception was clear: Hitler would have to now present his anti-Semitic tirade as merely a demagogic 82 ." Hitler met journalist Hell at a public event. It was in his environment from infancy on." the reality of Hitler's aims. despised the "Jewish" socialism of Karl Marx. unless Hitler now was able to persuade Hell that what he had just seen and heard was merely an act. But then Hell responded with a question that exhibited clearly his own disapproval of what he had just heard. And second. liberals were people who were blind to the things of the spirit and who could understand only material incentives and private gain—essentially. and Hitler's demeanor promptly transformed: he became quiet. for example. and it was the foundation on which all else relied. such as the more virtuous "God's People" had. Mr. was a liberal (as Hitler saw him). liberals could understand only private gain. which included the statement here quoted. and this meant two things: First. Hitler. you have to know how Hitler viewed liberals—such as he now viewed the obviously anti-anti-Semitic Hell to be: To Hitler. As Hell described the event in his notes. perhaps with the expectation of winning a potentially useful future ally in the press. Jews." Notes 1 The context in which this remarkable statement was made by Hitler provides the archetypal example of Hitler's brilliance at controlling who would understanding his intentions and who would be led astray about them.4: Mission not just that. but didn't think that Jews were Satanic. to "the enemy. but that was still the basis for all the rest.

I am careful to quote Hitler only in the statements that he was not directing at "the enemy. as the purely calculating. or else public but directed to an audience of supporters. scientific) historians that might exist: In executing the methodological plan stated at the end of the Preface. but no real danger. when Hitler was challenged on his comments. and had no opportunity to disabuse himself of his being duped. strictly in the light of whom the intended audience for each such statement was. He simply remarked in his notes that. Hitler immediately stopped his prior (supposed) pretense and showed himself to be the professional politician—calculating. because at the start the audience (Mr. Hell. Methodological Note: This is directed at any reformist (i. regarding the Hell quote. of searching through a social movement's founder's own statements to find the motivation that was that movement's seed. Hitler figured.. a key methodological principle has to be to interpret all statements being analyzed for this purpose. indeed. so as to deny Hitler the "benefit" of using Hell to win votes. perhaps. Hitler's act." but that were either private to himself or supporters. and of what effect the given founder can most reasonably be assumed to have been seeking from his/her audience at the time the utterance was made. This is why. at least the factual content turned out to be effective. and thus the incident in its entirety reveals clearly a tactic of Hitler's communications. but then it suddenly transformed to "them. might even refrain from reporting it specifically in order to spite the vote-seeking conservative in front of him. as Hitler saw him) and so wouldn't report the "feigned" event. until after Hitler won power and it was too late to do anything about the matter anyway. As will be seen in the coming analysis of the writings of Saint Paul—the founder of Christianity—this methodological principle can produce revolutionary historiographical advances. in my writing of this book. Hell) was "us".4: Mission politician's display intended to win votes. 83 . vote-seeking. if not indeed true: Hell mistook what was the "act" and what the real Hitler. whatever one may think of the evaluative content of Hitler's opinion of liberals in general and of Hell in particular." in the speaker's mind. politician.e. And thus. would understand that (since Hell was a liberal and thus thoroughly unprincipled. as a liberal. Hell. The present instance. is perhaps the most-striking example of the application of this methodological device in Part I. had its desired effect: Hell did not report Hitler's earlier tirade.

disabled persons. the damnation of "the Jews": none were "God's People. etc.e." What about individuals who were neither "God's People" nor "Satan's people"? Here it is necessary to make explicit the role that God's perfection itself plays as a model and ideal for the faithbeliever. culture. Gypsies. were "the Jews. but rather as a means of terrorizing others and thus clearing the land. Furthermore.5: Collateral Damage Hitler's Christian fundamentalism was not only behind the anti-Semitic thrust that defined the Holocaust. and thus 84 . such as its programs to murder homosexuals. by permitting such imperfects to continue to exist] insulting the All Highest. it also explained what might be called the Holocaust's collateral damages. was driven by this same fundamentalist aspiration to attain the perfection of God. without deliberately [i. and the arts. and especially its impact upon that third category of people who were neither of God nor of Satan." The full impact of this fundamentalist religious perfectionism cannot be understood merely by reference to its consequences for "the men of Satan." Hitler's Mein Kampf said that a world in which any such imperfect beings were permitted to continue to live would offer "only a few images of God [i." who according to John 8:44.. pureblooded Aryans].e.. Murder was just as final. and even (for purposes of expanding the Lebensraum for God's People.. all victimized groups actually shared. this fundamentalist perfectionism is a way of life: the Nazis' censorship of books. Germany/Austria's native pureblooded Christians) Slavs who failed to flee eastward fast enough to clear the land for the Aryan master-race to move in and settle. even for victims for whom it was not intended as an end-in-itself. In a sense. in an incidental or reflected (even if reduced) way. but just in between.

God defined perfection. never even met Jesus. Adolf Hitler's intolerance was not merely any kind of perfectionism. before anything else. God was seen as all-powerful. In fact. after all. Jesus. and he accepted it. recounting what these people had themselves seen and heard from Jesus. and infallible. "Jesus was 85 . when he started to question the veracity of the Bible (because of a contest for power with the churches). he had no inkling of this. . For a fundamentalist such as Hitler. especially the canonical four Gospels.5: Collateral Damage itself constituted yet another collateral damage from the Nazis' fundamentalist perfectionism." and given that what is right and good are whatever "the Almighty" says to be right and good. Hitler continued to believe. the very paradigm of "the men of God"—was an "Aryan. flawless. and had. he swallowed the hoax. It used to be simply assumed that the Gospels were the most authentic of all the New Testament accounts of Jesus and of what He said and did. which is here to be described: Hitler's mission was founded upon a religious conception of perfection: the ideal was God Himself. even toward his later years. But it is now virtually universally recognized by scholars that this old belief is false. Indeed. You belong to your father. that Jesus—the model man. "the Almighty. The Gospels were believed to have been written by four of the twelve disciples of Jesus. in fact. Hitler never knew this. who defined perfection itself. . human perfection was defined by Jesus. as he had before. it was a precise type. Hitler had been taught this. because they lived and wrote at far too late dates to have done so. saying of and to "the Jews" that. given that God was. been formed by it). To Hitler. were not disciples of Jesus. And since Christ was God-become-man. he still accepted the Gospelaccounts as the most authentic parts of the New Testament. ." no Jew at all. whoever they really were. the common attribution of the Gospel-accounts to disciples was a Church-encouraged (perhaps even a Church-sponsored) hoax. Jesus was already dead by the time the Gospel-writers were bom. and it would be absurd to think otherwise. and that the four Gospel-authors. you would love me. "If God were your Father. He was a murderer from the beginning"— this statement did not refer to Christ Himself. And even at that late period. even late in Hitler's life. what He says is right and good is always what is right and good. Christ's statement in John 8:42&44. the model man. the devil. when his fundamentalism was behind him on an intellectual level (though not on an emotional one. To Hitler. his personality had. however. God can only be infallible. and you want to carry out your father's desire. was known to Hitler only through the New Testament accounts.

even after 1937]." But Hitler did not get his ideas from Fichte or Kant." And in his Anthropologie. . Satan's people are to be exterminated. World Church of the Creator. today's neo-Nazis recognize. citing John. presaged Hitler by saying. and other anti-Semitic beliefs. to whom God gave the world. . Immanuel Kant himself. I shall finish"]. ." In other words. 116-7). originate for today s neo-Nazi Christian fundamentalists. so that this statement reaffirms again that Jesus was Hitler's model. Like Hitler himself. the Kantian philosopher. based on the Bible.. and God's People are to enslave the other races. . Satan's people. renowned for their deceitfulness. Johann Gottlieb Fichte. and it's certain that Jesus was not a Jew.. and this is the reason why the Jews killed Him. To name one example.. Typical on this subject are 1 Peter 2:18..] the Palestinians living amongst us are. of course. lacking in honor. Colossians 86 . "It is doubtful whether Jesus was of Jewish origin. Hitler went on. a pure commercialism.. to Hitler. . who are the cause of all evil." Hitler's ideas about Jesus' non-Jewishness were a New-Testament interpretation that was common. that is. And that's the same source from which Jesus' "Aryan" origins. Posse Comitatus. such as Aryan Nations. "He must be regarded as a popular leader who took up His position against Jewry [just as Hitler. said in his 1804 Foundations of the Present Era. who were placed on Earth by God specifically to serve God's People. relate merely to external acts. "[The Jews. ." but His Gallic racial origin can only "probably" be asserted. Kant further anticipated Hitler with. All its commands . since their exile. in his Religion Within the Limits of Reason Alone (1960. Galilee was a colony where the Romans had probably installed Gallic legionaries. during childhood.. The Order. "the work that Christ began. that "the Galilean's object was to liberate his country from Jewishness [as Hitler took his own aim to be.5: Collateral Damage not a Jew. such as when he asserted." As he explained in his Secret Conversations (Table-Talk) of 21 October 1941. He got them from the same source they did— the Bible itself. .. and Phineas Priesthood (which groups we shall discuss in more depth later on). (Slavery is considered morally unobjectionable in the Bible. pp. Imperial Klans of America. proudly was himself. and other races. White Aryan Resistance." Nor were any of Hitler's antiSemitic views original with Hitler: for example." Satan's children are not included.. "Judaism is not really a religion at all. Ephesians 6:5. three categories of people: God's People. Jesus' non-Jewishness was "certain. They do not demand a moral disposition. and that when the New Testament frequently refers to Jesus' followers as "the People of God. . who likewise are convinced that Jews are (in accord with Jesus' alleged statement in John 8:44) "spawn of Satan" (the common phrase they use for Jews).

(Incidentally. ended the first part of Chapter 18 with a discussion of Hitler's softening in midNovember 1938. or those with two Jewish grandparents who neither practiced the Jewish religion nor were married to a Jew. just as Hitler in Mein Kampf had charged Jews with trying to "pollute" "God's People" with the blood of "inferior races" such as Blacks by means of "race-mixing. after all. or an individual with two Jewish grandparents who also belonged to the Jewish religious community or was married to a Jew. those descended from only one Jewish grandparent. White Aryans. With one bureaucratic stroke Hitler made it possible for a substantial portion of the hated enemy to escape his wrath. under the new regulation. regardless how harsh. and introduced the concept of the "second-degree Mischling" or approved Aryan of mixed race. all of which state that a slave is morally obliged to obey its master. 1 Timothy 6:1. with "Gallic. However. Previously." All are agreed: the ultimate ruler of the pureblooded Christians. This amendment to the Nuremburg Laws on race was called the First Regulation to the Reich Citizenship Law. the White Aryan Christ Himself." meaning from "Gaul.) John Toland. feel a need to cover himself—as a good Catholic who would not want to do anything that Jesus would disapprove of—just in case Hitler's theory of the "Gallic" racial origins of Jesus might not be true.) And. was he merely waiting for a more suitable time to act decisively? Or was this a conscious or 87 . perhaps Hitler did. in his 1976 Adolf Hitler." meaning from the Galilee north of Israel. one Jewish grandparent sufficed for an individual to be categorized as "a Jew" and so to suffer state-imposed bigotry. less than a year prior to the start of the Holocaust. Was his resolve to exterminate Jews truly weakening or. is God." the Latin term for France.5: Collateral Damage 3:22. However. the confusion of "Galilean. as Toland put it: A Jew was defined as anyone descended from at least three Jewish grandparents. and Titus 2:9. and up till the infamous Krystallnacht pogrom on the nights of 8 and 9 November 1938. the bowdlerized King James translation of "slave" is "servant"—part of the linguistic purging of objectionable terms that King James' scholars performed. of the definition of precisely who was "a Jew." today's neo-Nazi organizations likewise maintain that racial integration is part of the scheme of "the spawn of Satan." and thus of who would be slaughtered. again. But. In practice this split non-Aryans into two distinct groups with the Mischlinge no longer subject to repressive measures. Then came a curious category: the Mischlinge (halfbreeds). was in Hitler's own German.

had but two Jewish grandparents." Evidently. he was an anti-abortion fundamentalist Christian. nor was he married to a Jew.5: Collateral Damage even unconscious attempt to save himself. likewise. be subject to slaughter. given Hitler's assumptions about the actual identity of Jesus. "We shall regain health only by eliminating the Jew. being the son of God. and everyone. he clamped down against it. Christ. But he was still a "right-to-lifer" in the sense that he was opposed to abortion. When Hitler told Himmler on 22 February 1942 (when the Holocaust was already well under way). Not all fundamentalists are "right-to-lifers". since there was still the possibility that one of his own grandfathers was Jewish? The Mischlinge regulation also saved Jesus. In keeping with this. disabled people too must be excluded from Aryan nations. Adolf Hitler was determined to breed as many "Aryans" as possible. Subsequently. Hitler had concluded that Christ (and Hitler himself) did not. during the interim. we noted. who by Hitler's argument. Hitler. what was effeminate or weak was "bad. death for the second. neither did he practice the Jewish religion. and not only Hitler tried to do this. disease is considered a condition alien to Jesus. not a female—just as was God Himself. was also the model of physical beauty. In accord with Genesis 1:28 and 9:7. there is a strain of fundamentalism that. requiring all doctors to report to the government the circumstances of all miscarriages. he was reasserting Jesus as his personal model. was a male." 1 Timothy 2:11-5 says. at the 20 January 1942 Wannsee Conference that established the bureaucratic rules for implementing the final solution. and Hitler was of that category. Thus." and what was masculine or strong was "good. who was the Great Healer Himself. 88 . this conclusion regarding specifically Jesus." Hitler was not only reaffirming the Holocaust as his people's medication. but only if he/she possessed an "especially unfavorable appearance in racial terms. would have been a reasonable one for Hitler to draw. As God-become man. the attendees were further instructed that such a "second-degree Mischling" would. after all." Christ. Christ. some members of neoNazi groups have left those groups as a result of their refusal to kill their own disabled infants. For Nazis. therefore. As we shall soon see. while equally absolutist. and who therefore never suffered disease Himself. would become more Christlike by "regaining health. is viewed as the model of human perfection. stands at the very opposite extreme as regards disabled infants. as human perfection. The Nazi penalty for any Aryan woman who had an abortion was hard labor for the first offense.

For example. the idea of "The Bible—Monumental History of Mankind. Once a woman said to me: 'You must see to it that women can enter Parliament—because they alone can improve it. journalist William L. Shirer's 1984 memoir. they belong together. was related to the fundamentalist program. We feel it only natural that both worlds remain separated. her family. 89 .5: Collateral Damage "Women should learn in silence and all humility. it was the woman who was deceived and broke God's law. fundamentalism itself consists of literalism in Scriptural interpretation. She has always possessed what nature has bestowed on her. . and this. in all forms of expression. For Adam was created first. 135-6) records Hitler's addressing as follows a group of his female followers: The German woman does not need to be emancipated. The Nightmare Years: 1930-1940 (pp. After all.' And I explained to her that I did not want to leave to women what I was taking away from men. It would harm women. Shirer observes in a footnote: "The Nazis had been the only party in the Reichstag that had no women among its members. And it was not Adam who was deceived. The extension of such literalism to the arts results in censorship because the literal features of an expression are then considered as themselves constituting the expression and the artwork itself. on which the world of men can be built. as men and women belong to each other. I do not allow them to teach or to have authority over men. there were none in the entire body. Her world is her husband. by which the art is judged. another prominent feature of Naziism was its censorship of the arts. and then Eve. But a woman will be saved through having children. Now that Hitler himself selected its deputies. Where would the great world [of men] be if the small world [of women] was not looked after? Providence has confided to women the care of their own world." Hitler's policies on women's issues were consistent with this." Of course. too. They complement each other. .' I answered her. We hold it wrong for the woman to invade the world of men. 'that mankind can improve what is so bad in itself. her children and her home." as Hitler put it in his 1919 private notes first outlining his theory for the Holocaust. .' 'I do not believe. These two worlds do not stand against each other.

Whether these sacrilegious images of Him were intended as mocking. who is presumably Satan himself. Hitler was here coming to the rescue of the Perfect One. figure of Christ that dominates the Kreuzabnahme exemplified to the authorities a heinous disregard for the sanctity of the solemn moment depicted. "has blinded the unbelievers from seeing the gospel of the glory of Christ. (For example. in her 1991 "Degenerate Art": The Fate of the Avant-Garde in Nazi Germany (p. who is God's image. one can expect that. "the god of this world" down below. To a liberal. Concomitantly. 6 November 1999. observes of the Nazis' banning of the paintings—especially of the crucifixion—by the great Max Beckmann: "The malformed. and this expectation too is borne out: For example. it amounted to the same thing in Hitler's eyes: Satanic expression. this censorship by Hitler might seem to have been a violation of people's rights to free expression. such fundamentalist aesthetics stayed with him to the end: on the night of 23-4 December 1941 he observed in his Secret Conversations (Table-Talk) that." The moralistic literalism of fundamentalist aesthetics is not a phenomenon merely of "family values" conservative political circles. if one can persuade them that these horrors are beautiful!'" The rage that Hitler expressed here was not merely anti-Semitic.5: Collateral Damage Therefore. was that it was "disgusting. As Saint Paul said in 2 Corinthians 4:4. or as whatever else. Stephanie Barron. who accept perverse pictures of the crucified Christ. of Christ. though it certainly was that: it was also his gut fury against the very extremity of sacrilege. perfect. his comment quoted in the New York Times. namely. too. for so 90 . "The Jew was able to say to himself These Germans. Hitler would have reflected such literalism of religious sentiment in his own aesthetic dictates as Fuhrer. emaciated. the subject of Christ forgiving an adultress was deemed an unfit topic: the breaking of the marriage contract and the undermining of the family were not in keeping with National Socialist ideology. which stressed the family as central in the rebuilding of Germany. blasphemous and an insult to the mother of God. And like the rest of Hitler's personality that had been irrevocably formed from this base even after Hitler had on merely an intellectual level abandoned Christianity in 1937. However. 204). sacrilegious. when the American Catholic fundamentalist Patrick Buchanan saw a Black African Catholic's portrayal at the Brooklyn Museum of the Virgin Mary in which the African fertility-symbol of elephant-dung was part of the painting. as a frustrated professional painter himself." which is to say. the misrepresentation of the Perfect. are capable of swallowing other horrors.") Hitler and the Nazi Party shared it.

God's perfection established an uncompromising standard. insincere. Hitler was proud that not only would he himself do no such thing. Public life has to be freed from the suffocating perfume of our modern eroticism. and theaters. He must clear away the filth and moral contamination of the 'culture' of our big cities. this is no fare fit for young people. In Mein Kampf. will have to be cleaned of the symptoms of a rotting world and placed into the service of a moral idea of State and culture. despite all the clamors and lamentations that will thereby be let loose. help to abolish the mental presupposition for it. This cleaning-up of our culture must extend to nearly all domains. prudishness. In shop windows and on billboards. vaudevilles. saying: "Our entire public life today resembles a hothouse of sexual conceptions and stimulants. using fire-breathing. in other words. . above all. Theater. This sultry sensual atmosphere leads to ideas and stimulations such as no boy should be expected to be able to deal with. and one can hardly deny that. movies. posters and window displays. the goal and the way have to be focused on the care and preservation of our people's health in body and soul." For Hitler. there was a unity between what is morally wholesome and what is in the interests of (as he went on to refer to it) "the duty of the preservation of the race" of Aryans. literature. he passionately condemned the prevailing laxity of public morality. . In all these things. hellfire-and-brimstone rhetoric worthy of any fundamentalist minister at the peak of his sermon. and another was by seeking sexual release with prostitutes and so subjecting himself and others to syphilis. and this ruthlessly and without hesitating. The aesthetic side of this literalism had major ramifications in Hitler's case far beyond his finding repellent such "ugly" portrayals of the Christ-figure as appeared in the paintings of Beckmann or of other "degenerate" artists. The purely physical image of God was itself an important concept within Hitler's racial theory: this perfection of God was 91 . Hitler then concluded: "He who wants to attack prostitution must. art. For Hitler. first of all. God's People must do God's bidding. . he would permit no one else to do so. That this is bound to lead to serious damage to youths is probably clear to everyone who has not lost the ability to imagine himself from the standpoint of a young person's soul. the pureblooded Christians. as also from all unmanly. One has only to look at the posters on our movie houses. what was at stake was nothing less than holy: God's image is not to be trifled with.5: Collateral Damage conservative a man as Hitler. the press. the basest means are used in order to attract the attention of the masses." Hitler went on to charge that one way that a boy might respond to such stimulations was by committing crimes. and he was determined to pursue this standard as his goal.

And this is how Hitler's vision of physical beauty— which was actually culturally derived. has to direct its entire education primarily not at pumping in mere knowledge. but at the breeding of absolutely healthy bodies. Because God's will once gave men their form. . after all. their being. original sin that had gotten Hitler started. in the face of which the wish and the egoism of the individual appears as nothing and has to submit. through this realization. Who destroys His work thereby declares war on the creation of the Lord. all that existed was man created in the image of God—perfect. . not "Aryans. . to see to it that God's will is not simply talked about outwardly. and specific to the culture in which he had been raised—ended up becoming for him a thoroughly concrete criterion for membership in "God's People." This goes straight back to Genesis. In Paradise. the divine will. To Hitler. in his Secret Conversations (Table-Talk) on 24 April 1942. but Hitler required more than simply the extermination 92 ." they were "the men of Satan". ." All whom Hitler found physically unattractive. .5: Collateral Damage for Hitler by no means merely abstract. were not in God's image." but instead (as Mein Kampf had called such people) "deliberately insulting the All-Highest. . so too does original sin itself—and it was. . It has to declare unfit for propagation everybody who is visibly ill and has inherited a disease and it has to carry this out in practice.. and from the racial standpoint thus not good. but of all he saw as ugly. but Hitler threw the disabled in as God's dessert: the Holocaust's collateral damage. . thus also the individual's education has to focus upon and to promote first of all physical health. Hitler reported that he had vetoed many of his soldiers' selections of brides because "most of the women concerned are either malformed or ugly." And this is why Hitler felt that God's call to him was not just for the extermination of Jews. As Mein Kampf stated: It is essential to follow God's "admonition finally to put an end to the permanently continuous original sin of a race poisoning and to give the Almighty Creator beings as He Himself created them. but then. and their faculties. . . Killing Jews was the main thing. . . Just as in general the presumption for spiritual achievement lies in the racial quality of the given human material. . . The folkish State." And this is why. It has to put the most modern medical means at the service of this knowledge. including disabled people. Precisely he who is folkishly oriented has the most scared duty. Jews were not merely not "God's People. before illnesses such as plagued Hitler. it was above all a physical perfection. but that God's will is also fulfilled and God's labor not ravished. The State has to appear as the guardian of a thousand years' future. if anything.

. To Hitler." The world consisted of God's People." As Mein Kampf had put the matter. At the same time. in some manner or another. however. till at last not only mentally but also physically he began to resemble more and more the subjected and aborigines than his ancestors. and which they later lost as they "became submerged in the race-mixture. . he kept the focus of the Holocaust on "the final solution to the Jewish problem". "The Aryan gave up the purity of his blood and therefore he also lost his place in the Paradise which he had created for himself by original sin." and "How could a man shoulder this burden if he had not faith in his mission and the consent of Him who stands above us?" Imperfections did not exist in the Garden of Eden. on the extermination of "Satan's people." Hitler intended precisely this. for the killers a logical Progression led from exclusion to extermination. the meal itself was the "final solution. he gradually lost his cultural ability more and more." Hitler's God would smile upon his great service in carrying out upon all of them the Lord's wrath. Guenter Lewy showed In his 2000 The Nazi Persecution of the Gypsies. As Romans 13:4 had expressed Hitler's divine authorization as Fuhrer: The ruler "is God's servant who carries out the Lord's punishment on those who do evil." For example. "He became submerged in the race-mixture. Hitler was going to restore that. Satan's people. but only the dessert. Jesus Christ: Hitler would not tolerate anyone "deliberately insulting the All-Highest.'" Hitler meant it when he said such things as. that despite the horrors the Nazis perpetrated against Gypsies. however. was only a matter of degree. . and it had become customary to refer to them as 'life unworthy of life. that is to say." which Aryans had made for themselves by retaining their racial purity. and other races.5: Collateral Damage of Satan's people. there was no systematic program of exterminating them that was analogous to the 'final solution' against Jews. concerning the treatment specifically of handicapped adults." Hitler aimed to maintain the same standard of uncompromising perfection as had his model. "I am fighting for the work of the Lord. As Henry Friedlander observed at the start of the fourth chapter of his 1995 The Origins of Nazi Genocide. The difference. "Although the murder of handicapped adults was both unnecessary and senseless because they were already sterilized and thus unable to produce descendants." Adam and Eve prior to original sin. and the latter were not the meal that Hitler was serving up to God. he wanted to "purify" the world. of all who were not "God's People" and "beings as He Himself created them. regarding specifically the Gypsies. Jesus was God's return to earth for the purpose of overcoming Satan and restoring "Paradise. in order to "atone" for his 93 .

After all. who murdered a homosexual couple in Redding." according to Romans 1:27&32) soared. as he felt. in accord with John 8:44 and Matthew 27:25. on 1 July 1999. which in his view was the greatest crime that could even be imagined. . he. the prosecutions especially against homosexuality ("worthy of death. the source of the laws that he respected and was aiming to carry out was not the constitution. was a super-Christian. one uncompromising in his service to the Lord as Hitler found that expressed in John 8:44. . a super-Christian. indeed. in a theocracy. So many people claim to be Christians and complain about all these things their religion says arc a sin. he hated not only homosexuals but also Jews. In his Secret Conversations (Table-Talk) of 22 May 1942. Benjamin Matthew Williams. And also as with Hitler. And also as with Hitler. too. representing the will of the people. whose laws and commands are written in the Bible. Immediately upon his coming to power in 1933. he had sexual deviates rounded up and thrown into prison." (Similarly.. how else could a descendant of Satan. asserted. he emphasized that all sexual deviants were threats to "public decency" who must suffer "the strongest possible punishment. it was the Lord Himself.. and other key biblical passages. Hitler's atonement for his own original sin drove him to become.." and to commit everything to the effort. having set fire to three synagogues two weeks earlier." so as to assure his own salvation. but they're not willing to do anything about it. "I'm not guilty of murder.5: Collateral Damage own "original sin. then it becomes understandable why he would have been willing to "shoulder this burden. otherwise find his salvation? 94 . nor the legislature in a democracy. And also as with Hitler. one of those who were themselves guilty of the Deicide. he was raised by devoutly religious parents.) If Hitler felt that his own original sin had made him." In his own eyes. California. Matthew 27:25. and a person with the guilt of Deicide upon himself. I'm guilty of obeying the laws of the Creator..

at last. Hitler was a man of action. the Bible was a call to arms for the People of God against those of Satan." reasserting the Pope's supreme moral authority over that of the 95 . however. that. no longer merely to preach it. Hitler's disillusionment with the churches came not long after the Pope's 14 March 1937 Encyclical. and to his disillusionment in late 1937. today's churches often suggest or imply that the Holocaust was a major. After all. source of the conflict.6: Church Response In a sense. which is of ancient vintage. as the Fuhrer of God's People. He had pondered the Bible carefully. was the core of the disagreement between the Nazis and the churches. As previously mentioned. Hitler was naive: he expected all of the Christian churches to be so supportive that they would recognize immediately that they could entrust him. but who was determined to act upon that will—no longer merely to spout it verbally. A minor one was the Holocaust. with unlimited moral authority. This was a multifaceted power-struggle. there were many issues. or whether the churches held supreme moral authority. or even the chief. Hitler was a man willing to "shoulder this burden". what more could pureblooded Christians even hope for than a Fuhrer who was not only entirely supportive of God's will as that is stated in the Bible. "Mit brennender Sorge. Hitler was outraged. the burden would be shouldered. which was clearly not the case: the main conflict was over whether the State had supreme authority. in retrospect. The church-state issue. any churchman claiming to represent God's People could only be delighted that. there were some churchmen who wanted more than this: They wanted power. But Hitler found. including moral authority. no. to his disappointment.

as detailed in the article by Klaus Scholder in (1987) O. Dietrich Bonhoeffer. eds. This is partially true." namely the issue of whether the churches should continue being independent of state control." etc. Furthermore. which was overwhelmingly endorsed by the clergy. whose unanimity in supporting antiSemitism was near 100%. Mendes-Flohr. The conflict with the churches.. Not even the Nazis' persecutions of Catholics of Jewish descent raised any objection from the Pope. or the Catholic priest. The sole concern of the Encyclical was the Nazi challenge to the powers and prerogatives of the Church's own bureaucracy. There were exceptions. such as the great Protestant theologian. The courage of these rare and exceptional clergymen was all the greater by virtue of their own isolation from their fellow-clergy. Thus. disagree with the Nazis as to what constituted a correct reason for hating Jews. The upshot was that the churches were conflicted about Hitler's eugenic reasons for hating Jews. Some of those clergy did. Scholder writes merely 96 . in fact.D. racial.6: Church Response State. But overt racism against Jews was another thing. case for their damnation (despite such hereditarian biblical passages as Matthew 27:25 and John 8:44). it went against at least Christianity's overt teachings to make a genetic. there was some opposition by certain members of the clergy against the racism of Nazi anti-Semitism. much as they hated Jews as "Christ-killers. Judaism and Christianity under the Impact of National Socialism. such as he began expressing to propagandists on 29 October of that same year. Scholder argues that this clerical resistance to Hitler's particular type of anti-Semitism led Hitler to become increasingly hostile to Christianity itself from 1937 onward. but of course there was that other reason for these church-state frictions having nothing to do with "the Jewish question. It did not even mention Hitler's anti-Semitic campaign. For this reason. and died on his way to Dachau. The source of this dispute was historical: Both the Protestant and Catholic churches had always had a tradition of trying to convert Jews to Christianity—sometimes upon pain of death for their not complying. Bemhard Lichtenberg. But this seems to have been enough to have precipitated from Hitler a disillusionment with the churches. who was executed for having joined in an assassination-attempt against Hitler. to be sure. Christianity had itself laid the foundations for this hatred. who stood alone amongst his colleagues in opposing Nazi anti-Semitism. the Nazis' racial reasons were rejected by some clergy. Kulka and P.. however. and had even referred to Jews in a hereditarian way that was to become the precursor to "scientific" racism after the advent of biology. little concerned the Nazis' antiSemitism.

Hitler had expected "better" from clerics. been freed from the still-current and childish imaginings of religion. Martin Niemoeller.. and Guenter Lewy.. Richard Gutteridge." Nor were Niemoeller's views unusual for that small percentage of German clerics who were anti-Nazi. (For a well-balanced discussion of both the church-state issue and the clerical reception of racialist anti-Semitism. "I am decidedly not a philosemite. His 1937 Here Stand I! presents some of his sermons from that period. The Catholic Church and Nazi Germany (1964). he grew increasingly cynical about Christianity as a result. "I shall always 97 . Nevertheless." In this sermon. whom the Nazis arrested in 1937." lending fuel to Hitler's fire.. 195) that likens the extreme right-wing parties (such as the Nazis) to the Jews." The attitudes of such theologians helped give rise to Naziism." but for "the blood of all the righteous men who were ever murdered" as standing against "tyrannical human will.) One prominent example of clerical dissent against Naziism was the Protestant minister. Karl Barth was—along with Niemoeller—one of the anti-Nazi church leaders.'" a "people" that. . he told his parishioners about "the 'eternal Jew. his adjutant Gerhard Engel in his 1974 Heeresadjutant bei Hitler 1938-1943 reported Hitler to have promised (p. which] could have had a retrogressive effect on my doctrine. For example. and all that it ever reaps is contempt and hatred because ever and anon the world notices the deception and avenges itself in its own way. however dividedly. the churches' response to Hitler's racialist anti-Semitism was "divided. even in the rare instances where the churchman himself opposed Naziism. I feel myself now as free as a colt in the meadow. so that by 29 October 1937. Theologians under Hitler (1985). The German Evangelical Church and the Jews (1976). Christianity holding "steadfastly ." which sugar-coats the reality." as Scholder claims it was. "whatever it takes up becomes poisoned. his Advent sermon of 1933 called Jews "an obstinate and evil people..6: Church Response as a Christian apologist when he makes statements such as. Als die Zeugen schweigen (1993). including one (p. but nonetheless.. 31).. As we've already noted. "Christianity. "after an intense inner struggle." Yet. . Ericksen. steadfastly held to its Jewish roots. as responsible not just for "the blood of Jesus and the blood of all His messengers. Wolfgang Gerlach. I have always had to suppress a totally irrational aversion [to Jews.to its Jewish roots" this was not. see Chapters 4-6 in Ian Kershaw's 1983 Popular Opinion and Political Dissent in the Third Reich. he even made the admission that he had. and which outright contradicts the predominant clerical reaction to Naziism reported in Robert P. and his 5 September 1967 letter in his Letters: 19611968 (1981) admits.

) In fact. No less a figure. traditional Christian fundamentalist. than Cardinal Bertram—the presiding prelate of Germany and authorized representative from the Holy See-had instructed his priests to hold a Memorial Mass (6 May 1945). Though he now rejected the authority of the Church. notwithstanding that the Cardinal and the Pope were well aware of the Holocaust." Hitler never did leave the Roman Catholic faith into which he had been born and all of whose sacraments he received. and some of its mythology. and Hitler's old longstanding." could not deny that when the Church sent Hitler to heaven after his suicide. and above all. he was travelling there as a first-class Catholic. a boycott against Jewish-owned businesses. condemnation of sinful acts as being violations against both God and nature. Cardinal Bertram had specifically interceded in support of Hitler's anti-Semitic policies right at their start. Christianity's Jew-hatred that he had learned since the crib via the Gospel and other New Testament accounts—even as he was now concluding that the New Testament itself was part of the "Jewish conspiracy. in fact. Hitler's new-found intellectual "freedom" was superficial and did not change his personality. But now. captures well the moral monstrosity of this entirely gratuitous Catholic honor to Hitler. in his Secret Conversations (Table-Talk). as we previously noted. he was against the churches as superstitious. News & World Report on 30 March 1998." By 1941. favoring his own racialist antiSemitism as "scientific"." And even a Christian apologist such as Scholder. he retained its anti-Semitic mythology. According to a feature-article in U. as we also noted previously.S. he was condemning Christianity—but still not Jesus Himself. And. "faith is at the bottom of everything. the 98 . And as John Loftus and Mark Aarons documented in detail in their 1991 Unholy Trinity. and he died as a Catholic in good standing with his Church and his Pope. appeared now to him as violations only against nature.6: Church Response remain a Catholic as I have always been. (Daniel Goldhagen's discussion of the matter in footnote 86 to Chapter 16 of his Hitler's Willing Executioners. the Catholic Church after the war virtually ran the operation to spirit Nazi war criminals off to safe refuge in Argentina and other countries. when Bertram issued a decision on 1 April 1933 not to oppose the Nazis' first official act against Germany's Jews. But he still closed his monologue of the night of 28-9 January 1942 with. writing in the 25 October 1980 Frankfurter Algemeine Zeitung concerning the "solemn requiem mass" that the Church "held in commemoration of the Fuhrer. And Hitler still claimed Jesus—the "real" Jesus—as his model." and which according to Church law "may be celebrated only for a believing member of the Church and only on an important occasion and if it is in the public interest of the Church.

"the Bishop of Bohemia and Moravia begged permission to hold a Requiem Mass for SS Obergruppenfuhrer Heydrich. The question is what kind of moral guidance? The answer is clear: it was Christians who were slaughtering Jews by the ditchload. as these soldiers murdered Jews. in fact. this was. but if the slaughtered included Christians who had some Jewish ancestors. Hitler noted in his Secret Conversations 7 June 1942. Not until July of 2000 did the Roman Catholic Church finally agree to pay restitution to surviving slaves it had used in Germany. "Steadfast. clergy issued no objection. and they were doing it with the backing of their churches. to its Jewish roots. The official belt-buckle worn by Nazi soldiers emblazoned "GOTT MIT UNS" ("GOD WITH US") atop the swastika.6: Church Response Church ended the Century/Millennium still obstructing efforts to restore to Holocaust-survivors vast sums in loot that had been stolen from them. and though the Church has banned numerous books." Hitler himself was never excommunicated by his Church." indeed! After Holocaust-chief Reinhardt Heydrich was assassinated. The major Protestant denominations had settled these lawsuits from their former slaves a little earlier. Mein Kampf was never one of them. given it by the Nazis... their claimed purpose. If slaughtering Jews was holding 'steadfastly . 99 . There is no question that the churches during the Nazi era were providing moral guidance." then the churches were steadfast. then some churches opposed that. nor even condemned.

"Hitler was anti-Semitic long before he reached Vienna. But in any case. In Mem Kampf. prior to Vienna. was reasoned. in her 1999 Hitler's Vienna. attributes the source of Hitler's racialist views of Jews to "the anti-Semitic pamphlets he read during his youth in Vienna—most notably those of Lanz von Liebenfels and Theodor Fritsch. 18. or religiously inspired mass-murders against Jews. for example. Brigitte Hamann. would probably have held far less authority for Hitler if they had not reinforced what he 100 ." As previously noted." That seems to have been Hitler's earliest reported racist action. "Aryans and Non-Aryans. p. at the age of 18. of earlier eras.7: Historical Background Hitler on many occasions tried to distinguish his anti-Semitic policies from the pogroms. by contrast. (Many of Hitler's biographers take these statements at face-value. both in his The Psychopathic God and in his personal communication to me. recorded that Hitler at about age 13 in Linz. and asserted that his own anti-Semitism. but rather as having originated during his early adult years in Vienna—that is. Waite." Hitler moved to Vienna in 1907. those notorious pamphlets that Hitler devoured in his garret and in the cafes of Vienna as a young man-and which Waite believes caused Hitler's anti-Semitism. as having been a product of cool rationality and mature observation of the world he saw around him. he tried to present his antiSemitism as having had nothing to do with anything that he had learned or experienced as a child. p. he referred to those previous incidents of mob violence against Jews contemptuously. Yet. as Eugene Davidson in 1977 pointed out in The Making of Adolf Hitler. had separated classmates into two groups. and even "scientific" (the latter term coming into increasing use by him after his 1937 disillusionment with the churches). 10.

He may have enjoyed the conceit that his anti-Semitic inspiration had leapfrogged from the Word of God recorded twothousand years earlier. Furthermore. His anti-Semitism was shaped not only by the direct influence of the Bible.7: Historical Background had already learnt from the Bible which he knew so well and respected so highly.D. The real question. is why Hitler was receptive to the anti-Semitic stereotypes that were promoted in this hate-literature. biblically inspired. for example. notwithstanding Hitler's emphatic denials of the historical origins of his anti-Semitic policies. and he always believed what he wanted to believe. Grosser and Edwin Halperin. Liebenfels had been a Cistercian monk at the Heiligenkreuz Monastery prior to pamphleteering. And one might even ask from what influence these pamphleteers had themselves derived their own antiSemitism. essentially. the major anti-Semitic outbreaks. Paul E. rather than of essentially infantile origins." Hitler certainly wanted to believe his anti-Semitism to be rational. highlights of the medieval origins of the Holocaust. Hitler may have felt. But is it asking too much of Hitler's biographers to expect them to know better than to accept unquestioningly Hitler's self-image in this regard?) Therefore. constantly fed and reinforced by the Bible from which it sprang. cataloguing year-by-year since the beginnings of the Christian Church. inspired by the biblical image of 101 . as he frequently expressed. but also of the long history of pogroms or anti-Semitic massacres. provides the full documentation of this tradition. but this was hardly the case. but also by the indirect influence of the Holy Book: the anti-Semitic culture to which it gave rise. The following extract from their account describes.: Pope Benedict VIII. and his assertions that he relied only upon the Bible for his historical instructions in this matter. this very same historical tradition had also profoundly shaped German and Austrian culture. especially during the Middle Ages. that his anti-Semitic policies were distinctively modern. therefore. but they were actually anything but that. history of Christian pogroms against Jews. and the historical tradition that Hitler was destined to climax: 1021 A. Hitler's anti-Semitic Holocaust was indeed also part of a historical tradition of post-biblical vintage: the long. This culture consisted not only of the numerous antiSemitic political influences of Hitler's youth (such as we've just made passing mention of). in their 1979 Anti-Semitism. as a proud national political model. and Fritsch's famous work was The Anti-Semites' Catechism presenting his "Ten German Commandments. directly to his brilliant mind in modern times.

: King Henry III.: A Jewish ghetto in Norfolk. identified a number of Jews as the cause of a hurricane and earthquake that had struck Rome on Good Friday. Duke of Lorrain. 1233 A. The Jews were arrested.500 Jews were slaughtered. The Pope then admonished the local clergy in those areas for their failure to have prevented the massacres. credit-records were burnt. precipitating massacres of Jews in many cities. ordered all Jews in England to wear prominently on their garments a Jewish badge. who were prohibited from entering most of the lawful professions. Germany. violators bringing "Satan's brood" into the world would be excommunicated.D.D.D. enforcing a decree of the Fourth Lateran Council. while asserting that Jews are bestial descendants of Satan and murderers since time began. and burned alive at the stake. 1231 A.7: Historical Background the Satanic Jew. tortured till they confessed.: Various French kings dispossessed 102 . Thousands of Jews in France.: Pope Gregory IX called for a Crusade against Jews. and Bohemia were slaughtered on the Duke's way to the Holy Land.D.: Godfrey de Bouillon. At York.: A Cistercian monk preaching a Crusade in Germany attacked the Jews and urged the people to attack them. as a consequence of which thousands of Jews who refused to convert to Christianity were massacred along with their children. 1306. spread the rumor that in gathering an army for the Crusades.D. and 1315 A.D." was outlawed to all but Jews. 1140 A. was torched and the inhabitants burnt alive. (Lending at interest.) 1212 A. England.D. since God had condemned them to utter wretchedness. 1254. where Duke Godfrey rounded up Jerusalem Jews into their synagogue and burnt them alive. 1190 A. Crusaders massacred Jews in Lorraine who refused baptism.D. 1236 A.: In France.D.: Pope Gregory IX established the Inquisition as Dominican and Franciscan friars punishing Jews and other heretics with burning at the stake—a "compassionate" treatment because it avoided the shedding of blood. he would avenge the death of Christ with the blood of the Jews. 1. 1218 A. a "sin. 1095-1099 A. Christians were prohibited from assisting Jewish women in labor. His superior opposed these pogroms.: Pope Gregory IX complained to Germany's bishops that German Jews were living too well.

: The Black Death (bubonic plague) spread by rats and returning Crusaders from the East.D. 1267 A.D.D.D. 1320 A. who penned 103 .: 120 Jewish ghettos in southern France and northern Spain were exterminated.: A mendicant friar's preaching stirred a mob to massacre the Jews in Estella." and that "this brood of snakes" must be eliminated from all Christian lands. 1270 A. they supposedly poisoned the wells.D. Throughout Europe.: Jewish ghettos in over 140 German towns were exterminated.D. Some churchmen demanded the extermination of Jews. 1262 A. Luther was a champion hater. France. 1290 A. Austria. and Spain.: The Council of Vienna required all Jews to wear horned hats as signs that they were Satan's children. 1279 A. saying that "the Jews got what they deserved. anti-Semitic laws were promulgated: Christians were prohibited from all intercourse with Jews.: The Jewish ghetto in London was sacked by a mob.: Jews were ordered expelled from England. 1298 A.D." when "they were punished in the most gruesome manner so that the streets ran with their blood. Jewish ghettos were slaughtered in many cities in Switzerland. Jews were massacred in many cities. Many Christians came to believe that actual Satanic horns were hidden under these Jewish hats. 1347-1350 A. such as On the Jews and their Lies in 1542. and wore a Jewish badge. Germany.: In Poland. After Martin Luther failed to convert Jews to Christianity. Most were burned alive. Jews were accused of it.7: Historical Background and expelled all Jews from France.D. but finally Jews were permitted to return so long as they laid no claim to their former property. other churchmen opposed it. 1328 A. ************ Nor was there any softening of this with the advent of Protestantism. and all synagogues set aflame. and Of the Unknowable Name in 1543. in Sinzig on the Sabbath.D. he wrote books and pamphlets of rabid anti-Semitism. Spain. killed one-third of Europeans. they were burned alive in the synagogue.: Upon the death of Germany's King Frederick II. This Church-sponsored legislation was introduced because the Church declared that Jews were living too well. who were required to wear badges.

" was vague at best. In times of most bitter distress the wrath against him finally breaks out.. and the exploited and ruined masses take up self-defense in order to ward off the scourge of God. essentially racially. as it turned out to be centuries later in Nazi Germany. and even within the Nazi Party itself.. the anti-Semitism was racial against French Jews in 1212 A.7: Historical Background murderous tracts also against Catholics. and even with different rationalizations." saying. showed that Spanish Christians who had descended in whole or part from Jews and who were slaughtered by Spanish mobs during the Inquisition. Now one begins to look more and more closely at the stranger and one discovers more and more new repellent features and characteristics in him. Throughout the medieval period. They experience his mere existence as the plague. in 104 . official Church policy toward Jews was for their conversion to Christianity. His blood-sucking tyranny becomes so great that riots against him occur. Jews were exterminated. his would be. But many other edicts by the Church were non-racial. However. too. and the Catholic Church was just as torn—and ultimately just as capitulationist—toward it then. and against serfs who rebelled against tyrannous princes. as Benzion Netanyahu exhaustively demonstrated in his massive 1995 The Origins of the Inquisition in Fifteenth Century Spain. 'the Jew'] finally grows into open hatred.D. he nonetheless commented approvingly upon it in Chapter 11 of Mein Kampf. a purely racial anti-Semitism finally broke through during the late 1400's in Spain. the Church merely tortured them to convert to God's People. sponsored by the Church. Netanyahu's painstakingly detailed reconstruction of Christianity's earliestdocumented mini-dress-rehearsal for the Holocaust. but also on occasion condemned by the Church. till the chasm becomes insurmountable. not even from a purely doctrinal standpoint. and the line between anti-Semitism against the Jewish religion. in "(d)" under "The Development of Judaism. when anyone who assisted a Jewish woman in labor bringing "Satan's brood" into the world was himself excommunicated. Clearly.. Five hundred years before the advent of genetics. On some occasions. were. On others.e. and not consistently maintained." Hitler's interpretation was that the medieval anti-Semitic assaults were in self-defense. For all that Hitler denied his own inspiration by this tradition. and anti-Semitism against Jews as a "race. . "the aversion against him [i. or even of biology—or even of science itself in Spain—the Spanish Inquisition already exhibited full-blown racial anti-Semitism within Christian culture. As in the Nazi era. the culturally pervasive underlying Christian hatred of Jews expressed itself in different ways. as children of Satan.

several Old Christian fraternities adopted special statutes that excluded all conversos. and it was on November 1 of that year that he granted their request in his bull Exigit sincere devotionis. centered primarily on religious accusations and presented the Inquisition as the only solution to the converso religious problem. did not diminish the volume. like the Franciscans before them.7: Historical Background fact overwhelmingly believing and devout Christians. whose only "crime" was their "Jewish blood. extremism. and the rising anti-converso fever in Toledo and its archbishopric. They must have challenged their opponents for proof of their claims. prior of the convent of San Pablo in Seville. were no doubt the main factors that prompted the Kings to adopt the inquisitional solution." These Jewish-descendent Christians—called "conversos" for their having had ancestors who had been forcibly converted to Christianity—were subjected to pogroms for a Jewish faith they had never had and knew next-to-nothing about. however. which the sovereigns saw growing in all the urban centers of Andalusia. but as in the case of Espina and his followers. Rejecting the charges leveled against them as highly exaggerated or viciously made up. and ferocity of their assertions. It was probably in June or July 1478 that they petitioned the Pope for authorization to establish inquisitional tribunals in Castile. the conversos fiercely denied the need for the erection of inquisitional tribunals. 918-20. Both contemporary sources and modern historians of the Inquisition present him as the main influence that moved the sovereigns to adopt—after much reluctance—the inquisitional solution. This. and 1047) from Netanyahu's account: In Seville the anti-converso agitation was led by the Dominicans. 922. Here are some highlights (pp. their anti-converso campaign made use of social and racial arguments. including the great cities of Cordova and Seville. who by then had taken over the advocacy of the Inquisition from the Observantine Franciscans. purely on grounds 105 . hostility to the conversos. 925. and the Dominicans. Chief agitator of the Dominican camp was Alonso de Hojeda. *** Thus. found it hard to offer evidence. *** Accordingly. Indubitably.

the events that prompted it could only strengthen the resolve of both sovereigns to go ahead with their inquisitional solution. the feelings and the attitudes of the majority of Spain's Christian population. It proclaimed all the statutes. ** * Things began to change radically. that made the sovereigns earn. who must have been concerned about that development. that Archbishop Carrillo convened in Alcala. *** In the Cortes of Toledo. It was the product of a movement that called for its creation and labored for decades to bring it about—a movement that reflected the will. rulings and regulations adopted by organizations that shared that movement's views as clearly anti-Christian. prohibiting their application on pain of excommunication. must have been small).7: Historical Background of race. It was no doubt in response to urgent pleas of the conversos.' *** What emerges from our survey is that the Spanish Inquisition was by no means the result of a fortuitous concourse of circumstances and events. This was the first link in a long chain of actions. it was decided that the Jews (and Moors) be transferred to localities completely separated from Christian neighborhoods. however. in early 1481. after the expulsion of the Jews. Their activity soon prompted imitation. we presume. when in the middle of the 15th century the great current of Spain's anti-Marranism was joined by another flow of hostility which burst forth at that time. a special synod which condemned the movement of racial discrimination. and in the course of 1479 the groups and organizations committed to their principle mushroomed in all towns of the Toledan archbishopric. supposedly taken for a 'religious' purpose. from their offices and membership. Perhaps it was awareness of these facts that led Menendez y Pelayo to say that the Inquisition was a genuine expression of the soul of the Spanish people. Regardless of the impact of this proclamation (and that impact. We refer to the enmity produced by the campaign charging the conversos with a Judaic heresy—a charge hurled into the pubic domain with overwhelming force 106 . the honorific title of 'the Catholic Kings. and therefore null and void. therefore.

perhaps for some time before 1449.. morally. and it is certainly inconceivable that. which by means of its mythology demonizing "the Jews. steadily gaining both in following and in credence. But the religious charge—i. racially. and religiously.7: Historical Background by the rebels of '49. their Christian identity. But the churches wanted to do two things with Jews. as it might deny the conversos their protective shield— i. the churches. No doubt the rebels' success in combining this wild accusation with their racist postulates contributed to their rapid acceptance. but Hitler and the Spanish Inquisitionists were at war against Jews and not merely against Judaism. and the German people during the Third Reich. Hitler. that a campaign based on such an accusation was likely to have a powerful effect. Looking for excuses that might justify the crimes they had perpetrated against the Toledan New Christians. Therefore. and couldn't do both at once: convert them. 107 . without its wide dissemination. In any case.e. What was the status of someone born a Jew who converted to Christianity? John 8:44 and Matthew 27:25 were clear-cut in favor of Hitler's view that it was a war against Jews.e. the churches split on that before finally yielding to the genocidists. and kill them. economically. was at odds with itself when mobs outside the cloisters started murdering its own followers who just happened to have descended from Jews. the Church. It is hardly conceivable that without this charge the monastic orders would have joined in the attack. the rebels thought it helpful to seize on the rumor that some conversos still practiced Jewish rites. politically." had over centuries built up a hatred against Jews on the basis of a combination of hereditarian and individual-belief grounds.' they labeled all conversos 'heretics' and 'Judaizers' who actively sought the destruction of Christendom. that of heresy—was of special significance. Thus the conversos were now attacked from every angle: socially. But it was only during the Toledan rebellion that the idea found attentive ears. Killing unconverted Jews was solid policy. were mindlessly replaying an old script on a technologically modern stage.. both times. and demonstrating unsurpassed insolence and readiness to go all the way with the employment of 'big lies. the accusation caught fire. anyone could have proposed the establishment of the Inquisition. The same phenomenon happened during both the Spanish Inquisition and the Nazi era. It must have occurred to some foes of the conversos. The churches had never really made up their minds whether their war against Judaism was in fact inevitably a war against Jews.

Hitler's self-image. the picture shows "a Wagnerian hero. patterned. which Hitler himself selected: a picture of a medieval knight in shining armor. To Robert Waite. in fact. the son of Parsifal. as portrayed here. which was Hitler's own favorite. mounted on a horse. is clearly medieval." perhaps from the opera Lohengrin. who was the title-hero of Wagner's final opera and the King of the Grail. Both operas focus around the protection of the "Grail" or cup from which Christ drank wine at the Last 108 .8: Hitler's Medievalism To the right is the official 1938 portrait of the Fuhrer. The opera's title-hero is a knight of the Holy Grail. after the Crusades. and bearing the national banner.

these are based on medieval Nordic Christian legends. condemning Jews for Satanic blood-guilt in Jesus' crucifixion—the original mythology of his own childhood. who prided himself on his being "hard" and rigid. evidently knows his Hitler well: his office as Governor of the Province of Klagenfurt displays a print of a German knight on horseback. Hitler's passion for the operas of Wagner was lifelong and intense. "scientific." in which he asked. instead. shed by "the Jews. The new. as a medieval knight in shining armor. that speech was given at the beginning of the period of more than a decade when Hitler's self-image was as Christ Himself carrying the whip to beat "the Jews. (In this context." After all. during that age which culminated religious culture immediately prior to the birth of science in the Renaissance. but in the cultural outlook of the Middle Ages. Instead. . "scientific. "How shall we explain the automatic repugnance we feel for the nature and personality of Jews" (what even the anti-Nazi SwissGerman theologian. though the overlay of industrial smokestack technology was beginning to transform the prince/lord/serf rural culture. which was based upon biblical myths. when Hitler spoke in Munich on 12 April 1922? Of course. proud son of proud former-Nazis. Wagner's answer was biblical: the source of this problem lay in "Jewish blood. as "a totally irrational aversion. Less than a century prior to Hitler's birth. and craft-guild cities. even Jewish Christians")? Wagner's answer to the question he posed. the serfs were freed—first in Austria. the Hitler-admirer. But now. in 1938. . and rising star of current Austrian politics." Hitler.8: Hitler's Medievalism Supper. Karl Barth referred to.") Like almost all Wagner operas. "Judaism in Music." and when Hitler posed for photographs with whips. this in some sense allergic aversion of mine" toward "Jews. nor of the religious rituals stemming from it. such as a his famous essay. of which knighthood itself was an early symbol. in armies run by the old hereditary nobility. like with Hitler. How appropriate a solution for an individual who was steeped not merely in the Bible. This was not only on account of Wagner's anti-Semitic writings. made no mention of the Bible. (Jorg Haider. even closed-minded. was it not "Jewish blood" that Hitler had said Christ to have been taking the whip against. then in Prussia/Germany— only to become subject to compulsory military service. it is worth reiterating the symbolic significance of the wine at the Christian mass: It is Christ's blood.) The Austria and Germany in which Hitler grew to young manhood were strikingly medieval. took as his model a medieval character who embodied in an extreme form these same actually anti-scientific traits. in his own case." Hitler saw himself. the new. into the newer nationalistic/militaristic forms. authorized and ordained by the 109 . the caste-system. .

his speeches to supporters. and his books. etc. Adams. or Mason. based on medieval tales. if any. such as where Adolf Hitler grew up. continued. not only in terms of establishing Hitler's absolutist vision of the rights of the Emperor/Pope he saw himself to be as Fuhrer. but which we shall now quote in full. to be sure. therefore. his statements in conversation with his colleagues. question. but virtually none in the rural areas and villages. Hitler's two favorite books were an architecture volume (reflecting his personal career-aspiration at the time) and a work titled Legends of Gods and Heroes. Washington. Gentian philosophy—Hegel. as well as in regard to the policies Hitler pursued as Fuhrer. even where (as in Marx's case) the master-slave relationships were to be reversed.—accepted castes. as a teen-ager. all reflect this medievalism. 102) that. Hitler's private notes to himself. One example is a key passage in Mein Kampf the end of which we have already cited in several contexts. his letters. on the other. but rather in the uplifting of mankind itself. Fichte. and the medieval operas of Wagner. and that everyone else was born and ordained to follow without any thought other than the performance of the duties thus assigned. that a small hereditary class of men was born and ordained to lead. The German-speaking world known up to Hitler's time possessed no democrats of the stature of Jefferson. on the one hand. Franklin. it was accepted with little. an era in which the one knowingly and silently renounces.8: Hitler's Medievalism churches. This medievalism had some exceptions. and the other gladly gives and sacrifices. was good. This medievalism of outlook had a profound impact on Hitler's political program. The fealty that a knight formerly owed to his lord. In the German-speaking world. Paine. and certainly no Lincoln. was now due from the newly freed serf to the nobleman in whose employ or army he served. including his anti-Semitic policies. Kant. to give a sense for the medievalism of Hitler's vision expressed here: In the folkish State the folkish view of life has finally to succeed in bringing about that nobler era when men see their care no longer in the better breeding of dogs. in America's founding generation. Nietzsche. The fit. Marx. between the mythology and fantasy life of the young Hitler. horses and cats. Another indication of how good it was is provided by Waite's observation (p. Madison. but also in terms of the selfless and unquestioning service expected of everyone under his command. That this is possible must not be denied in a world in which hundreds and hundreds of thousands of men voluntarily 110 .

that would have appeared to his more cosmopolitan countrymen as unseemly: this." The reality was that the vast hereditary medieval manors. "That nobler era" of knighthood. and thus quite suitable for the Nazi ideal of "hardness.8: Hitler's Medievalism impose celibacy upon themselves." which constituted "a race" sharing all a common fate in God's will. Should not the same renunciation be possible if it is replaced by the admonition finally to put an end to the permanently continuous original sin of a race poisoning and to give the Almighty Creator beings as He Himself created them? Seen in its complete context. obliged and bound by nothing but a command of the Church." If Hitler had stated outright that he was determined to carry out God's admonition. and the other gladly gives and sacrifices." which is "a race poisoning" that must be ended. and hope was placed on the beyond. and disease were routine. and short"—to borrow Hobbes' terminology describing "the state of nature. no earthly keys could compete with that. ruled by local lords who traveled off on Churchstate Crusades as knights in the service of the king and of the Pope. the religious origin of Hitler's statement at the end is brought out in high relief. focussed around God and the afterlife. but Hitler here calls for its restoration by the State itself in order to fulfill God's "admonition." wasn't it? But Hitler still left little doubt as to who could even possibly be the source of this "admonition. Medieval life was. about "Racial purity the highest law. like that of the churchly "renunciation" Hitler here praised." Hitler's concept of "the Volk" was inseparable from that of "a people. brutish. The Church held the most-valuable keys. This was because thievery. Hitler's "Aryan" was authentically a medieval/biblical concept. concept of ethnic identification. the supernatural. separated it from the medieval. violence. was "the age of science. after all." not only continues today in monasteries. if anything. It was harsh. This was the world of Hitler's fantasy life— appropriately fantasized for "God's People. seemed vastly more appealing. "an era in which the one knowingly and silently renounces. This hearkens back to Hitler's 1919 private notes. Fear was pervasive over the things of this world." rather than of a nation legally constituted by Man." Life was "nasty. and the beyond. because it held the keys to heaven. The basic concept is that of "a people. not a nationalistic one in the modern sense. Hitler's Volk was created by God. and really biblical. This is more medieval than nationalistic in the industrial age sense." Thus." God's "admonition" here is "finally" (as in "final solution") "to put an end to the permanently continuous original sin. little. and poverty was the norm. passed season after season in 111 .

" and in the latter. but perhaps in the Twelfth-Century one. 1925 and 1945 (both in Maser. Not only were the Fuhrer and the leadership honored. Hitler reflected this in both of his "Political Testament" documents." patterned upon the medieval model. but he is healthy. The Nazis represented the values of medieval life. which is based on medieval romanticization of the soil. but all of the lowlies who unquestioningly accepted and obeyed that leadership were also honored—if only symbolically. If he perishes. and the most sacred sacrifice the blood he sheds for that soil. and health occurred not really in the Twentieth-Century context. and the source. and this entailed the reassertion of castes and the romanticization of the master/slave relationship. Therein lies the strength. A paradigm for Naziism. 112 . Death was no distant prospect but instead an up-front and common reality.8: Hitler's Medievalism quiet terror and desperation. then Germany will never succumb. was devout. it was illegal to sell land. 1939." This emphasis on peasants. Medieval life. desperate. surviving barely on the margin for the multitude of serfs who remained ingloriously behind in their huts. "Never forget that the most sacred right on this earth is a man's right to what soil he can till with his own hands. acquisition was only by two available means: inheritance and war. 1973. In a speech on 15 February 1933. "I die with a joyful heart in the knowledge of the immeasurable deeds and achievements of our peasants and workers"— these statements issuing from the leader of a technologically advanced nation during the Twentieth Century. He who lives in the countryside may be primitive. soil. Furthermore. vulnerable to the predations of roving highwaymen and the throes of disease. in the earlier saying. the 1925 one is also in Mein Kampf. claims to land were always answerable ultimately to the force of arms. now as in the past. p. And borders were ever shifting. Just as the Bible honors not only the master but also the obedient slave. agrarian. our end has come. 964). lies first of all with the German peasant. of our people's life —the source of our renewal. "We are convinced that the restoration to health of our people [hearkening to his own never-diagnosed maladies] must start from the restoration to health of the body politic itself. law served more to institutionalize the results of wars than to establish ownership in the first place. if he survives. It was the Nazi concept of the "national community. and rigidly structured into hereditary castes. Hitler's Secret Book or Second Book of 1928 develops at length his Lebensraum theory. and we are persuaded of the truth that the future of our people. in sum. The towns would not exist at all if the peasant did not fill them with his blood. In fact. blood. he said. so too did the Nazis honor not only the elite but also the obedient mass.

Taken together. 113 . the first theory was based upon the medieval concept of "the blood" (such as a person being "of noble blood. in his Secret Book or Second Book (starting with its second chapter. This is clearly the case in the Bible. the second was based upon the medieval concept of "the soil." "race." "people. outlined in Mein Kampf. or logical order. his theory of eugenics." Not only were both of Hitler's theories derived from the Bible. i. Whereas.8: Hitler's Medievalism Hitler's political program was based on two theories he developed: first." which is tied to "the blood" since the "right" to "the soil" was based upon "blood. and expressed in its complete form in Mein Kampf (in the passages presented herein in Appendix 1). his Lebensraum theory.e. It just adds some additional medieval concepts. Hitler was not at all a creative thinker. but even their mutual logical dependency. Though there was nothing new in either of Hitler's two theories. For example. The first one appears to have been Hitler's initial inspiration for entering politics. and is the central focus of the present work because the Holocaust resulted from it. in that even WWII would not have happened in the absence of Hitler's theory for the Holocaust: the second theory is actually an extension of the first. However. Both theories were medieval. originally outlined in his 1919 notes for The Germanic Revolution—Volume I. and World War II resulted from the second.. in Deuteronomy 7:1-3." or Volk. and which Hitler laid out to his generals in speeches on 3 February 1933 and 5 November 1937 as the basis for Germany to conquer Russia." or "of German blood"). they are nonetheless important for historical reasons. and second. ancestry. but fully expressed only later. Lebensraum was based upon Volk. both theories can actually be considered as one. during the interval between Mein Kampf in 1924 and Hitler's 1928 book. it seems that the idea occurred to him that an expansion of German territory in a new World War would be required in order to achieve his original objective. since the Holocaust resulted from the first. the "right" of "God's People" to other peoples' lands was indicated in 7:3 as being racial—a "blood right. However. In other words. which sets forth Hitler's case for Lebensraum-expansion as a means of avoiding a people's ultimate "spiritual collapse"). was also faithful to the Bible. these two theories constituted Hitler's reasons for initiating a Second World War.

or any other. the charge does sound disingenuous coming from Kristol as a conservative Jew who honors the Old Testament. For example. in his 1999 book A Republic. from secular sources—not from the U. who himself attributes the Holocaust to modernity. since all consider themselves to be some kind of "God's Chosen People. by "blood. There are conservatives. Buchanan's political outlook indeed is medieval." only they may come from different "God's Chosen People. vital interests. the Jewish Reaganaut Bill Kristol. the U." having a God-given right to "their soil. Buchanan. The medieval blood-and-soil mentality can come from any religious denomination." Kristol. of pots-calling-the-kettle-black are. nor to Germans." Conservatives. both won about a quarter of all votes cast in national elections in their two respective nations. It is not only Germans. Not an Empire. and Christoph Blocher in Switzerland. after all. ought not to have gone to war against Hitler. Blood and soil are just as much a Jewish/OldTestament concept as they are a Christian/New-Testament one." Buchanan's fellow conservative. the U. and Hitler a few days later declaring war on the United States. Nixonian/Reaganaut fundamentalist Catholic Patrick Buchanan. common for so-called "political" disputes amongst conservatives. nor even to Hitler and Buchanan. they get their values from the Bible or some other Scripture that asserts "God's People" not just by belief but by ethnicity." and really "Hitler had not wanted war with the West. denies the "fascist" label). argued that even subsequent to the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor. who believe themselves to be "God's Chosen People. Typically." The charge was true." 114 . of every ethnic stripe.S. Israel's own Likud and other conservative parties are constantly reminding the world of this. Presidential candidate. Nonetheless. and not only Christians. At around the same time. in fact. "He looks to blood and soil as our [American] identifying characteristic. because "Hitler made no overt move to threaten U. Kristol. was then quoted in the New York Times of 13 October as retorting of Buchanan. within the past month as this is written. actually. not to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. it was hardly unique to Hitler. was actually reflecting in this comment more of a partisan ethnic attack than of an authentically political or philosophical one. nor even to German Christians. Nor is such political appeal an influence only in German-speaking countries. if not outright fascist (though Buchanan. do not get their values. if not specifically to science. Such instances as this. like both Blocher in Switzerland and Haider in Austria.S. Constitution or any other.S.8: Hitler's Medievalism ALL THE LITTLE HITLERS Both "blood" and "soil" remain part of the intellectual landscape shaping political debate today.S. "blood and soil" political leader Jorg Haider in Austria. whether Hitler.

With the aid of all means he tries to ruin the racial foundations of the people to be enslaved. For a racially pure people. cannot 115 . It was and is the Jews who bring the negro to the Rhine. always with the same concealed thought and the clear goal of destroying. Thus he systematically tries to lower the racial level by a permanent poisoning of the individual. As Mein Kampf put it (quoting now at more length a passage whose opening was cited earlier): For hours the black-haired Jew boy." As has been previously mentioned. which he seems to have feared in his own case that he had inherited from his father. conscious of its blood." or "The Judaization of our spiritual life and the mammonization [sp. the white race which they hate." Extended passages in Mein Kampf deal with what he considered to be infected blood— especially syphilis. by "the prostitution of love.8: Hitler's Medievalism Mein Kampf as Hitler's fullest expression of his theory of "the blood" (or race. by the bastardization which would necessarily set in. whom Hitler evidently supposed had been a libertine whose Jewish libertinism had "cursed" Adolf with his ailments. via his father's presumed Jewish father. is obsessed with health. he believed his father to be the source of his own "blood poisoning" or "original sin. to throw it down from its cultural and political height and in turn to rise personally to the position of master. can never be enslaved by the Jew. or eugenics in a racist pre-scientific sense). in which Hitler reaches his self-diagnostic solution to his problem of "poisoned blood. It will forever only be the master of bastards in this world. he is not scared from pulling down the barriers of blood and race for others on a large scale." Mein Kampf presents Hitler ranting like a Bible-thumping priest or minister against those of "God's People" or "Aryans" who tolerate such a situation: The fact that the population of our big cities is prostituted more and more in its love life. Mein Kampf asserts a number of ways by which "the Jews" carry out this "poisoning. and that just through this it falls victim to syphilis in more and wider circles. and even this is presented in a medieval conceptual framework. diabolic joy in his face." one being the spreading of syphilis.] of our mating impulse. waits in ambush for the unsuspecting girl whom he defiles with his blood and thus robs her from her people. Exactly as he himself systematically demoralizes women and girls.

*** However. even terrible fact: some do not see anything at all. Now there are different ways to reconcile oneself with this disagreeable. they only talk of this entire domain as if it were a great sin. it is there. the question is then all the more which nation first and by itself is able to master this plague. in the diseases of the children the vices of the parents are revealed. but nevertheless they only shrug their shoulders. and on the other. they express their deeply felt inner indignation in order then to close their eyes in pious disgust towards this vicious disease and to ask God (if possible after their own death) to rain fire and brimstone upon this Sodom and Gomorrah in order once again to make an elevating example of this disgraceful mankind. That is what matters in the end. Hitler. and will. This also is only a touchstone for the value of a race. The sin against the blood and the degradation of the race are the hereditary sin of this world and the end of a mankind surrendering to them. since this question primarily concerns the coming generation. or rather they do not want to see anything: this is of course by far the most simple and cheapest 'attitude'. above all. and." Hitler's imagery of syphilis presented in Mein Kampf has strong 116 . bring with it. anyhow. convinced that they can do nothing against this danger. that the sins of the fathers are visited upon the tenth generation. unfortunately. and that race which does not pass the test will die and make room for races healthier or at least tougher and of greater resistance.8: Hitler's Medievalism just be abolished by denying it. in the presence of every sinner caught in the act. a third group see very well the terrible consequences which this disease is bound to. others wrap themselves in a saintly cloak of prudishness that is as ridiculous as it is also mendacious. The most obvious results of this mass contagion can be found on the one hand in the lunatic asylums. was determined not to "surrender. For. it belongs to those of whom it is said. so that one has to let things go as they are going. These especially are the sad certificates of misery of the irresistibly advancing tainting of our sexual life. the knight in shining armor. in our -children. and which nations cannot help perishing. But this is valid only for the sins against blood and race. with terrible correctness.

His understanding is religious. Poetsch was a committed anti-Semite. never experiencing anything more cosmopolitan than the upper-Austrian provincial capital of Linz. was shocking. p.) In any event. where he also preached hellfire-and-brimstone against the sinfulness of the life he saw around him there. Hitler idolized "the Volk" largely in this idealized agrarian way. "I must enter Berlin like Christ in the Temple at Jerusalem and drive out the moneylenders. himself reflected the medieval anti-Semitism that Hitler carried with him. rooted in the Middle Ages. is a scientific account of the origins of the syphilis that Hitler now saw around him: Following the Black Death of the fourteenth century. not really contemporary. Here. closer to the soil. in Mein Kampf describes the plague of syphilis that he there poses as the ultimate test for determining "which nation first and by itself is able to master this plague. not really scientific. Hitler's statement to Eckart at Berchtesgaden shortly afterwards." than to any big city such as Vienna or Berlin. 247). who after having been born in Braunau had moved several times to other small villages. Leopold Poetsch. 11. Dr. whom Hitler in Mein Kampf cited as the only teacher he had ever had who made a lasting impact upon him. (According to Eugene Davidson's 1977 The Making of Adolf Hitler. perhaps from his childhood historyteacher. When Hitler." can best be understood against the background of this fundamentalist moral outrage. the worst of the survivors—the 117 .8: Hitler's Medievalism resonances of the medieval bubonic plague. the change for this rural Austrian. Indeed. and to the biblical "Paradise. suggesting that he had been taught about this ancient European catastrophe. Karl Lueger. it seems clear that when Hitler as a young man moved to the great city of Vienna. but in speeches of the early 1920's in Berlin.). All around the bewildered Hitler was a cosmopolitanism that challenged his own rural culture and value-system. Hitler fused into his emerging theory of eugenics the medieval terrors of the plague. in its thencurrent big-city embodiment. in many areas. which was syphilis. Furthermore. this was a 20th-Century Vienna whose mayor. almost like his being transported via a timemachine from the Middle Ages right into the Twentieth Century." etc. from Laurie Garrett's 1994 The Coming Plague (p. Thus." his references are medieval. This shock was exhibited not only in his descriptions of Vienna and of big cities generally in Mein Kampf ("Our entire public life today resembles a hothouse of sexual conceptions and stimulants. most of Europe experienced two or three generations of disarray and lawlessness. Death had taken a toll on the cities' power structures and.

that necessary critical mass of multiple-partner sex was reached in European cities. remained disrupted for decades. from Mein Kantpf. Godliness had failed their dead friends and relatives. especially in the great cities. These events were so unusual that they never received a correct diagnosis and may well have been mistaken for other crippling ailments. with the only difference being that he now had to accommodate in it such scientifically known facts about syphilis as had become public knowledge. usually producing yaws in children. while tuberculosis was steadily reaping its harvest of death almost throughout the entire country. the highest percentage of deaths had occurred among priests. *** 118 . since prehistory—it was passed sexually. blasphemy and sacrilege was a commonplace. But amid the chaos and comparative wantonness that followed the Black Death. by all accounts. learned in the crib. allowing the organism to emerge within two or three human generations on a massive scale in the form of syphilis. just as Jews had been blamed as the cause of the otherwise incomprehensible contagion of the Black Death. the Riles of sexual morality were flouted. none felt bound by the strictures of the recent past. Syphilis began to spread more and more. One could hypothesize the following scenario for the emergence of syphilis: the spirochete was endemic worldwide since ancient times. Europe. Parallel with the political and moral infection of the people went a no less terrible poisoning of the health of the national body. indeed.8: Hitler's Medievalism most avaricious and corrupt—swept in to fill the vacuums. The world was suddenly full of widows. the same biblical prejudices. the pursuit of money became the be-all and end-all of people's lives. the medieval Hitler blamed them too for having sown this newer plague. causing syphilis. Here is Hitler's explanation.' Philip Ziegler wrote. such as leprosy. 'The crime rate soared. and so produced in him a similar explanation. ruled his mind. widowers. Even though science now existed. And. The way that Hitler did this is characteristic of the highly superstitious medieval mindset of associative thinking guided by little else than biblically inspired prejudices. and adolescent orphans. and microbes were then known. But on rare occasions—again.

" to have been "the cause" of this latest "harvest of death" by the "the Jew. for the moral devastation which this depravity brings with it are sufficient to destroy a people slowly but surely. Hitler starts by speaking of the "prostitution of love. for instead of vigorous children of natural feeling. moral. no. In no other city of western Europe could the relationship between Jewry and prostitution. lies primarily in our prostitution of love." He then proceeds to proclaim that. Now I did not evade the discussion of the Jewish question any longer. When walking at night through the streets and alleys of the Leopoldsstadt. An icy shudder ran down my spine when seeing for the first time the Jew as a cool.] the life in the street gave some really evil demonstrations. following which "the scales dropped from my 119 . be studied better than in Vienna. shameless. and physical infection" (entailing some sort of biological microbe. yet it would still be of deepest danger for the people. on the basis of his dubious inferences from his own anecdotal "demonstrations. *** [When I lived in Vienna. The Judaization of our spiritual life and the mammonization [sic] of our mating impulse sooner or later befouls our entire new generation. and so being at least quasiscientific). This put an end to a long internal struggle. I suddenly bumped against him in a place where I had never suspected. In line with Hitler's equation of political." and the "mammonization of the our mating impulse" by "the Jew" such as Hitler asserts. with every step one could witness things which were unknown to the greater part of the German nation until the war gave the soldiers on the Eastern Front an opportunity to see similar things. "then my indignation flared up. As I learned to look for the Jew in every field of our cultural and artistic life. or rather forced them to see them. I sought it out. Even if the result of this were not this terrible disease. and even now the white slave traffic. But then my indignation flared up." at his discovery. The scales dropped from my eyes when I found the Jew as the leader of Social Democracy. however. and calculating manager of this shocking vice.8: Hitler's Medievalism The cause. only the miserable specimens of financial expedience come forth. the outcome of the scum of the big city. with the possible exception of the seaports of Southern France.

120 .8: Hitler's Medievalism eyes" about "the Jew" in politics. And so too it was that Hitler came up with his theory for the Holocaust. This is a string of associative thoughts guided by the Bible—archetypally medieval. of which this passage from Mein Kampf was a portion.

he must have felt quite conflicted about his intentions now.. to make so basic a change. not a religious one. toward "science. Even when he referred to "Christ" in Mein Kampf. as he clearly attempted to do after 1937 and especially in his Secret Conversations (Table-Talk) from 1941 on. Thus. his feelings toward Jews remained unaffected. and shaped his political views.g. to the very 121 . he wanted to be an agent of God's will. Jews were now carriers of a dangerous "virus.9: Anti-Science Hitler's early religious training left a profound impact upon him." even if they weren't children of Satan). Hitler knew that it would have been politically stupid for him to rationalize publicly about "the Jews" or anything else on the basis of explicitly citing biblical chapters and verses by number. He even remained proud. not of mere mouthings. Furthermore. Hitler always expressed pride in the unchangeableness of his personality. even if his rationalizations no longer were." Hitler wanted to be a political leader. which lasted until his dying day. it was too late for him to do anything about this. Hitler's reasons remained biblical. character. he did not know how. his personality had already been formed. which is to say his motivations. After all. even prior to 1937." and away from religion. no matter how much he struggled after 1937 to change his ideas (e. in his maturity. He was a man of action. etc. not merely its teacher. His attitude toward Jews had gotten beyond the merely intellectual or cognitive level of Jews supposedly having killed Christ as children of Satan. he failed. and had long since formed his emotional response toward Jews. he avoided saying from where in the Bible he had gotten his "information. and views. Even when he tried to escape from its overwhelming influence..

if society is to prosper. . Vilfredo Pareto in 1916 published his Treatise of General Sociology (The Mind and Society)." And he remained steadfast to the end in regards to the anti-Semitic goal upon which he had entered politics.) In other words. eulogised by Italy's Benito Mussolini.") This standard economic measure for economic "goodness" or "efficiency" excludes from economic consideration the distribution of wealth. That. then today's economist is committed to the view that that master-slave economy is superior: This permits regressive elitist conservatism to be favored by many economists. The principles from which humanitarianism derives violate the facts. setting forth the most"scientific" statement to-date advocating social Darwinism and control of the state by elites emerging from continuous conflicts for power: "The use of force is indispensable to society. If the extreme wealth of a few tycoons or slave-holders causes a monopolistic slave-holding economy to have a higher per-capita wealth than an equalitarian free one. including all the others as slaves. today. into which he introduced (in 1906) the formula for "optimality" or "efficiency." an economy in which one person owns all the wealth. he is remembered only as a founder of modern economics.9: Anti-Science end. has committed today's economists to the theoretical view that a society's distribution of wealth is irrelevant to measuring the goodness of its economy. Only he now had to find a new rationalization for it—a rationalization that he could present as. ." (Translate this as "goodness. Social Darwinism and the "crackpot "eugenic" proposals that were based upon it. (The only proviso here is that the average percapita wealth of the two economies must be the same in order for that equality of "efficiency" to hold. and himself believe to be." specifically biological "science" in the form of a corruption of Darwinian evolution. and when the higher classes are averse to using force. Such is the "science" of even today's economics. In one prominent example.) Pareto." (Sections 1858-9.. such as that "the Almighty" 122 . in turn... In fact. it becomes necessary. and reigned supreme especially in the (misnamed) social "sciences" such as political theory." This rationalization was ready at hand: "science. top-down moral presuppositions. that he continued to be religious "at bottom. and which he was resolutely determined—as a consequence of his early religious indoctrination—to carry out and to leave as his shining legacy of a "Jew-free" world. in fact constituted "scientific" orthodoxy at the start of the 19th Century. . is just as good as another in which wealth is equally distributed amongst all the people. that they be replaced by others willing and able. came to be known as "the Karl Marx of fascism". superior to his former "childish imaginings of religion. according to Pareto's "optimality.

" Their blood was contaminated now not (or not necessarily) by Satan. Hitler was." Hitler remained. but. But what he ended up with was nonetheless a crude "genetic" or as he called it "racial" basis for the Holocaust. Hitler. But now. Hitler had available to him in the 1930's and '40's a vast wealth of such quasi"scientific" religious-based power-"justifying" scholarly works providing rationalizations for his policies. to some extent." comparable to the achievements of Koch and Pasteur during the prior century. the new self-diagnosis by Hitler of his lifelong ailments was no different than the more-detailed version he had included over a decade earlier in Mein Kampf as his theory of eugenics (and which is herein the first Appendix). as previously mentioned. He did not have to look far. And so. Matthew 27:25. he asserted that the sentiment was purely of adult origin. proudly claimed this "scientific" discovery as his own. and that it was not at all based on the churches' "irrational" anti-Semitism. and that "The discovery of the Jewish virus is one of the greatest revolutions that have ever occurred. not scientifically passable even by the low standards of his time (which were even lower than the standards of ours). except that he had now stripped out the references to "the Almighty. he not only hypothesized it. but also in beliefs that pretend to be based on "science" (and this includes not only economics but the sub-structures throughout today's social "sciences")." are found not only in acknowledgedly religious-based beliefs." to himself above all. nothing more than a "scientific explanation. was purely the "scientist." a virus. only now the "blood poisoning" did not have to come from Satan as its originating source. Even in Mein Kampf. But by the time of his Secret Conversations (Table-Talk).9: Anti-Science defines what is "right. as before. need be hypothesized." Yet. as it turned out. He felt that it is so. which Hitler (in line with John 8:44. in his own eyes. in his Secret Conversations (Table-Talk) of 22 February 1942." and to Christ Himself as "the Sublime Founder of the new doctrine. which had treated Judaism as a religion. but by some kind of microbe. he was convinced of this. not only ignorant of 123 . and Phillipians 3:2-9) was convinced it was not. This was consistent with his previous rationalization. that all Jews must be exterminated. trapped by his objective: to "prove. all that he was left with were quasi-scientific rationalizations for the belief: Jews must be exterminated because they carried "the Jewish vims. Hitler throughout his life had exhibited a need to believe that his antiSemitism was based on reason and not only on faith. late in his career. His earlier writings on the point had made explicit reference to the biblical concepts upon which the sentiment was based. with every fiber of his being.

Till his dying day. "Blessed are they who have not seen." Also. and that he had unremittingly fought to implement. could—like all communicable diseases under his regimen—end up being vastly more pervasive and deadly in Hitler's biblically racist "Paradise. To the contrary." And so Hitler's theory for the Holocaust—his theory of eugenics-remained even to the very end the theory that he had given in Mein Kampf its fullest expression (as our Appendix 1). and was proud of the fact. "deep down." but Jews were tenaciously hardy— and thus "bad. the scourges of plague. himself. it was futile. "In the beginning was the Word. not scientific. too. of the criteria for truth/falsity) of the scientist. rather than a man of faith. 124 . all of his "eugenic" criteria were arbitrary.e. hardy races were "good. to the contrary. "faith is at the bottom of everything" (as previously noted). Moreover. and is full of violations of even the most basic scientific understandings of the way genetics operates and functions—such as the well established principle that mongrels or mixed breeds have not less hardiness and more disease than pure breeds as Hitler repeatedly claimed. on the night of 28-9 January 1942." not of the individual's traits as scientific selective breeding is done. that theory was clearly of religious. I am a religious person all the same. "The Word of the Lord is flawless. oddly. as previously suggested. expressed in John 20:29. or an individual with a scientific approach to determining truth/falsity. Hitler's version of social Darwinism constituted nothing better than a caricature of Darwinian theory. and the Word was God". yet still believe". and even of syphilis such as had been railed against at length by Hitler. Thus. but the reverse. he remained religious. Hitler was irrevocably committed to the basic idea of faith. and 2 Samuel 22:31. even more importantly." This acceptance of inerrancy is the very antithesis of the epistemology (i. every assertion—even one coming from another great scientist. namely that infallibility or inerrancy exists. he never understood the systematic skepticism by which the scientist approaches every belief. Hitler wanted everyone to be the same "Aryan" ideal. And so. and the Word was with God. reflecting still the attitude of religion." And on top of that. such as when he proclaimed. for example. John 1:1. regardless how great a scientist that may be.9: Anti-Science scientific knowledge—which even a scientist. Deep down he knew this. no matter how much Hitler in his final days aspired to being a man of science. rather than scientific. origin. Furthermore. there was no recognition of the increased survival benefits of natural variation. these selections were to be done on the basis of "race.. Hitler said near the end. might be—but. and the resultant genetic uniformity could produce a situation in which epidemics would spread like wildfire.

species.g. it is even ludicrous to apply the term "eugenics" to Hitler's racism. as "The Bible—Monumental History of Mankind. some individuals who are ignorant even of what "science" itself is. variations have occurred. but in the blood—just as in the Bible. who destroys His work thereby declares war on the creation of the Lord. "Where do we acquire the right to believe that man has not always been as he is now? The study of nature teaches us that. it seems that Hitler refused to accept Darwinian evolution even during his later years when he was trying to become "scientific. of course. his killing people instead of sterilizing them. it is necessary "to give the Almighty Creator beings as He Himself created them. Ever since Gregor Mendel had introduced the basic laws of genetics. And. in the animal kingdom just as much as in the vegetable kingdom. Yet for Hitler. with authentically genetic transmission of a real genetic disease." Despite Hitler's claim here concerning what "the study of nature teaches. Hitler's confusion of intergenerational transmission of a contagious disease such as syphilis via spirochetes. their being. all made his theory a ghastly mockery—not an actual application—of science. They've occurred within the species.9: Anti-Science in fact." and "Because God's will once gave men their form." and nothing at all to do with the actual science of biology. finally. his avoidance of curing any disease in favor of killing its victims. hardly reflected science. and their faculties. Of course. any such reference to microbes as formative or deformative of races. but none of these variations has an importance comparable with that which separates man from the monkey— assuming that this transformation really took place. Hitler outright rejected Darwinian evolution in favor of creationism (e. well before Hitler's time. Hitler 125 . have cited Hitler's theory of eugenics (Appendix 1 here) as constituting the "scientific" cause of the Holocaust. In a sense. Furthermore. The very term for the field "genetics" was coined by William Bateson in 1906." the racism that motivated the Holocaust clearly had everything to do with "original sin. even in the era prior to the discovery in 1953 of the DNA double-helix as the structure underlying such actual genetic transmission. could have no scientific standing." In his Secret Conversations (Table-Talk) on the night of 25-6 January 1942. which instead was based on "viruses" or "bacilli" as the intergenerational transmission vehicle—not genes at all.. and his damning of all diseases as somehow moral failings. Hitler asked. or other biological categories. Nonetheless. "race" was carried not in the genes." And Hitler had expressed it years earlier.") Also. when the "final solution" was already in full sway.

and science is based on the opposite—no faith in any scripture at all. The very same individuals who attribute the Holocaust to "science. It is one thing to confuse technology with science (which such people commonly do in order to use Nazi Germany's technology as itself "evidence" that science caused the Holocaust). less justified." morality where that claim is just as bogus as at least enlightened people now recognize to have been (and/or to still be) over questions of cosmology and human origins. but instead systematic skepticism adjudicated by the individual's own experience. The Holocaust was wrong because it was based on lies. And equally fallacious arguments are presented that science itself is "just another religion. Religion is based on faith in incrrant Scripture as the path to Truth. The fact that those lies themselves are of religious origin does not negate this brute reality." not only do not know what they are talking about. than that. when the reality is that the core distinction is instead their different criteria for determining truth/falsity. in the scientific manner. but they pay Hitler an unwarranted honor. Clergymen of all faiths routinely encourage such anti-science propaganda so as to reassert claim to their own turf of "expertise." that are usually based on the false claim that the difference between science and religion is different beliefs. 126 . but quite another to pay undeserved homage (even if only in yet additional ignorance) to the world's leading genocidist.9: Anti-Science would have felt flattered by that opinion. And one could hardly even imagine flattery that is less earned. but to the contrary suggests that the implications of the Holocaust for the future during our still-religious era should give us even more cause for concern.

that Hitler himself was not motivated to the Holocaust by the Bible. and. scholars have been more than willing to consider science to have been the cause of the Holocaust. or even to debate the possibility. the same extraordinary credulity and the same intensity of feeling welding speaker and audience together in a mystical union. full of fire and brimstone. This consensus did not result from a debate that entailed careful consideration of the evidence and airing of contesting opinions. nor by Christianity. Christian-fundamentalist revival meeting atmosphere of Nazi rallies. They do so because historians and other scholars have accepted this viewpoint as established beyond question. nor by religion in any other sense. For example. There is much force in 127 . only to summarize on his fifth page by saying. However. immortalized in Sinclair Lewis's Elmer Gantry. There was the same infectious enthusiasm. No such debate ever took place. "Hitler's meetings bore at least a superficial resemblance to revivalist gatherings of the oldfashioned bible-thumping variety. they have not been willing to consider. that religion was its cause. specifically. William Carr opens his 1979 Hitler with several pages describing the euphoric. perhaps the only scholarly consensus that exists regarding the Holocaust's cause is that religion did not cause it.10: The Cover-Up by Scholars As has been indicated earlier. In fact. no debate at all took place about the issue. unexamined and unchallenged till now. In fact. and thus unworthy of debate. This consensus is instead the product of bald assumption. the same electrically charged atmosphere. The public-at-large takes it for granted that Hitler was non-Christian if not anti-Christian.

Jeremiah 48:8-10. He never replied. or is making "staggering distortions"? One may infer that for Hitler the greatest commandment is Matthew22:31 (Mark 12:30). "the essence of the New Testament is love and reconciliation. declined to see the typescript." I asked him what these "distortions" were. He did sometimes play the religious card. the second on Leviticus 19:18). 8:26 & 10:28&30&32&33&35&37&39&40). it is not hatred and extermination. 10:34. where Hitler. 5:7.10: The Cover-Up by Scholars the contention that Nazism is only properly intelligible in terms of a pseudoreligion. But he was actually anti-Christian. 20:16-17. Numbers 31:15-7. Luke 12:49-51. and therefore historians certainly should report it. wrote back by dismissing it. & 25:19). however." (Actually. Isaiah 13:11-6. when it suited him. He. while for Waite it is Mat. and Joshua 6:21. the Rabbi seems to share Hitler's own bigotry against atheists. 7:2. the leading Hitler-psychobiographer. would that be a valid reason to suppress reporting the theory?) While it is true that religious people can have different interpretations of biblical passages. its historical importance was enormous. But regardless of how right or wrong Hitler's reading of the Bible was. Carr never gives any evidence to support the bias. because he had been the sole proponent cited in Ron Rosenbaum's 1998 Explaining Hitler as suggesting so much as a possibility of a Christian motivation behind the Holocaust." as a consequence of which it is wrong of me. 19:27 & 22:36). (Even if there had been Scriptural distortions in Hitler's theory for the Holocaust. 3:3. 2:34. I am afraid that you have gone far beyond the facts [none of which he specified] in representing Hitler as a believing fundamentalist Christian. in reality. Both are from the same Bible (both the Old and the New Testaments: the first is based on Exodus 20:3 and Deut. to whom I had sent an early draft of this book. as when he appealed to the authority of Luther. A few months later I approached Rabbi Hyam Maccoby offering to show him my work." That "pseudo " displays the bias. 1 Samuel 15:3. writing me that "The evidence [he didn't state what this "evidence" consisted of] is that Hitler was an atheist. and even in the person of Jesus counsels violence (Mat. 3:6. does this show that someone is not religious or not Christian. not a Christian believer. "Love your neighbor" (and so do not kill the Jews). And in some parts of this Bible God orders genocide (Dent. on the grounds that. "Love the Lord" (and so do not kill Him). Hosea 13:16. 22:39 (Mark 12:31). such as Hitler expressed on 14 October 1941 to Himmler in Secret Conversations (Table-Talks). to take seriously "the staggering distortions of Hitler. in this work. Robert Waite. who considered "the animal" to represent the lowest rank of "spiritual 128 .

. he is at the top of his field—or. Professor Kershaw implicitly buries the contrary theory. Hitler's language became pronouncedly 'messianic' in tone. as Bormann himself expressed it without objection to Hitler. is a return to the condition of the animal. who in 1987 published a highly regarded book claiming to penetrate behind The Hitler Myth (as it was titled)." which is also perhaps why he had told a public audience in a speech on 24 October 1933 that. "the 'religious' dimension was a powerful component of the 'Fuhrer myth'" that was itself the subject of Kershaw's book. 1014). of Hitler's irreligiousity. is provided by a prominent Hitler/ Holocaust historian. "We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. all took for granted that. Kershaw is not only a historian. K.. and more often in his private correspondences and personal notes to himself than in his public speeches. Kater said in his favorable review of The Hitler Myth in the October 1988 English Historical Review (p. either. by its own pervasive assumption—with no documentation or support of any kind provided anywhere—that Hitler was not a religious person. And one would never guess." and notes with obvious disdain "that even prominent churchmen appear to have convinced themselves that Hitler was deeply religious in character" as a result of "Hitler's obvious ability to simulate" such 129 ." stated that "atheism . Dr. one would never guess that Hitler's "Messianic" assertions—often based on specific Biblical references—occurred far more frequently before he became Chancellor than after. "You have always been very religious. Reading a work like that.'" refers to "Goebbels swallowing the religious nimbus of the Fuhrer. Goebbels and Bormann. subliminally under such verbiage (pp. that the people who were personally closest to Hitler. including such figures as Goring.") But perhaps the best example of this unquestioned assumption of scholars that Hitler was not religious. as Michael H. 107—9) as. Yet this supposed de-mythologisation of the Fuhrer actually contributed to the real Hitler myth. and his public addresses were frequently replete with religious symbolism. Kershaw "has already emerged at the top of the experts on the Third Reich in the United Kingdom" (and the U. in fact. We have stamped it out.10:The Cover-Up by Scholars achievement. Ian Kershaw. "Once he became Chancellor.. dominates scholarship in that field)." and even. Professor Kershaw goes on to observe that Goebbels "himself seems to have fallen victim to Hitler's 'messianism. . and those who worked intimately with him in the Nazi party and leadership. We have therefore undertaken the fight against atheism. Dr." Instead of informing his readers of any of this. much less a fundamentalist Christian whose motivation for perpetrating the Holocaust derived from that very fact (as is.. documented herein).

but also the lessons that future histiography can constructively draw from the historical profession's dismal performance in failing to deal in an honest and forthright way with the Holocaust's religious roots. He even expressed it in Mein Kampf-—e. much less Christian. We shall draw conclusions about not only the fact that the Holocaust was a deeply religious act. At the very least. I am simply finishing the job" (both foreshadowing his "final solution"). Here we shall briefly summarize this evidence. we have shown how Hitler's early childhood indoctrination from his mother. interpreting. he based his theory for the Holocaust (given here in Appendix 1) upon the Bible. I am fighting for the work of the Lord. has been introduced subliminally and with no evidence to support it. is standard amongst scholars. "I am doing what the Church has done for 1. such as when he promised his supporters. an important theoretical—or explanatory—assertion that Hitler was actually not religious. nature of the Holocaust itself. Hitler did say that it was. his priests. We have mentioned other things as well.10: The Cover-Up by Scholars Christianity. and representing history." Furthermore. And thus.. on 18 December 1926. But there is even more. and especially upon the anti-Semitic assertions in the Gospels. To assert that the Holocaust was based upon the Bible is not merely to take Hitler's word for it. there is the universalistic. it includes that. And we shall discuss possible options by means of which the general public. to include as well his cultural background. and then address at length the failure of historians to have considered even the possibility that the Holocaust was caused by Christianity—that the Bible was central to this genocide. the present pages have revealed massive scholarly incompetence. on this. I shall finish. having been disserved by historians as supposed "experts" at understanding. At least up through 1937. the work that Christ began." and when he assured Bishop Berning on 26 April 1933. internationalist. if not worse. Of course.500 years. that "The teachings of Christ have laid the foundations for the battle against Jews as the enemy of Mankind. and even afterwards. the childhood-influences that shaped his character the testimony of his friends and colleagues about his religiosity. "By defending myself against the Jew. and his culture 130 . and Hitler's own testimony in his private letters and notes confirming the religious base of his thinking. In addition. Hitler repeatedly expressed the Biblical source of the Holocaust that was to come. But the evidence goes vastly beyond this. can directly overcome this. This is typical: The mind slammed shut against even the possibility of the authenticity of the Holocaust's religious origins. his teachers. notwithstanding its also having been an intensely evil act.g.

even if by no means unclear. They did not even quote it in order to attack it. even though both were really international wars. Why? They could have looked to Hitler's own theory for the Holocaust. But they instead chose not to do so. "after an intense inner struggle. we are not taking just Hitler's word for it." by expelling some Jews to hypocritical other Christian nations that condemned the extermination but that refused to accept these dispossessed Jewish refugees. Hitler was a man of action. he fulfilled his promises. he "exported anti-Semitism. was consistent with Hitler's growing up to believe that the Bible was. after he invaded Poland on 1 September 1939. "blood" was the source for Hitler's internal war against Jews and other "inferior peoples". been freed from the still-current and childish imaginings of religion. However. his threats. Hitler remained true to his goal—the "final solution. Yet historians have all but ignored the Bible in their "explanations" for the Holocaust. and the way that the Holocaust was done—such things as that 96% of the exterminated Jews were not Germans—verified Hitler's claims to a religious universalistic motive for it. as he asserted." Of course." not mere myth. Above all. And we have pointed out that when Hitler on 29 October 1937 announced that he was starting to question this. "Soil" became the source for the international World War II. but with biblical roots that were less clear than those of the "blood" war. above all. he made the political accommodations he had to.) for it. and we also are not taking just the testimony of his friends such as Eckart and Bormann (etc. even though Hitler was soon grabbing Jews to slaughter anywhere he could grab them from. which a religious world was torn between supporting and ignoring." This was amazing for a man who prided himself on never changing his mind. But the outside world held tight to the myth. the "soil" war was based upon a long medieval and ultimately biblical tradition. in order to determine what his reasons for it were or even just might have been. The world could not ignore his Lebensraum initiatives. but it could and did ignore—where it did not outright support— Hitler's Holocaust.10: The Cover-Up by Scholars generally. Though that would have been to ignore that the theory was 131 . they have essentially ignored Hitler's theory." he was simultaneously thereby acknowledging that he previously accepted unquestioningly precisely these same "childish imaginings. and admitted that he had just then. which started on the same date. and we are not taking just his devout upbringing for it. The "blood" war was clearly based upon Hitler's biblically grounded theory for the Holocaust." On this he was a man of his word. "the Monumental History of Mankind. Hitler actually executed his promised "purification" from the "blood poisoning" by "the Jews. But to be sure.

in his view. or rather clergymen—or is there any difference between the two. such as Carr. Liebenfels. at least it would have acknowledged that Hitler gave this reason for his perpetration of the Holocaust. But historians cheated their readers of even that. Chamberlain. they violate their professional trust." based on their own theories. The fact that Hitler's obsessive anti-Semitism became overt only in his adult years does not gainsay that the roots for it must have been planted in his earliest years. if at all. aren't they. However wrong and evil that theory is. they have suppressed its very existence. then in what other ways have they distorted history in order to. Fritsch. and Gobineau. other than a different name for what they do? (One thing is certain: historians are as yet. Rather than quote Hitler's theory. some historians have alleged Hitler's "inspiration" for the Holocaust to have come from writings that he read. while they actually suppress key facts if those facts are viewed by them as interpretable by the public as being unfavorable toward organized religion? If historians have done this with respect to the Holocaust. Instead of even so much as considering Hitler's carefully worked-out theory for the Holocaust—the Fuhrer's own detailed explanation of why it was.) So long as historians pander to what may be popular myths. whom Hitler probably never even read as a child. when his personality—including his adult anti-Semitic fanaticism—was presumably already fixed in cement. essentially ignoring entirely Hitler's painstakingly constructed explanation. Wagner. Actually. only after childhood. acknowledged that Hitler saw himself as a "Messiah" fighting against "the incarnate evil of 'international Jewry.10: The Cover-Up by Scholars historically important regardless of its truthfulness. And they have ignored entirely the one written 132 . referred to Naziism as itself a "pseudo-religion. Yet historians have instead cited as "sources" for the anti-Semitism writers such as Fichte. There is no valid justification at all for historians having suppressed it. perhaps in their view. far from being scientists. This theory caused the Holocaust. How can the public-at-large possibly come to understand historyhistorians are supposed to help with that. And this is true regardless whether or not historians themselves share in such myths. even to the point of not tearing it apart to criticize its substance.'" and when others. such as Waite. a moral necessity—historians have concocted their own "explanations. The closest that any of them came to providing this basic information was when some historians. avoid giving offense? Are historians scholars. its historical importance is nonetheless immense. or is it okay for them to hinder it instead?—if historians merely pretend to explore for understanding." But no historian has even so much as quoted Hitler's biblically rooted theory for the Holocaust.

. or etc. as authority for the need to eliminate the Jews? No. On the other hand. since infancy. Typically. but never as any sort of ultimate authority. Gobineau. Yet historians deceived. the official intellectuals in our universities have nonetheless decided that such writers as Fichte.. Matthew. specifically to Karl Marx's mechanistic theory of class-struggle. Did Hitler himself actually cite such writers as Fritsch or even Wagner. his school. etc.) might have gotten their own anti-Semitism in the crib." This was an authority that he knew. For example (as Jeffrey Herf discussed in the first part of his 1997 Divided Memory: The Nazi Past in the Two Germanies). However." explanations ot the Holocaust. Wagner. he would mention such writers as confirmation of his own views. such as when he in Mein Kampf referred to Jesus. and that he accepted as authority. Gobineau. and that John. he was going to complete the work of "the Church." thence proceeded to inquire whether the figures they have referred to (Liebenfels. sometimes. having already established such a bogus basis for his "explanation. purely structural." or "materialistic. Liebenfels. "structural. his church. aping in their historical analyses pre-Einsteinian physics. were not. etc. were "guilty" of having inspired Hitler. Hitler never said that he was going to complete the work of Fritsch. and all around him: the Bible. And never has such a historian. there have also been some historians who have resolutely refused to attribute Hitler's anti-Semitism to any intellectual sources at all—not even to the real one in Hitler's childhood—and who have instead proposed purely mechanical. But perhaps the largest percentage of Holocaust-historians have refrained from offering any explanation at all for the genocide. etc. East Gentian communist historians notoriously attributed the Holocaust to mechanistic. from the Bible and from the prevailing Christian culture. rarely. 133 . causes. and no matter how often he referred to the Bible (either directly. No matter how rarely that Hitler actually referred to such adult-period writers as authority—and never as anything like ultimate authority— for the need to "eliminate" or "exterminate" the Jews. Western conservative historians of both the Right and the Left have also proposed non-Marxist structural explanations. without their understanding even the outdated Newtonian scientific model they unconsciously thereby mocked. or by reference to such things as the Obergammergau Passion Plays that were based upon the biblical account) for such authority.10:The Cover-Up by Scholars source to which the child Hitler was repeatedly exposed by his mother. and such as when he subsequently on two occasions stated that he was going to complete Jesus' work.. or by citation.

much less Christian. Instead. Historians. and thus not actually debated). 134 . refrain because "reducing such a complex social phenomenon to a theory is to oversimplify that phenomenon. But perhaps what above all sets the scientist apart from the scholar. years from now. newly "freed. or mosque. practise a "science" that is just as phony as the "science" promulgated by the post-1937. today's "social scientists" will probably be viewed as having been bible-defenders just as Ptolemaic physicists and creationist biologists of former eras are today (at least amongst scientists)." they do not involve themselves in such "polemics" (i. or a theory-that Hitler was not actually religious. they are "objective" about this. in order to find instruction on moral matters.e." She was unfortunately not able to identify the sort of thing that a "multilateral" analysis ought to include. is to "simplify"—but only to do so without compromising the complexity of what is explained (a very difficult challenge to meet. an interpretation. acknowledged. in order to have any standing at all as scientific interpretation or theory." "scientific" Hitler. in fact. and subjected to public discussion and controversy. "I do not feel that unilateral arguments such as your own provide a full explanation of a very complicated phenomenon. in explanations).10: The Cover-Up by Scholars such historians claim that because they are "objective. shows how interpretation ends up in a purported recitation of "facts. Other of these scholars who have no explanation of their own to offer. Maybe some of these self-styled "objective" historians go to church." as one of them put the matter to me in a personal communication upon reading a draft of the present work. even today. synagogue. they "just report the facts. A thousand. and what constitutes the single biggest difference between the alreadyestablished authentic areas of science (the physical and biological sciences) and the merely pretended aspiring ones (the "social sciences" especially. In a very real sense. or maybe even only a hundred. is what theory in science is all about. And the purpose of theory. unstated. science is itself a particular kind of "polemics. and burying in his account an assumption—essentially. it aims to interpret—interpretation. and (at least so they believe) Hitler was not." Science not only interprets." like it or not)." without interpretation (as if that were really possible. is that the scientist knows that interpretation must be conscious.. pretending to report the facts about the supposed "myth" of Hitler's religiosity. from the same type of Scriptural authority that informed Hitler. These statements I am making here are polemical. Of course. in an equally real sense. including history—all areas where the assumptions are routinely hidden. the example we cited earlier from structuralist Ian Kershaw. which is why theoretical science is so challenging).

especially in regards to "the Jews. The focus here. Chamberlain. has been on the evolution and nature of Hitler's system of values.g. and that he accepted specifically the Christian faith as defining his values. Although academic historians have let parts of Hitler's explanation surface in their accounts (such as. in other words. is given in Appendix 1. We have shown that. probably sincere on Hitler's part. after all. however. or Hegel—that Hitler read or even just might have read only after he had already reached adulthood. which.. presented in Mein Kampf. his "evidence" was frequently cited from specific biblical passages (such as John 2:13-16). are evaluative terms) people would be right. at least to the extent that they cannot get away with ignoring it altogether. Most historians have ignored Hitler's system of values. even in Hitler's statements (such as his Munich speech of 12 April 1922) expoundi ng upon his specific accusations against "the Jews" as being people driven by greed (e. "good" and "bad" were religious concepts to Hitler. including to 135 . and that therefore could not even possibly have planted the seed for this obsessive exterminationist hatred in Hitler's personality. that framework is the subject here. some have treated him as "the psychopathic god" who thus had no values. Therefore. they have never presented the Christian fundamentalist framework in terms of which Hitler formulated and (up to 1937) defended his anti-Semitic charges. simply none at all. and even in terms of which he felt that the extermination of other "defective" or inferior" (which. Historians who have held that Hitler did have values have attributed those values to writings—such as Fichte. There are only a limited number of historical interpretive responses possible for the Holocaust. he did not name. but that certainly was not central to Hitler's thinking. since he was a Politician. The present effort is the first to consider seriously and systematically Adolf Hitler's own explanation of what motivated him to perpetrate the Holocaust. especially.10: The Cover-Up by Scholars because historians and other scholars are going to attack and condemn this book. Hitler's accusing Jews of being not only Bolsheviks but the inventors of Bolshevism—an accusation that was. and in terms of which he ruled Germany. their "'god' is nothing more than money"). Gobineau. to the contrary. itself. in terms of which he felt that the extermination of all Jews would be a good thing. and that was more likely stated for propagandistic effect than anything else)." We have shown that. Haeckel. and therefore had to appeal to a broad public. And those attacks will be not only polemical but distortive and outright false. and Hitler's most detailed statement of it. Wagner.

10: The Cover-Up by Scholars individuals who, like even Hitler himself after 1937, considered themselves to be secular. We saw that Hitler's self-image early in his career (at least from 192334) was as Christ taking the whip to "the Jews" to beat them out of God's temple on account of their Satanic greed, and that later (by 1938) he saw himself as a Crusading knight in shining armor, rescuing "God's People" from the evil villain portrayed in the New Testament, the "children of Satan," Jews. And what is especially important is that Hitler saw both missions, which were really one, as any biblical mission would be: inter-generational. For Hitler, this intergenerational concern reflected itself (again as typically is the case in biblical contexts, though not only in those) in the form of a "race," "people," or even "nation" (and Hitler referred to Jews particularly by all three terms). This is a perspective that is distinctly at variance with the typical technologically oriented vision of "improving the world," and even at odds with the specifically biological-genetic vision (as we have previously discussed) of scientific selective breeding on the basis of the individual's genetically determined traits. The great founder of genetics, the Austrian monk Gregor Mendel, carried out a selective breeding program on an entirely different, scientific, basis, which Hitler, with his medieval mentality rooted far more in the Bible than was the great monk's, was not only unable to grasp, but had no real interest in understanding. And even as the great American geneticist, Thomas Hunt Morgan, was publishing major books not only explaining but advancing the actual science of genetics at the very time when Hitler was seeking power in the 1920's, and even before that, Hitler continued to develop his own biblically based "eugenics theory" just as if science itself did not exist. He clearly had no real interest in it. One might—as some scholars have done—call Hitler's approach "Platonic," in that for him the collective entity (e.g., "the Jews") came before the individual one (e.g., "this particular person") and colored his entire reaction to any individual. But Hitler did not get it from Plato; he got it from the Bible. Some philosophers have even speculated whether Naziism was rooted in Plato's philosophy (especially The Republic). But whatever "justifications" for Hitler's policies one might possibly find there, were entirely incidental, not causative. The child Hitler was exposed to the Bible, not to Plato, and thus it is a question of purely ivory-tower interest whether Plato might be characterized in modern terms as having been "a fascist." At any rate, the real source of the variant of fascism that constituted Hitler's own Naziism is the Bible, surely not any of the philosophers that historians cite as "sources" for it. In a speech in Nuremberg on 6 September 1938, near the 136

10: The Cover-Up by Scholars Holocaust's start, Hitler proclaimed his roots to be not only medieval but The Holy Roman Empire itself, and asserted, in line with Mein Kampf's call "to give the Almighty Creator beings as he himself created them," that, "At the head of our program there stand no secret surmisings, but clear-cut perceptions and assertions of belief, at the center of which is the maintenance and security of a being formed by God, thus serving a divine work and fulfilling a divine will." Is this Plato's Republic, which some academicians cite as an origin of Naziism? To cite as a "source" of a mass-movement such as Naziism, some erudite intellectual influence that was read in their childhoods by neither the leaders nor the followers of that movement, is, in fact, profoundly elitist. It is also false. Perhaps the best "exception" to test this general rule is Lenin's imposition of Marxism upon Russia (and we deal with Marxism in more detail in the second part of Appendix 2). But Hitler, and even Naziism itself, actually had no real equivalent to Marx, unless it was the Bible itself. To try to understand Hitler's Naziism without reference to the Bible on which it was based, would be necessarily to misunderstand Naziism. In other words, a non-elitist understanding of mass-movements looks to the cultural influences that in early childhood shaped the founder of the movement, and that also can reasonably be posited as having predisposed the movement's followers to become followers. Such an understanding will naturally make reference therefore to religious Scriptures and the types of writings that a cultural anthropologist is interested in, far more than it will to the more elitist kinds of writings (such as famous classical philosophers, and other typical college-readings) that historians have traditionally taught as "causes." It may be good scholarship, but it is atrocious science and therefore academic failure, to teach Plato, Hegel, Wagner, etc., as "the basis on which Naziism was built"; because Naziism was built upon the Bible—the same source from which a great many of Naziism's alleged "founders" had gotten their own (subsequent) Nazi ideas. The best single example of how subtly the traditional elitist orientation can transform even heavily documented scholarship into mere propaganda as far as the attribution of causes of historical events is concerned, is probably the single most exhaustive presentation ever published of the standard academic/theological case defending Christianity against the charge (which prior to the present book has never, in any event, systematically been leveled or documented) that Christianity caused the Holocaust: Steven T. Katz's massive 1994 The Holocaust in Historical Context, a work of imposing erudition, running thousands of pages, footnoted so densely that sometimes a single sentence contains several. Yet 137

10: The Cover-Up by Scholars throughout, Dr. Katz works under the assumption—nowhere in his vast work discussed, much less documented—that the long history of mass-murders of Jews by Christians reflected, as he put it in the Conclusion to Volume I (from which volume all our citations here will come), a "genocidal instinct" (p. 580). Although he immediately contradicts this assertion by saying that this "instinct," which if it refers to anything refers to an inborn biologically determined impulse, "might lie present within these determinate historical situations" that, obviously, must remove it from any such innate domain, he actually ends up implicitly relying upon anti-Semitism being an innate impulse; he simply assumes that these antiSemitic assaults by all these Christian mobs occurred not only not because of but despite their Christianity, presumably from this irresistible inborn Jew-hatred. In order to, supposedly, defend this his overriding thesis, Katz documents innumerable instances where Popes and other Christian clergy condemned and tried to restrain Christian mobs who were assaulting and killing Jews. For example, referring to medieval champions of the Crusades who wrote calling for an all-out war against "the Jews," Katz (p. 324) says, "Those contemporaries who read the call to the Crusades . . . as legitimating the extirpation of European Jewry, were engaged in a deadly misreading that the church never endorsed and, insofar as it was able, that it sought to mitigate." In other words, Katz portrays Christianity not as a culture, as an anthropologist might do, but as a bureaucracy, a sociological concept entailing elite command and control, so that if the Christian elite were trying to stop the anti-Semitic assaults by a Christian mob, then "Christianity" was against those assaults, despite the perpetrators' own Christian cultural identities. Those religious identities for Katz were bureaucratic, not cultural: these mob-members were violating the commands of their bureaucracy (the Church), presumably carrying out their "genocidai instinct," despite their "religion" or bureaucracy—never mind that a religion is first of all a culture. To conservatives such as Katz, human nature is ugly, and must be restrained by imposed order, from "higher authority," typically religious. The archetypal philosophical representative of this view is Hobbes, who described the natural state of Man as "nasty" and "brutish," and so requiring a theocratic dictator, a divine-right monarch. This is the implicit philosophical position behind Katz's overflowing erudition. It is a philosophical position that was most prominently promoted by the late philosopher Leo Strauss, who left an enduring impact upon political theory in the United States: he criticized the American political system as too liberal from the influence of the "modernistic" Hobbes, who wasn't sufficiently medieval to suit the preferences of Dr. Strauss, who became the intellectual guiding light of the 138

10:The Cover-Up by Scholars U.S. Reagan Administration (via his many influential students). But even in the "too liberal" Hobbes version, this philosophy is hostile to "the Enlightenment," "modernity," or "science," in favor of reasserting theocratic supremacy, which is viewed as synonymous with morality. "Good" is seen as coming top-down, from God. "Evil" is Man's disobedience, since the time of Adam and Eve, and the original sin. (And the original sin, in this view, is often itself seen as the search for knowledge, sometimes even as science in the broadcast sense.) Katz does not want to engage in "polemics," so in the thousands of pages of his account of The Holocaust in Historical Context, he avoids any detailed presentation of his historical interpretation of the Holocaust, other than to say (p. 9) of "Hitler's manichean [sp.] racial principles," that "what makes the Aryan myth genocidal" is "the fact that Hitler insists" on things that are consistent with the immanent principle of the modernizing ontological consciousness." The key term there is "modernizing"; Hitler was, in Katz's view, a modernizer. The Holocaust occurred not because of religion, but despite it, on the basis of "racial principles," not of biblical ones. Specifically, Katz identifies the philosopher, G. W. F. Hegel as "one of the basic fountainheads" of the "the modernizing ontological consciousness" that drove Hitler to exterminate Jews. Katz claims "that Hegel's influence on the modern temperament was so significant" that "the broader philosophical environment he created" led to the Holocaust. This formulation is archetypally academic: it vaguely imputes Hitler's genocidal anti-Semitic program to a "collegetalk" figure, Hegel, yet without claiming that Hitler was even aware of—much less had actually read, still less had been exposed to during Hitler's own childhood— the works of this erudite philosopher. Again, Katz's interpretation is elitist, top-down, anti-science, anti-democratic. And despite the torrent of footnotes he provides, his interpretation is entirely undocumented; after all, he doesn't want to get involved in polemical debates. Fortunately, however, Katz has elsewhere taken down the scholar's mask of the unprejudiced searcher for truth, and described what really stands behind his professional charade. In Joshua Haberman's 1994 The God I Believe In: Conversations about Judaism, he responded to the interviewer's questions to explain his faith "in the light of the Holocaust," by his frankly admitting that "arguments . . . that God is not really all powerful, I find unattractive. . .. Because of our sins, we are punished. ... One does not perform immoral acts for the same reason that one adheres to ritual law, because both are grounded in commandments and prohibitions. ... An independent ethic, at least for Jews, is a very difficult proposition to maintain." 139

10: The Cover-Up by Scholars The implications of Katz's view here expressed are numerous: not only that might determines right, but that morality is impossible without religion (or, as he states it, that "an independent ethic" is "difficult" "for Jews"). To Katz, clearly, morality flows from faith in "the Almighty." Therefore, if other people having faith in "the Almighty" such as Christians, perpetrated pogroms and later the Holocaust, then only two explanations are possible. Either the Jews didn't deserve it, in which case the Christians must have been acting immorally and so disobeying their religion; or else the Jews did deserve it, and thus the Holocaust must have been Divine Providence—the anti-Semitism had to be, in Katz's term, "instinctual" (which would fit his might-makes-right assumption that, "Because of our sins, we are punished"; i.e., this "instinct" was God's way of "punishing" all these "sinning" Jews; Hitler, according to this line of thinking, was right saying, "I am fighting for the work of the Lord"). To be on the safe side, in order to keep his own Jewish faith intact, Katz opted for both explanations in his The Holocaust in Historical Context, This is also consistent with another line of reasoning: Jews and Christians (just like Muslims) don't claim to worship different Gods, but the same God. Each religious group considers itself to be that God's "people," and thus morally superior, or "chosen" above others, the "infidels," "pagans," or "Gentiles." But none question that the God is the same. And so, too, any believing Jew, such as Katz, accepts that Christians worship the Jewish God. This would return him to the same questions as to how to explain the Holocaust—and the same solutions. What a comment it is that an important message the author of The Holocaust in Historical Context believes himself and considers acceptable for the Holocaust's millions of victims is, "Because of our sins, we are punished," and that another is that anti-Semitism is "instinctual" for non-Jews. Hitler would have applauded both views, but for the fact that the author here happens to be Jewish. Katz's work is cited here as an example of the profoundly unscientific, even anti-scientific, approach that is pandemic in our universities toward explaining the Holocaust, throughout the "social sciences." Again and again, I am asked how it can be even possible that Hitler not only carried out, but explained in detail that he would cany out, an extermination-program against all Jews on the basis of the Bible, and that no one until now would present, or bring together at long last in one place, Hitler's explanation of why he did it. My answer is: the ability of scholars to deceive themselves even within their own areas of "expertise" is perhaps the biggest ability they possess, to the point of dwarfing whatever scientific ability they might also have. 140

10: The Cover-Up by Scholars Scholars, in other words, understand so little of their own motivations, that they have no clue to the motivations of someone so like themselves as was Adolf Hitler. For example, the tables at the back of Michael H. Kater's 1983 The Nazi Party: A Social Profile, show that, of all occupational groups, the two with the highest degree of over-representation in the Nazi Party were professors and university students— or as he called them, "Academic Professionals" and "Students"—and Richard F. Hamilton's 1982 Who Voted for Hitler? also exposes as a lie the standard scholarly assertions that Naziism held its greatest appeal for blue-collar workers, the uneducated and the poor, which was the exact opposite of the truth. Our own Appendices 2-C and 2-F provide more details about academic leadership amongst Hitler's supporters. Even cultural anthropologists, who are supposed to be experts about culture, tend to look away from, rather than to focus upon, their own culture as an object of study, and prefer instead to study primitive and exotic cultures, which are less threatening to understand than would be a focus upon their own irrationalities and prejudices, reflecting their own culture and thus the lies taught to them in their own childhoods. Safer by far to talk instead about far off, pre-literate tribes. Anthropologists are thus absolved of the uncomfortable professional responsibility to explore, for example, such beliefs of their own tribe as that but for the sixth of the Ten Commandments (Ex. 20:13, Deut. 5:17), "Do not kill," there would be no moral reason not to kill, notwithstanding the far-more-numerous biblical commands to kill (e.g.: Ex. 22:18-20, Lev. 20:13, Deut. 22:20-29, 20:16-7), and notwithstanding Scripture's real irrelevance to morality. And thus, too, the entire culture of academia escapistically looks away from the real culture (in a cultural-anthropological sense) within which it is embedded, and focuses instead on "culture" in its top-down, elite, sense—the "classics" that the professors teach and honor, and even the "intellectual influences" that (supposedly) "shaped Hitler": Haeckel, Wagner, Nietzsche, Plato, Hegel, Liebenfels, Fritsch and other writers that (unlike the Bible that was omnipresent even in the crib) people encountered only after they had already grown to an age by which their deepseated motivations had already been long since formed. This reflects the false scholarly assumption that intellectual influence such as from those adult-period writers, and motivational influence such as from the Bible, are in the same league and perhaps even the same thing. Scholars have no way to distinguish between a person's rationalizations and his/her reasons. Perhaps as professors themselves, scholars wish to entertain their own illusions that as the intellectual influences they are upon their own 141

10: The Cover-Up by Scholars students, they affect their students' reasons for acting, and not merely their rationalizations for acting. But at so late a stage in a person's life (i. e., by college), motivations are long since off the table; only cognitive changes are even possible; the motivational aspects of the student's personality have already been essentially set. It may be a pleasant conceit for a scholar to believe—just as most people, including Hitler himself, believed—that their own motivations were shaped by influences they received during their adulthood, after they had already presumably developed some independent critical capacity. The very culture of scholarship is largely founded upon that self-deceit. However, the reality is that intellectual influences are not the same thing as motivational influences, which come much earlier in a person's life. Thus, a scholar like Katz, Waite, or Kershaw, may end up formulating his interpretations/theories on the basis not really of what he has learned in his adult researches, but rather of what he learned as a child—even if the scholar as an adult has come to believe that to be nonsense. Thus, you may reasonably blame the historians if you were yourself previously deceived about the cause of the Holocaust, and if you are now surprised to find that Hitler—far from having been non-religious, or even antiChristian, or even atheist, as most historians have simply assumed; and far from not having been religiously motivated to perpetrate the Holocaust, as all historians have assumed—was indeed religiously motivated to perpetrate that horror. But before the historians deceived you, they deceived themselves. Despite what you have previously read and heard, the Bible was at the core of Hitler's politics. The Holocaust was an expression of Christianity, not of some erudite philosopher(s), nor of any impersonal "structures." And you can verify this for yourself by checking any of the sources cited here, on any matter that interests you. You can check for yourself whether Hitler, the Bible, and/or any of the scholars referred to here, said what they are here represented as saying; you can judge for yourself whether it is the historians or the present writer that has been distorting and deceiving. You need not trust to authority. And that is important, because what I am claiming here is that scholars have been engaging collectively in a massive cover-up of the Holocaust's true cause— a coverup that is not conspiratorial, but cultural, in its origins. This is by no means to deny that Christianity has also produced some good and even wonderful expressions as well (e. g., Mother Teresa, great artworks), but only to acknowledge for the first time in a realistic way, the bad along with the good that our entire culture—shaped as it is by 142

10: The Cover-Up by Scholars religion—makes constant reference to. It is, in other words, to replace salesmanship, at last, with balanced information, about religion. Opponents of this book will say that the account given here is "one-sided" or "overly critical" or religion, because it introduces the other side, which they would prefer to continue to be suppressed. They would prefer the cover-up to continue. What made the Holocaust evil is not that it was un-Christian or a violation of the Bible, but, as previously indicated, that it was based on falsehoods. To state that the Holocaust was evil is to make a scientific assertion, not a religious one as the numerous propagandists for religion (inside and outside our universities) claim. And since these falsehoods that caused the deaths of millions came themselves from the Bible, the next section, probing deeper into why the Holocaust happened, probes the actual origins of these biblical falsehoods. Needless to say, historians have assiduously avoided dealing with this, too; in fact, their deceptions about the immediate cause of the Holocaust are small by comparison with their misrepresentations about this, the originating cause. Thus, there is all the more reason here to address these matters as well. In fact, the following removes the cover from the biggest and longestlasting cover-up in all of history.

143

PART II: Where the Bible's Anti-Semitism Came From

145

A Map of the Argument: How Saint Paul Hijacked Christianity and Invented Anti-Semitism Paul, the author of Galatians, Romans, and other books in the New Testament, is considered by numerous scholars to be the most influential founder of the Christian church, because of the vast impact of his writings upon Christian theology, and because his writings predated all of the four Gospels. Yet his importance in shaping Christianity is actually far greater than recognized. When Paul entered the Jewish sect that had been founded by Jesus, Jesus was already dead, and the sect was led by his brother James, whom Jesus had appointed as His successor prior to being crucified by the Romans for sedition as a challenger to the rule and authority of the Roman-appointed King of the Jews, King Herod. The Jews were one of the many peoples who had been conquered by the Romans, and Jesus had not been the only Jew who claimed to be the authentic King of the Jews; all such claimants were routinely crucified by the Romans, to serve as a warning against others who might be tempted to assert the same claim. Paul very early determined that the sect's future lay not with converting yet more Jews, but rather with converting large numbers of non-Jews, called "Gentiles" or "pagans," most especially the ones who held Imperial power, the Romans themselves. Since the ministry to convert Gentiles was headed by Peter, who like James himself had actually known Jesus personally during his lifetime, Peter became Paul's own model and Paul's chief link to the actual historical Jesus. Paul measured his success as a missionary to the Gentiles by the number of converts he was able to 146

(This would also help to marginalize the Jews. because they would not worship someone whom they had themselves declared a seditious criminal and executed as such. Christianity: First. going far beyond his model Peter who had favored simply the relaxation of the Jewish circumcision-requirement for adult male Gentile converts. Sergius Paulus. and especially by the number of wealthy and powerful ones. must instead be charged with having crucified Him. essentially. Rather. In that era. Paul. had been Saul. he had come to the conclusion that he must simply abolish the requirement. This is why Paul relied instead upon Hebrew Scripture itself. At some point in time not long after the beginning of his mission. in fact." but which these two decisions were subsequently to make into no longer a Jewish sect. the Jews.A Map of the Argument win. He did not say that all those commands were terminated by Jesus—Paul did not rely upon the authority of Jesus for this termination. Paul declared that all of the behavioral commands of God. which is to say everything but the First Commandment itself—the command to have faith in God—were terminated by the advent of Jesus. it was the greatest barrier to the success of his mission." or in other words (as another translation puts it). decided to terminate this commandment of God (Genesis 17:14: "Any male who has not been circumcised will no longer be considered one of my people.) Second. Paul made two fateful decisions. and he changed it to Paul shortly after winning his first powerful convert. in fact. "for fear that the race that I have been running in life has been run in vain. then Paul would have been widely recognized as a liar. especially Roman rulers themselves. before the advent of either anaesthesia or antibiotics. whom Paul hated additionally on account of their denying that Jesus was their Messiah as Paul asserted Him to be. Paul concluded that the Romans had to be exonerated of Jesus' crucifixion. which shaped and even transformed the future of what was still not yet called "Christianity. twisting and contorting some passages into their exact opposite. of the entire Jewish Covenant except for the First Commandment. this medical operation was both frightening and dangerous to the adult Gentile males that Paul was devoting his life to converting. but the entirely new religion. the Romanappointed ruler of Crete. because he has not kept the Covenant with me") entirely. as authority for what was. And as Paul admitted in Galatians 2:2. whom Jesus had claimed to lead and had sought to help." In order to justify abandoning this command of God's. The reason is that the memory of Jesus was still sufficiently fresh then so that if Paul had said that. nothing 147 . "I did not want my work in the past or in the present to be a failure. all of Jesus' disciples knew Jesus to have been a devout Jew. Paul's original name.

his brother James. 148 . it entailed their writing their Gospels as the textbook of anti-Semitism that ultimately inspired Hitler to perpetrate the Holocaust. the disciple least hostile to Paul and Paul's own predecessor in the mission to the Gentiles— essentially a re-write of the history of Christianity's post-Jesus succession. and also inspired German (and other) Christians to carry it out. by Peter. gently remonstrated for Paul to stop. Jews recognized this replacement of their covenant as a declaration of war by Paul against Judaism. essentially. hijacking Jesus' Jewish sect so as to serve Roman ends and thereby win Roman and other Gentile converts. and its replacement by Paul's new "Christian" covenant of salvation by faith and grace alone. This entailed not only the replacement of the Jewish initiation-rite of circumcision with the safe and painless one favored by Paul: baptism. The long history of the historical profession's covering up this history has been even more scandalous than the historical profession's cover-up of the immediate cause of the Holocaust. Above all. That confirmed Paul yet more in his.A Map of the Argument less than the termination of Judaism itself. And it entailed not only the replacement of Jesus' own designated successor. but Paul would not. Jesus' brother James. still a devout Jew (as Jesus had been). and rioted against him. Paul's followers reflected this by their writing the four Gospels in line with Paul's general program.

the central charge against "the Jews" was that Christ Himself had said that "the Jews" are children of the devil and that therefore "the Jews" would kill Him (John 8:42&44). "His blood will be upon us. is heritable. One might say that it is sufficient reason to dismiss these charges. therefore. furthermore." indicating that "the Jews" themselves accepted not only their Dcicide-guilt. and billions of people even today believe that the authors of the Bible were inspired by God and were therefore right. "the Jews" had allegedly said (Matthew 27:25). and upon our children. As was shown in Part I. the Holocaust. on the basis of which Hitler led. A Vatican representative. or an appropriate source—but one of facts: are these statements in the Bible true? And this does not concern only whether Deicide-guilt. and German and other Christians followed his leadership in. but their heritable Deicide-guilt. told the CBS Evening News on 17 March 2000 (shortly prior to the Papal visit to Israel) that one 149 . who champions canonization of "Hitler's Pope" as Saint Pius XII.11: Our Methodological Approach This will be a search to find the origin of the anti-Semitic statements in the New Testament that Hitler took so seriously as to cause him to come to devote his life to the extermination of Jews. it concerns all issues pertaining to Jesus of Nazareth. Father Peter Gumpel. or any other guilt. simply to point out that no parent or ancestor possesses the right. and crucifixion. his trial. the authors of the Bible made clear that they did not agree with that position. to assign any of his/her guilt for any act—Deicide or otherwise—to his/her children or descendants. However. or even the authority. that is posed here is not one of values—such as whether the Bible is their source. The question.

more "diplomatic." His retort was. but rather for their destructive demonstrations that the fundamentalist acceptance of the historical inerrancy of the canonical four Gospels is scientifically false. asserted that leading Jews had pressed for Jesus' crucifixion as punishment for Jesus having violated Jewish law. and according to our law. he noted. they are not cited here for their constructive theories. but six days later. which. Two especially fine books that present massive evidence that the Gospels lie about who killed Jesus. he did express himself to be "deeply saddened by the hatred. he even introduced his comments with "Let's be very frank about this"—as if to say that Vatican II and other. a growing scholarly literature had already pointed out falsehoods in the Gospels' accounts of these matters. were crucified by the Romans as guilty of sedition.11: Our Methodological Approach should never forget that "the Jews" killed Christ. Father Gumpel. are John Dominic Crossan's 1995 Who Killed Jesus? and especially S. not only on a few points. but generously and 150 . was convinced that the account of the trial and execution of Christ that is presented in the Gospels is the Gospel Truth. F. Is it? Millions of people have been slaughtered because of that belief." were merely for public consumption. Much evidence has accumulated that Jesus was. on 23 March at Israel's Holocaust Memorial. been inspired to it by this very same Church teaching that the Vatican historian had just reasserted." But nonetheless he responded by standing by his assertion that "the Jews have killed Christ—this is an undeniable historical fact. It is now known that all Jews of that time who claimed the Jewish Kingship without Rome's authorization to be King. he has to die." Church pronouncements about the "guilt" of "the Jews.'" This Vatican defender of the saintliness of the Nazi-era Pope was emphatic. like Hitler. Nor did the Pope himself contradict or criticize his subordinate's statement. hurtful and dangerous. G. He made clear that his source was the Gospels. while what he was saying was the real Truth. (The present work does not build upon such scholarly analyses. killed by the Romans for sedition for asserting himself as "King of the Jews" when the Roman-authorized King Herod sat upon that throne. During the Twentieth Century. But is it actually true? It is not." ignoring that those "Christians" had in fact. This Vatican historian was challenged by the reporter that "Vatican II removed references to any Jewish blame for Christ's Crucifixion from Church rites more than 30 years ago on the grounds that such claims were historically debatable. in fact. "But there is no possibility to deny that the Jewish authorities—religious authorities of the time—said 'He has made himself God. acts of persecution and displays of anti-Semitism directed against the Jews by Christians. and not only on minor points. Brandon's masterful 1968 The Trial of Jesus of Nazareth.

Even the best and most-honestly-intentioned writers under these conditions will inevitably make errors. It turns out that these works are themselves in the New Testament—indeed.) The great remaining question. is: Why did the Gospel accounts lie? What motivated these lies. not only by sheer bulk. and how did they come to be inserted in the Gospel accounts? In order to answer these questions. account of the events discussed in the New Testament. It is now widely recognized that whoever the true authors of the Gospels were. were written early enough after Jesus' death so that there was a considerable constraint in that era upon the fabrication of the most bald-faced lies: namely. Paul was. The falsehoods in that early era thus had to be only by means of indirection.11: Our Methodological Approach grossly. Thus. really. the most-consistent-possible. rather than by direct assertion. historically his presence looms even larger in the faith. are the earliest-written books of the New Testament. What follows will be precisely this: it will. but also by the far lesser constraints upon fabrications that such later falsehoods would be of more direct kind. When 151 . that the people then still living who actually had personally known Jesus and had heard him speak. too. since his writings came first. they were not any of Jesus' original twelve apostles. The earliest written books (or chapters) of the New Testament are recognized by scholars to be the letters (or "epistles") by Paul. Closest in time to the actual events. these are certainly the most reliable of all sources. However. our methodological approach will be to scrutinize with the greatest care the earliest-written works relating to these matters. Our task is to derive from the texts that have come down to us. but were instead transcribed from oral tradition passed on to them. in fact. and which consume up to half of the total number of books in the New Testament. which predate all of the Gospel-accounts. but also in terms of his impact on Christian theology. and as we shall see. far and away. these were hardly the best and most-honestlyintentioned writers. because the earliest writings. where it is found covered over by the myths that collectively constitute the New Testament account that is more widely known. would have proclaimed the writer to be lying. which above all is to say those by Paul himself. But the situation is still hopeful for finding what the truth was. the leading writer of the New Testament. be a story that is contained within the New Testament itself. and realistically the most believable. and their accounts were not of things that they had themselves witnessed and heard. it is not only by failed memory that the later writings such as the Gospels can be expected to contain the more-bald-faced falsehoods.

The difference is important. "Slaves. 2:9. (It should also be mentioned that King James' scholars were working from highly corrupted "originals. In the old parlour-game. if all that you have is King James. that recipient then passes it to his/her neighbor. people arrange themselves in a circle. Tit. However. In the middle part of one of our appendices ("2-F: The great failure of intellectuals and the academy"). The key is to understand the point at which Christianity separated itself off from being a sect of Judaism. WHICH IS BOWDLERIZED.. almost in total ignorance of anything older than the Tenth Century—and with little even that old. NOT THE KING JAMES VERSION. who typically bursts out laughing at the end result as an amazing distortion of what he/she had said. 3:22.. and one whispers to the individual next to him/her a message. IF YOU WISH TO CHECK ANY OF WHAT FOLLOWS BY REFERRING TO THE BIBLE ITSELF. THEN FOR THE SAKE OF ACCURACY. not only to those who are good and kind. & 1 Tim. and that actually explains why those myths were added." so as not to offend 17th-Century British sensibilities. it's better than nothing. AND OFTEN HIGHLY INACCURATE. The primary source we shall use is the Bible." our source here will be those letters or epistles themselves.6:5. This is an ideal model of what scholars do: if you pick up any one of the hundreds of books about "What Paul meant. is going to be the writings of Paul. and became a new religion. and page upon page or analysis of what various other scholars have said that Paul meant. Our source. until it eventually comes back to the first person." were bowdlerized in King James into "Servants.11: Our Methodological Approach the myths are peeled back. thus passages such as 1 Peter2:18 (& Eph. in other words." which were based on Renaissance-era umpteenth-generation copies of copies. For example. though there exists a vast scholarly literature on the meaning of these Pauline letters or "epistles. 6:1). the resulting ludicrousness of this scholarly literature 152 . but also to those who are harsh.) Today's translations tend to be vastly more authentic. Also. for which slavery already held a moral stench. WE SUGGEST THAT YOU USE ANY OF THE MODERN TRANSLATIONS. the latter "cleaned up" the text by using the clearly inaccurate term "servant" instead of "slave. The modern translations are much more accurate than the unreliable King James version." you will see remarkably little analysis of what Paul said. submit to your masters with full respect.. be subject to you masters. this is the underlying story that remains. and not any of those interpretations by others. Col. not the writings of scholars about the writings of Paul." which is not what the original means.

" Because these writings. that literature. to start with. and documented with only passing references to the sources. Just as with the previous section on Hitler. We shall here be discussing what have probably been the most Influential writings in all of human history—the writings that most profoundly shaped. not of Hitler. and this will itself be set against the backdrop of the political and cultural context in terms of which Paul wrote his letters. to a very large extent. molded every Christian culture. That is why they merit the extremely close reading of them that you and I and your Bible will here engage in. and all that you will need in order to verify it is Bible.11: Our Methodological Approach is exposed. the religion that is now known as "Christianity. Consequently. the presentation here is not based on. However. after which will come the very close reading. but this time of Paul. the conclusions will first be broadly stated. and that we shall attempt to show actually gave birth to. including our own. they have had a towering impact upon us. 153 . and will not refer to. I am going to present an overview of what will be the results of that reading.

such as Romans 3:20-2 & 4:5). was introduced by Paul in a very special capacity—that of an evangelist. No one is put right with God by following God's Law. To answer this question. Galatians 2:16 (and in his others. A new Covenant with God was a new religion—nothing less. stripped this down to: "A person is put right with God only through faith in Jesus Christ. 154 .. are the source for the very doctrine itself as it is now known to us. and nothing more. collectively known as the Covenant or the Law. the story of when and how this happened.g. is the story of how Christianity itself came to be. Whereas Jews." Christianity thus set itself off from its predecessor faith of Judaism on the most basic of moral grounds.. to the non-lews. it was the seminal event. Thus. namely..12: The Pre-Pauline Background Christianity distinguished itself from Judaism by asserting a new covenant with God: God's People. as represented in Paul's letter. Galatians 1:16). followed God's Law as laid down in the Ten Commandments and in the other commandments such as Genesis 17:14. for he has disobeyed me"— indeed a whole raft of behavioral commandments.e. furthermore. which. "Any male who has not been circumcised will not be one of my people. And these letters tell an extraordinary story: they show that this doctrine. taken together constituted the Jewish faith—Christianity. which very importantly included in those times the Romans themselves. we have an authority that predates the Gospel accounts. i. in the Old Testament. if not the leading evangelist. It was a new agreement with God: a new basis for winning salvation or heaven. to the Gentiles or "pagans" (e.. Paul's own letters—which. never by doing what the Law requires. . in order to win their individual salvation. which made Christianity a new faith. agreed to follow God's commandments or laws.

. we now know had routinely executed every Jewish self-proclaimed "King of the Jews" during that time. 9:7-9 has Herod expressing fear that Jesus' preaching might indicate "that John the Baptist has come back to life"." In 22:36. "the Pharisees . 12:49-51 presents Jesus saying. Of all things definitely known about Jesus. . . or else Herod's Roman colleague Pontius Pilate. as the imperial regime that had conquered the Jews. For example." It was marked on his cross. but division.) And near the end. in 23:7. met. would be unthinkable. Herod Antipas encountered Jesus' forerunner John the Baptist who even in Matthew (3:10-12) used language such that as Marvin Harris (p.12: The Pre-Pauline Background who. In Mark. Wars & Witches. Actually. who was King Herod himself. Not long thereafter. when Herod's son.. carried out the crucifixion. Pilate sends the prisoner Jesus to Herod for judgment.. Jesus began his ministry.. 3:6 says that not long after Herod had had John the Baptist killed and Jesus began preaching. and even Caesar who stood behind him. just as it was marked on the cross of every other Jew at the time who made that claim. Brandon's 1968 The Trial of Jesus of Nazareth. 184) notes "the Qumram scrolls make it extremely difficult to separate John the Baptist's teachings. had waged many bloody battles in order to win and assert their authority over Jews. . "whoever does not have a sword must sell his coat and buy one.. Do you suppose that I came to bring peace to the world? No." Herod soon had John killed.. F. inasmuch as the Romans' own appointed King of the Jews. For the Romans to tolerate alive anyone else claiming that throne. Almost immediately thereafter. "I came to set the earth on fire. and they did not. tried to murder the infant Jesus upon hearing that this infant was going to become King of the Jews. in Luke. including the one known to history as Jesus of Nazareth— all of whom were automatically considered by the Roman authorities as threats to the ruling Roman government and to its own appointed King of "Judea" (or "Israel. the governor of the adjoining territory. Jesus is warned. Herod did have Jesus killed. with 155 ." In 13:31. not peace." (A sword then was like a gun now. none is more certain than that he claimed to be the "King of the Jews. "Herod wants to kill you. Jesus tells his disciples. and became the "King of the Jews" that Herod's own father had feared and tried to kill. and none more dramatic than pages 156-203 of anthropologist Marvin Harris' 1974 Cows. from the mainstream of the Jewish military-messianic tradition. and no wonder." as the anti-Roman rebels among the Jews still called it). Even Matthew (2:1-18) says that the Roman-appointed King of Judea. That story has been told very well in many places. Pigs. Herod the Great. scraps of the truths that in the Gospels' own time lent credibility to the myths they wove around them are sprinkled throughout their accounts. but perhaps none better than Samuel G.

acknowledges in 1:6 the amazing fact that at the time of Jesus' death. even as late as the writing of Acts. D. that did not fit the Gospels' up-front story of the apolitical Prince of Peace who was martyred by "the Jews. who had no specifically political. And even before that sacking. when after decades of Jewish rebellion against the Romans. happen to be the people who knew the actual. Acts. history does record that that is the kind of thing that did happen on 29 August in the year 70. "Jesus warned them. Evidently.12: The Pre-Pauline Background some members of Herod's party. who were quoted here in this line. 8:15 asserts that when the disciples brought a loaf of bread. at around 49 A. And even the most anti-Semitic Gospel." Furthermore. Jesus. presents Jesus in 14:62 as claiming outright that he is "the Messiah. this political reality. historical. 12:13 states that Pharisees and some members of Herod's party were sent to Jesus to trap him with questions. 11:48." Even the other three Gospels (Matthew 26:64. and the Roman authorities will take action and destroy our Temple and our nation!" In fact. 'Take care. agenda. with an estimated million-plus people dying in the sacking of the City after the defeat of a self-styled "King of the Jews" by the name of Menahem.'" the clear implication being that either might be poisoned. let slip the following very believable worry about Jesus expressed by the leaders of the Jews: "If we let him go on in this way. His disciples had been expecting Jesus "to establish once again the sovereignty of Israel" (as the New English Bible has it). then that alone would mean that vast swaths in the New Testament are false. written by the same person who authored the Gospel Luke. John. from the Gospels again. the Emperor Claudius (according to his biographer Suetonius) seems to have expelled all Jews from Rome out of his fear of the followers of the rebel "Chrestus. and John 18:37) quote Jesus as not 156 ." Here. perhaps. is that part of this other story: The earliest-written of the canonical four Gospels. of Jesus' own family). Roman legionnaires stormed the Temple at Jerusalem and burnt it. But that is not all: even the Gospels' accounts of the trial and crucifixion itself included snippets of this other story. Mark.. astoundingly. better than any other human beings (with the sole exception. and especially no specifically Jewish. it was too well-known that this was the case for it not to be acknowledged—a truly shocking admission in light of the New Testament's general portrayal of Jesus as the Prince of Peace. so if this line in Acts is true. Jesus' disciples. and therefore the one that is generally considered the most reliable. since that line presents Jesus as a very real sedition-threat to Roman authority. Luke 22:70. and be on guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and the yeast of Herod. everyone will believe in him. and they made plans to kill Jesus".

" it would be accurate to assert that a "Messiah" was a certain kind of Jewish king. "in particular David and his descendants. cf. Jesus' claim could reasonably be interpreted as applying to his kingship over all Jews. Ps. only this time not against Goliath. Jesus' claim to be "the Messiah" was. Jesus. Mark 15:18. 10:1. but specifically a Davidic one. the charge against Jesus was that Jesus claimed to be "the King of the Jews. 7:5-16.. Mark 15:2&26." in Ernst Bammel and C. Luke 23:3&38. even Rome itself. Kings.'. In its article on the term "Messiah" in The Oxford Companion to the Bible. of 2 Sam. Jesus and the Politics of His Day.12: The Pre-Pauline Background denying that he is "the Messiah" (or. Moule. and it should be understood in the context of the royal ideology documented in the books of Samuel. Ps. put it. not every Jewish king was a "Messiah"." as The Oxford Companion . "King of the Jews. or at least everywhere that Jews lived—Judea. rather than saying "These two titles are identical in content." and that that very phrase ended up being inscribed into His cross as His crime. and all that backed them. 1984). and 1 Chronicles 7:4-14. even that he is "a king"). Therefore. even when it is applied secondarily to priests and others. in amazing ignorance of the basic fact that for the Romans sedition was a capital offense punishable by crucifixion.2:7. 16:1-13. Mark 14:62 presents Jesus as claiming to be a king of the Jews in the Davidic line. These two titles are identical in content. seditious. John 18:33 & 19:19) assert that in Pilate's Roman trial of Jesus.. Galilee.") However. both Mark 15:32 and Luke 23:2 do accept implicitly that to call a man "the Messiah" included calling him "a king" or specifically "the King of Israel." As Gerhard Schneider noted (in his essay on "The Political Charge Against Jesus. for Jesus to have claimed to be "King of the Jews" would have been seditious everywhere throughout the Empire. and he was adopted as Son of God (2 Sam 7:14." was being quoted even in the Gospels themselves as picking up the legendary Davidic slingshot. in John..' in particular David and his descendants. but against Herod. In other words." But. Three of the Gospels (Matthew 27:29. and Psalms. is explained that this term "is virtually a synonym for 'king. by accepting the title "Messiah. 45:7). if anything. Pilate. in fact. In fact. John 19:3) state 157 . continued with "How this kingly claim was made into a capital crime is not possible to deduce. unavoidably. even more seditious than the generic title. eds. "'King of Israel' (or 'King of the Jews') is an equivalent paraphrase of 'the Messiah. which is to say Rome." Mark and Luke therefore acknowledge the political implication of Jesus' claim—that the claim was itself." (Professor Schneider then. in any case. All four of the Gospels (Matthew 27:11&37. 89:26). The king was appointed by divine command (7 Sam. And since this was not just any kingship-claim. ..

it is—to the extent that it is true at all (after all. and does not deserve his/her faith as being so. which in this particular case are Paul's epistles or letters to his far-flung congregations throughout the Empire.12: The Pre-Pauline Background that the Roman soldiers who executed Jesus addressed him mockingly as "King of the Jews. inasmuch as it outlines the life of the founder of a Jewish sect. and that is itself (just like the "other story" of Jesus' life. is far from the "spin" on these events that was placed by the Gospels. that the account just presented of the life of the actual historical Jesus is not. But even John promptly turned right around and contradicted that. because the earliest writings within the separate Christian faith implicitly grant that this was the case. receiving his sentences. and did not have soldiers. facing a contradiction like this. John. saying in 19:23 that "the soldiers crucified Jesus. part of the history of the Christian faith. 158 . however. certainly not carrying them out. and thus too. and explain. trial and crucifixion just presented) buried barely beneath the surface of the New Testament texts. providing a remarkably detailed (but tragic) account of this momentous occurrence. even though every detail of this story is derived directly from the Gospels. the only soldiers there were. the last-written and so leastreliable of the four. In order to make sense of. This is the story at whose center stands not Jesus. it was the Jewish priests themselves—not the Roman soldiers—who carried out the crucifixion. Let me make clear here. We do know that it was a Jewish sect even after Jesus' death and alleged resurrection. of such things as how Hitler came to be the way he was." The priests were not soldiers.) The story that has been fragmentarily documented here. were Roman soldiers. acknowledges the lie in 19:23. Any fundamentalist Christian." According to only John (19:16-8). from the canonical four Gospels themselves. titled "Paul's Followers Follow Through with Paul's Unconcern for Truth. has to acknowledge that the Bible is not inerrant. right after lying about this in 19:16-8. All other armed fighters in Judea were called "bandits" and were Pilate's convicts. and so too of why the New Testament came to be written the way it is. strictly speaking. (A supplementary box at the end of Part II. this striking anomaly. but Paul. it will be necessary to explain the explosive dispute that caused Christianity to break off from being a sect of Judaism and to become a different religion with a different covenant—a new and different "God's Chosen People" (1 Peter 1:1. and why Germans (and others) were willing to follow him in the direction in which he led. In essence. these lines in the New Testament might be false)—solely a component within the history of the Jewish faith. etc.)." gives more examples of the Gospel-writers proving themselves to be liars.

that Jesus was born to a conquered people. in the present case. and ran contrary to the teachings of the actual. is a good example of our methodological approach." To what extent this Man was actually a "rebel" or "challenger" to King/Emperor is not known for certain. writing at later dates. Consequently. and perceived by prevailing powers— political and/or religious—as a great threat. on the basis of the existing sources. and equally a challenge to both Herod and Tiberius. who explicitly insisted that the teachings of Jesus replaced Jewish Law. that this doctrine originated with himself. Clearly. which were written so early that the audience would have recognized immediately any lies that were not couched in artifice (such as. The authors of the Gospels. Thus. This. Without question. "King of the Jews. or that such approval/disapproval would not have been adjudicated on the basis of Jewish Law as found in Jewish Scripture). but Jesus' claim to be "Messiah" was seditious against Rome itself in any case. even in the very same texts that seek to persuade the reader to the contrary by explicit assertion. who were subject to a Roman-approved King.12: The Pre-Pauline Background for example. ironclad facts can be established by necessary logical implication. even Paul. Jews. the Torah. By our relying on the earliest written documents. that Paul had personally met Jesus. acknowledged implicitly but incontrovertibly. Paul had to travel to Jerusalem and have his case presented to the sect's leaders for their authorization that his means of winning converts were acceptable under Jewish law on the basis of the Jewish Bible. especially the Pentateuch. for a readership consisting of people who could not by their own personal experience authenticate or disqualify even the most artless and explicit of fabrications within the talcs they were writing. historical Jesus. in fact. and who had known Jesus as His disciples while he was alive (which Paul admits himself that he did not)—had been that His own teachings replaced Jewish law. and that on His cross were emblazoned the words. standing in there for the Emperor or Caesar Tiberius. enjoyed vastly greater license to fabricate than did Paul. this would not have been the case if Jesus' instructions to these leaders—whom He had appointed as His successors. Herod. for a certainty. much less with certainty. it is a hopeless task to seek to know with any very high likelihood. Pontius Pilate was the Governor of Judaea. or that Paul did not have to seek the approval of superiors in Jerusalem. by the time of His death He had become the subject of intense controversy. as will be documented in the following chapters based upon the writings by Paul. (Herod ruled over Galilee. We also know. within the Roman Empire. but what is known for certain is that the Roman rulers made examples of 159 .) All sources are consistent that Jesus died by crucifixion. many details of the life of the actual historical Jesus.

Thus. Acts (16:37 & 22:25-9) claims that Paul was a citizen of Rome and received special Roman protection. Paul himself acknowledged (Philippians 3:5) that he was a Pharisee. Galatians 1:13) Paul originally persecuted the followers of Jesus. are of vastly higher authenticity. historical Jesus was viewed as a threat by the Pharisees. such as to be considered history. as compared with even the likeliest statements in the Gospel accounts. but which need to be read with extraordinary care in order for them to be viewed as history rather than as mere propaganda. and that (as we shall show) he subsequently overthrew them and replaced them with a new Roman-oriented Church. which. It thus is reasonable to assume that the real. and not only by Rome. Furthermore. 160 . as opposed to mere speculation. we come now to the writings of Paul. It thus is not surprising that (in Philippians 3:6. amongst whom was one Jesus of Nazareth. which came to be called Roman Catholicism. it is well established throughout human history that colonial powers (such as Rome) usually work with the pre-existing leadership of a conquered people (such as the Sadducees and Pharisees in Judaea) as their puppets.12: The Pre-Pauline Background anyone who claimed or was asserted to be "King" as opposed to anyone whom Rome authorized as such—and that Rome routinely crucified all such individuals.

so any religion that would have prospects of substantial growth would have to convert. society. but the most urgent of them all was to convert to this Jewish sect—which is what it then was—uncircumcised adult Gentile males. the leader of the sect after Jesus' death. Paul's task was unimaginably difficult. Yet nonetheless. is ignored by the scholars. neither did antibiotics. that every male convert. too. and the prospect of their now undergoing this operation as adults terrified them. for an adult. not to say dangerous: modern anaesthesia did not then exist. but all property. and wealth.) Furthermore. who was Jesus' own brother James. as Gentiles in that era. On the other was the terror that such a requirement must certainly have struck in the heart of any Gentile man contemplating to join this Jewish sect. On the one side stood the command of God contained in Genesis 17:14. in order to be able to understand the origin of Christianity. (These elementary facts are ignored by the scholars but are enormously important. must be circumcised. the people who controlled government. the governor of Crete). including adult ones.13: Summary of the Case Because Paul was an evangelist aiming to convert even the Roman conquerors themselves to become followers of Jesus (Acts 13:7-12 even suggests that Paul changed his name from his given Jewish name of "Saul" in honor of his first major convert who was a Roman ruler. actually nothing short of essential. the experience would be excruciating. Sergius Paulus. above all. required that God's command be carried 161 .) Thus. this was a very male-dominated era. he inevitably faced enormous problems. Naturally. these men had not been circumcised as infants. adult males—the people who held not only all power and influence. (This.

which gives Paul's account of this climactic dispute. He decided to break with Christianity as it then existed. that is." In any event. and to establish his own church— a breakaway sect of a Jewish sect—and this is the "Christianity" we know today. we know this especially because of Galatians 2:2. stated by James.13: Summary of the Case out. along with James and John) was willing to make an exception here. This was a crisis for Paul's entire mission. (Perhaps this is the reason why Acts 11:26 says that "It was at Antioch that the believers were first called Christians": Paul's base of operations was Antioch. subsequently.") Now Paul needed a rationale for breaking the covenant with Godsomething that would permit admittance of uncircumcised males into the faith in violation of Genesis 17:14: "Any male who has not been circumcised will no longer be considered one of my people. As he put it in Galatians 2:16. must not be understood to have been ideologically restricted to that: James had also demanded compliance with the Jewish dietary and other Laws in the holy Covenant. the letter James provides it. especially in James 2:10-26. and Peter. after which it continued to be condemned by many church fathers. Luther himself called it "an epistle of straw" in contrast to Paul's "gold". 162 . for he has disobeyed me. James at first supported Paul's desire to forego such circumcisions. sent a delegation to Paul ordering that he not accept into the faith any man who refused to undergo circumcision (Gal 2:12). the accounts of James and Peter are absent (unless. Peter. and especially James. "that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God" (15:19). he rejected the order. it was not necessary to obey God. James had temporarily ruled in Paul's favor on this because "we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. on the grounds. But. reversed themselves in Galatians 2:1114. and it is rarely cited since it contradicts Paul and thus all of "Christianity. and to this day the letter's very authenticity is challenged. "A person is put right with God only through faith in Jesus Christ. although precipitated by the problem with circumcision. and Jerome canonized it in 405 A.. too (who according to Paul's own account in Galatians 2:9 was one of the three "pillars" of the sect. This excuse was that in order to be a member of God's people. in which Paul himself acknowledges that imposition of the circumcision requirement upon his flock would place his entire life's work in jeopardy. Paul "won. D.) (The split with Judaism. but that letter was ignored until Origen referred to it in the Third Century. in fact. but only to believe in Him. the reason the schism had come over circumcision is that it is this that posed by far the greatest threat to the success of Paul's mission. According to Acts 15.") James. and also because in Acts 15:19.

g. . and in Romans 2:25-9 & 3:27-4:13. by the sole requirement that one have faith in Jesus Christ. . God puts people right through their faith in Jesus Christ. Paul could now do his job of converting adult male Gentiles.13: Summary of the Case never by doing what the Law requires." Paul restated this many times. But compounding the scandal. . not on his deeds.. since the Jesus-sect of Jews. in Paul's own account in Galatians 1:13-2:16 & 3:1-10. accepted unquestioningly that this is where the Word of God was to be found—specifically in the Torah or Pentateuch. Amazingly. Paul's Genesis 15:6 argument. No one is put right with God by following God's Law. all are put right with Him through faith in Jesus Christ. It has nothing to do with the Law. Genesis 15:6. that God will accept any believer who disobeys Him. see the following box. the first five books of the Bible. they show merely that God approves an obedient believer. Psalms 32:1-2). But by the free gift of God's grace. What Paul had done here was.) PAUL'S PHONY ARGUMENTS FOR JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH ALONE The foundation of the Christian faith is the replacement of the Jewish Covenant. But now God's way of putting people right with Himself has been revealed. stands therefore as right in God's judgment. even though Moses and the prophets gave witness to it. to eliminate all of God's commandments save the First: faith itself. (For more details on this. God does this to all who believe in Christ. All of Paul's arguments for this were based upon Jewish Scripture. . or laws. who set believers free. scholars can find no Scriptural support for Paul's tactic. at one breathtaking step. what the Law does is to make man know that he has sinned. The examples cited by Paul fail to make the point he draws from them. which constituted Christianity before Paul entered the sect. and that at His discretion He may forgive a sinner (e. this scandalous story is "between the lines" of Scripture itself. and who holds that faith in the God who declares the guilty to be innocent. Perhaps his most extensive single expression of it is Romans 3:20-4 & 4:5: No one is put right in God's sight by doing what the Law requires. given in Romans 4:1-13 and in —continued— 163 .. . because there is no difference at all: Everyone has sinned and is far away from God's salvation. The person who depends on his faith.

Deut. And. but nothing even in Habakkuk is authority for that." everything that we know about him as leader of this Jewish sect would compel us to infer. Abraham. Psalms 32:1-2. or (3) accepting God as the one-and-only God. 6:17&25. a command is issued. rather than before. necessarily entailed acceptance of the other two. according to the Scripture. even in his era. which traditionally meant disobedient to God. In order to win his cheap conversions. ambiguous: there is simply no way of telling for certain from these words alone. the first five books of the Bible. Habakkuk 2:4. but those who are righteous will live because they are faithful to God." is. subjected himself to the knife. that James accepted all three. Paul eliminated all the commandments except the First. because of Genesis 17:24. that any acceptance of the first of these three. Furthermore. thus nullifying Paul's sham of an argument here. unlike the converts that Paul was determined to win to his new faith. What is actually decisive is that the Torah itself. i. "those who are evil will not survive. since that was not part of Jewish Scripture. "James the Just. 164 . not part of the Torah or Pentateuch. which had been to the effect that God's acceptance of Abraham had not been conditional upon Abraham's carrying out the command—-something that the Scriptural citations that Paul gave failed to support in any way whatsoever. in addition. "Those who are evil will not survive. lacked authority for Paul's purpose. the reason being that the opening. almost surely it means what Paul is rejecting. it's not even in the Torah. 10:12-13&16-17. is one of the most ludicrous of all Paul's fabrications—as if it were not necessarily the case that compliance is judged after.. which Paul prominently cited. This would annihilate Paul's interpretation. at best. whether "faithful to God" here means (1) obedient to God.e. the Scripture says. And as for Jesus' brother. the only part that for Jews represented the "Word of God" and thus final authority." clearly sets opposite to "faithful" the concept of evil. contradicts Paul's view throughout. g. 7:11-12. the chief commandments of the Torah. but not on the authority of Habakkuk. or (2) believing in God's existence. And the fact is. also is not. so it too. the 99-year-old Abraham. which is the only Scripture in Judaism that does posses such authority. because the First Commandment said it does. James would have accepted all three because they are within the Ten Commandments. in fact did obey God's command that all males must be circumcised.. However. 8: l & l 1&20. Paul's argument that non-conditionality was proven by virtue of the fact that Abraham circumcised himself after God's command rather than before it. perhaps most vigorously in the passages of Deuteronomy describing re-presentations of the Ten Commandments (e. which is the first. as we previously pointed out. is a blatant fraud. as Paul implies.13: Summary of the Case Galatians 3:1-10.

the "good" way to deal with the problem of crime is to eliminate the laws against it. as Romans 4:15 put it. . even the First Commandment may have been violated by Paul. nor do we falsify the word of God. shortly thereafter.13: Summary of the Case 11:1&8& 13& 18&22&27. but the Spirit gives life. which at least suggests that disobedience is itself equivalent to worshipping other gods. from which we shall quote now 7-11. The law was carved in letters on stone tablets. g. Do everything that I have commanded you. lying. stealing. which brings death when it is in force. "The Law brings down God's anger. . . do not fail to obey any of his laws that I am giving you today.. we do not act with deceit. there is no disobeying of the law.. killing. except only the First Commandment itself. in 4:2. how much more glorious is the activity that brings salvation!" This passage is remarkable: Paul had started by gutting the behavioral commandments that concern the activities of the person (e. as if it were its exact opposite: "We put aside all secret and shameful deeds. This interpretation of the First Commandment is further clearly indicated that by the fact that in both statements of it. God is claiming as his people only those "who love me and obey my laws. but where there is no law. and to claim that God hated his own laws. . according to Deut.) and left only one Commandment "that belongs to the activity of the Spirit . . such as in 2 Corinthians 3:5-9: ". and 12:1 &32).. Make certain that you do not forget the Lord your God. .. Paul refers to this freeing of the individual to violate God's laws. came with such glory. If you do not obey the Lord.." But Paul stripped out the latter and left only the "who love me" as his narcissistic God's command. in Exodus 20:6 and Dent.. 11:28. 165 . 8:11 &20 and 12:32: "Obey what you have been taught. how much greater is the glory that belongs to the activity of the Spirit. it was instead a gutting of Scripture: editing out of it almost its entire core. do not add anything to it or take anything from it. . Paul took everything from it. that brings Salvation. 5:10. If the law." Paul was even so bold as to turn obedience to God itself into a sin. the evidence suggests that this was very consciously done by him—no act of mere stupidity—for he followed rigorously through with it. etc. However. In the full light of truth we live in God's sight and try to commend ourselves to everyone's good conscience. In any event." (Extending the principle into governmental affairs." Obviously. then you will be destroyed. and God's glory appeared when it was given. Furthermore. obey all the laws that I have given you today. The system that brings condemnation was glorious. which consists not of a written law but of the Spirit." Then. The written law brings death. it is He who makes us capable of serving the new covenant. it is clear that Paul's "interpretation" of Scripture was anything but that. The capacity we have comes from God.. or. ..

insulting even themselves as fools. like virtually all Jerusalem Jews of 66 ." but which in Paul's circumlocutions miraculously ends up scripting into God's mouth. when in Romans 10:5-10 he dismissively quoted as coming from Moses rather than from God Himself.13: Summary of the Case e.. but whose only concern is whether He Himself is loved.. after centuries of Jewish nonCovenental (i.) His boldness reached right into his own flock. since that law had been the barrier that had precipitated all these other changes. little remains known today of Jesus' own sect. 15:18)." Paul was nothing if not thorough. cobbled together by Paul. as it had never been to be a Jew. who ended up being merely Paul's tool. Not only had Paul eliminated God's circumcision-requirement. presenting God as having given up on even the hope of Man's obedience to Him. optional) ritual practise of it in the form of the ritual bath known as the "mikveh" (which itself might have been inspired by Num. 30:10-14. it is always the powerful who spread a faith the most-effectively). and since the function of ritual induction into the faith now had to be met in some other way. not created by Jesus. and that. of course. regardless of what mayhem the believer might practise against others. where God says why "you must obey all these laws.e. Paul made it easy to be a Christian. "The Law brings down Gods anger. in fact. Paul's compromises ended up with an entirely new covenant. namely adult male Gentiles. By contrast. However. the command in Leviticus l8:5 to "follow all the laws." no longer does disobedience to the Law cause him anger. "It is by faith alone that a person is put right with God. and then cites against that Deut. Salvation now meant only loving the Jesus that Paul and his followers were carefully constructing out of that mixture of fact and fiction that goes by the name of religious myth. to the point that. the replacement of circumcision itself. other than that it had believed him to be King David's heir. instead of punishing the murderer. succeed is naturally just what this faith has done: to such a point that this Paulianity (called by his followers "Christianity") now has two billion adherents worldwide. And so.g. eliminate the laws against murder. Paul's replacement for the Covenental circumcision was a painless baptism that had first been made prominent by Paul's fellow-Jew. but he had eliminated all of God's requirements other than mere belief in Him—in fact. the culmination was. John the Baptist. 19:13&19:20 & Lev. Paul's God is He who does not care any longer about what one person does to another. custom tailored by Paul for success. And that is how the religion we know today as Christianity was. Originally driven by Paul's need to be able to win to the Jesus-sect of Jews the most valuable kind of converts (because the most powerful within society." which in fact Leviticus attributes instead directly instead to God Himself.

" The long war against Jews had commenced. and acting in a way that cannot please God and that makes them the enemies of the whole human race." This event had occurred in 49 A. 1 Thessalonians 2:15-6 concludes by Paul's taking joy at the misfortune of Jews for their being associated with the Jesus-sect amongst themselves. he claims to "have been given all authority in Heaven and on earth. expelling them all." which is no more 167 . still more.. The only comparably early appearance of the charge occurs in Galatians 6:12— another of Paul's diatribes." In that passage. then.'" (Of course. in order for Paul to be able to succeed in his mission to convert the Romans. and he did so. 28:19 quotes the resurrected Jesus as telling his disciples. And now they have been persecuting us. "with the following instructions: 'Do not go to any Gentile territory or any Samaritan towns. "And now God's punishment has at last come down upon them!" The reference is to the punishment that the Roman Emperor Claudius (according to the 25th chapter of Suetonius' biography of him) imposed upon all of Rome's Jews. but all of Judaism. because they are hindering us from preaching to the pagans and trying to save them. the people of Israel. Furthermore. and whom Paul had never personally met but instead claimed to worship on the basis of a "revelation." says the Scripture. ". Jesus had instructed his disciples in words that explicitly negated not only Paul's actions and decisions. It is in this light that we can fully understand Paul's saying of "the Jews" in 1 Thessalonians 2:15-16. This statement of it precedes historically each and every one of the Gospel-accounts. you are to go to those lost sheep.. "Go. Thus." he failed to cite as an authority for doing so the one man he claimed to hold authority. 2:15 even opens by accusing "the Jews" as being those "who killed the Lord Jesus". They never stop trying to finish off the sins that they have begun.. D. to all peoples everywhere and make them my disciples. but Paul's very mission itself: "These twelve men were sent out by Jesus." Yet according to Matthew 10:5-6. Jesus could not possibly have changed his mind on that when Mat. which some scholars date to 50 A. he had to repudiate not only the followers of Jesus. as reported in Acts 21:21 (and forward). saying. perhaps within a year prior to Paul's having written this epistle. as an all-knowing. In fact.13: Summary of the Case the time. they were outraged at Paul's breaking of the Covenant. all-foresightful God. on account of Roman disturbances stirred up by the followers of "Chrestus"—the common name then for "Christ. D. Also worthy of note is that at the decisive moment that Paul perverted Jesus' moral message so as to be able to create "Christianity. and this is the earliest-written of all the appearances in the New Testament of this central anti-Semitic charge. who was Jesus Himself. Instead.

in John 10:35. honor me with their words. '"The Scripture cannot be broken. Jesus was here saying. the leading rabbis who collaborated with the Roman rulers. 'I never knew you. the Jewish Covenant—than are the Pharisees. As to which—if not both—is likely to be mythological. I have not come to do away with them but to make their teachings come true. in which Jesus cited from Isaiah in order to condemn precisely the sort of thing that Paul now was doing (Matthew 15:6-9): "You disregard God's command. John 168 . but only those who do what my Father in heaven wishes. 7:21-23: "Not everyone who calls me 'Lord. Remember that as long as heaven and earth last. not the least point not the smallest detail of the Law will be done away with— not until the end of all things. When the Judgement Day comes. '"Blessed are those who hear the Word of God and obey it. This passage contradicts the earlier one. for example]. you wicked people!'" And in Luke 11:28. simply. you must first be or become a Jew.) Regarding Paul's preachings themselves. Before you can call yourself a follower of Me. Lord' will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. in order to follow your own teaching. Lord! In your name we spoke God's message. as follows: Do not think that I have come to do away with the Law of Moses and the teachings of the prophets. Or. but their heart is really away from me. it would seem that any contradiction alleged in the "resurrected" state must cede to its opposite alleged during life as having more credibility. but more of a Jew—even purer in following the commands of God. So then. You hypocrites! How right Isaiah was when he prophesied about you: 'These people. that you will be able to enter the Kingdom of Heaven only if you are more faithful than the teachers of the Law and the Pharisees in doing what God requires.13: Summary of the Case than he is alleged to have claimed prior to death. Get away from me. Jesus is quoted where he stood on the substantive issue. you had to be or to become a strict Jew. will be least in the Kingdom of Heaven. I tell you.'" Or. as He is cited as saying only a few verses later. by your name we drove out many demons and performed many miracles!' Then I will say to them. says God. then. whoever disobeys even the least important of the commandments and teaches others to do the same [such as Paul was to do with circumcision.'" Regardless of the words used. they all meant the same thing. because they teach man-made rules as if they were my laws!'" Earlier in Matthew 5:17-20. To join Jesus' Jewish sect. and not only a Jew. many will say to me 'Lord. It is no use for them to worship me. Jesus also had an answer in that same book of Scripture.

none of these evangelists had ever met Jesus or known him personally. for example. what the Law does is to make man know that he has sinned. Everyone has sinned and is far away from God's salvation. But what is certain is that." Paul says that that would inevitably fail to win salvation: just have faith in Christ. This clearly proves that Jesus. Paul's message. . Since Paul himself actually created the Christianity known today. Thus. too. the followers of Jesus still considered themselves to be a Jewish sect. but by doing what the Law commands. 16:18. What Jews futilely struggle to attain. or else they are false quotes. salvation by obedience. such statements from Jesus as Mat. "'Peter. because no one can do it." Instead of calling his followers to be "more faithful than the teachers of the Law and the Pharisees in doing what God requires. . during his own lifetime. for salvation is from the Jews. and even in the resurrection. or "Catholic. Of course.'" either are not to be interpreted as Christianity traditionally has done. We Jews know what we worship. More diametrically opposite from Matthew 5:17-20 and demanding that followers be "more faithful than the teachers of the Law and the Pharisees in doing what God requires. speaking in his own voice. and the Gospels and other parts of the New Testament were written 169 . it is futile even to attempt to follow the Law. and are thus temporally even more-remote from Jesus than are Paul's writings. Paul's "Christian" achieves by mere faith. .). or heard him speak." would be impossible to imagine. evidently sufficient public knowledge existed that Jesus preached as a Jew." Thus. that is Paul's new "Christian" covenant—and it is universal. Thus. had not broken from Judaism." which Paul claims to be impossible. Paul in Romans 2:13 says of the Jews. is fundamentally different: to him. and on this foundation I will build my church. and all your sins will be forgiven. you are a rock." Even as late as the writing of John. "It is not by hearing the Law that people [here. Paul was required to come to Jerusalem at least twice in order to defend before James and the other followers of Jesus—as well as to the broader Jewish community—the Jewishness of his own preachings and ministry. so that this could not be denied without being recognized in its own time as a fraud. even as late as Paul's writings (about 48-57 C. "No one is put right in God's sight by doing what the Law requires. Jewish people] are put right with God.13: Summary of the Case 4:22 has Jesus saying. any such attempt is foredoomed. "you Samaritans worship without knowing what you worship. scholars now predominately believe that all four of the Gospel-accounts were actually written after the letters of Paul. E. That is what Paul meant when we quoted him from Romans 3:20&23.

Though Paul obviously came to promote replacement of that Covenant. they were actually copying Paul's manufactured "Christ". History suggests that even when his followers sincerely believed that they were modeling themselves upon Jesus. application of logic exposes not just the lies but the why's. were indeed doing as Paul had suggested: imitating Paul. and Philippians 3:17) recommended his followers to imitate him. And now we understand why he did so. Jesus' brother James and the others who had known Jesus during his lifetime and who were continuing Jesus' ministry at the time when Paul joined the sect. were honoring and enforcing the Jewish Covenant as the sect's Covenant. g. for whose sake heaven and earth came into being." 170 . Paul misrepresented Jesus.. Paul won. Fortunately. not to imitate Jesus. Who is to be our leader?' Jesus said to them. you are to go to James the righteous. But the church that ended up surviving was the one that Paul established. What is key here is that even according to Paul's own testimony. When Paul defied the command of James. 'We know that you will depart from us. 1 Corinthians 10:33. That is the story of "Christianity. Paul repeatedly (e. not the one that Jesus did.'" Even Paul could not deny that he had to answer to James. Jesus lost. because everyone knew that this was the case—notwithstanding the later concoction of Matthew 16:18. 'Wherever you are. According to the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas (and this is probably one of the reasons that it is apocryphal) 12: "The disciples said to Jesus. his own testimony proves that by doing so. Galatians 4:12. Paul was well aware that he was defying Jesus' very own religious organization.13: Summary of the Case after him and by his followers—not by followers of Jesus—the historical Jesus is virtually completely lost. and in so doing.

laid the foundations in both theory and practice. the entire Bible.S. the Koran." or in some other supposedly infallible Scripture or Authority or "Word of God" as the ultimate source of morality— such a historical question as whether a biblical allegation like Matthew 16:18 is a lie or otherwise false. the only ground for morality. 171 . then the issue of whether or not "the Word of God" (be it the Pentateuch. who repudiated infallibility for themselves or anyone." But the assumption is false: Scripture or other allegedly infallible Authority is not the only possible basis for morality. it lies in science. If religion were. Presidential candidates publicly avowed fundamentalist Christianity as the source of their own morality. bound by nothing. On precisely such a fundamentalist basis. would obviously be crucially important for morality itself. as it claims to be. as I am. or whatever) is actually what it is presented as being. open debate. where America's great Founding Fathers. when asked in the 7 February 2000 Newsweek whether he felt comfortable as a Jew that all of the major U. has ramifications that go to the very core of the individual's morality or moral beliefs. than a functional atheist. and fact-based attack from opponents in the public forum. the true ground for morality lies in a rejection of infallibility itself. 33-4). "I'd rather have a Christian bound by Scripture. In this new approach—only a very few centuries old—the writing of history and of all other forms of non-fiction is subject to public criticism. the Jewish scholar Jacob Neusner. In fact.14: How the Scientific Approach Differs from the Religious One For a fundamentalist—for a person who believes in "The Bible— Monumental History of Mankind. answered (pp.

This is the reason why a Jim Jones or other cult-founder today has vastly less likelihood of establishing long-term success than a Paul of Tarsus did in the First Century.14: How the Scientific Approach Differs From the Religious One and is never assumed to be flawless. a free press is to the entire citizenship in a modern democracy. Constitution joined together. for example. and other such things that are nowadays recognized as moral outrages. which they recognized to be inseparable. on a current basis. psychology. but that then were not) the barbaric cultures." And just as a free press is an essential part of that purgative process upon past history." meaning still in the Religious Age. scientific non-fiction writing—whether in physics. or any other field— is offered to its readership only with truthclaims that are subject to independent investigation. biology." It is simplifying only a little. A free press is essential for this. and all other forms of ongoing verification by ceaselessly skeptical science. submit to your masters with full 172 . except in those parts of the world we today call "backward. (Incidentally. until now when the Age of Science scrutinizes it and parses out what is fact and what is fiction in that mixture of fact with falsehood that we today know by the name of "religious myth. which says. in 1 Peter 2:18. men of the Enlightenment as they were—despite their inheriting the institution of slavery from the British king who had imposed it upon the colonists as a form of "merchandise" from which he had derived massive profits—introduced in the First Amendment to the U. No such things existed in the ancient times and (as we would today call them. it is also. the defenders of slavery often cited the Bible. The Bible was subject to no such independent verification. an essential part of the purgative enterprise cleansing current history of the delusions and lies that inevitably circulate and that—but for such a constantly skeptical and free press—might end up posing the danger of producing genocides in some future century. This is why America's great Founders. "Slaves. history. S. with their routine acceptance of slavery. the two freedoms of religion and of the press. controlled tests where possible. The Age of Science has made it almost impossible for a cult to succeed long enough to emerge as a religion. to state that what the physics journals are to professional physicists in the Age of Science. which are presented as being flawless or "inerrant" because the inspired Word of (an All-Knowing) God. in which our "holy books" were written and whose values they thus reflected. As opposed to alleged religious revelation such as the Bible or the Koran. not yet in the Scientific Age. genocide. especially in that form of non-fiction writing that we call "history. nor even to meet a more modest standard of truth.

3:22. but also to those who are harsh. the scientist won't believe it without verifying it. would Christianity have made it in the Gentile world?" and that "Paul's activities were actually a tremendously complicating factor rather than an asset for —continued— 173 . as is everything. everything is a matter of authority. The opponents of abolition had clear biblical evidence on their side when they argued. there is no authority. Science itself might be referred to as "systematic skepticism." The sources in the present case are especially the Pauline epistles. Col. biology. as will now be demonstrated by some especially prominent examples: After the Holocaust. This is why the words "faith" and "religion" are synonyms. by contrast. Here.14: How the Scientific Approach Differs From the Religious One respect. "If there had been no Paul. 6:5. "Biblical morality was one of the great handicaps that the emancipation movement in the United States had to overcome. and 1 Tim. as Harvard's Krister Stendahl put it in part 6 of his 1963 Paul Among Jews and Gentiles. For a real scientist. supposedly coming from God Himself. just happens to be a perfect example of the corruptness of authority. or any other—is that the means of independent verification by the reader him/herself are provided by the writer. Or. it is the citing of the references that the reader can consult so as to verify whether they really do say what they are being claimed to say.") One of the prerequisites to scientific writing in any field—physics. Much of this new scholarship (discussed in more detail in the mid-part of Appendix 2-F) pretends that Paul was not "really" an anti-Semitic influence in the early church. for example). as just mentioned. or else by some other means. there is no such verification by the individual as ultimate judge. either in the form of describing a replicable experiment (such as is done in physics. the ultimate verification must inevitably rely upon the sources. all of which themselves are viewed with skepticism. an affirmative answer should be given to the question. scholars tried many ways to separate "real" or early Christianity from anti-Semitism. HOW THE SCHOLARS KEEP THE MYTHS One of the reasons why the present work does not ask you to rely on authority is that the subject of Paul and what he meant. 6:1. not only to those who are good and kind. as Morton Smith concluded his chapter on slavery in What the Bible Really Says [1989]. The religious ideal is faith— unquestioning acceptance on the basis of authority. history." and to similar effect in Eph. Science is the exact opposite. In religion. In history-writing. Here. we shall deal with another argument: that. Even if Einstein says thus-and-such.

rather than for assertion as he does) not only was written decades after the Pauline epistles. justification and wrath. Acts (which we rely on upon only for confirmation. and from the later and certainly lessreliable source. which we discuss. but was certainly not as knowledgeable about Paul's life as was Paul. but which in 3:15-17 is employed by Stendahl to "document" about Paul (and is he here trying to convey that Paul had no important impact upon Christian theology. and argues instead solely on the basis of contradictory shreds from Acts. he cites them indiscriminately as to their reliability even as that has been evaluated by scholars themselves: for example. pretty much ignores the contrary evidence (coming from Paul. "1 did not want my work in the past or in the present to be a failure. notwithstanding that Paul was a person he greatly admired. such as "Rome was a blossoming congregation. 334. generally now considered to be from a much later author who had no possibility of even having met Paul. supplemented by entirely undocumented generalizations. who were enamored of what was Oriental. mainly Gentile. "Luke" might have known Paul personally. proved to be of small value." Stendahl's influential essay also employs in an indiscriminate manner other unreliable and even suspect sources. He was rather a complication. but John Townsend has presented some good reasons to believe that it may have been written a full century after Paul. While both have to be treated very skeptically. as 2 Peter indicates so kindly: our brother Paul is a little hard to understand (3:15f. Thus. Acts 15:19. or precisely what?) that Paul's "thoughts about Jews and Gentiles.. The author of Acts. including. ..)." Stendahl (like each of the subsequent scholars who have supported this position). Even ritual laws like those from the Old Testament were not a liability but an asset—as any reader of Galatians can see.") Stendahl even claims. from the source that Stendahl himself inexplicably uses as his primary one. not only does Stendahl cite sources indiscriminately as —continued— 174 ." which directly contradicts Stendahl.14: How the Scientific Approach Differs From the Religious One a pragmatically successful missionary program. that's not what the passage says: 2 Peter 3:15-17 can at least as reasonably be interpreted as an attack against those who misunderstand or distort Paul's interpretation of Jesus. law and promise. Acts). . the reliability of Paul's accounts is higher than is that of "Luke. . 2:2. ." (In contradiction. such as 2 Peter. was more distant in time from the founding events that he describes than Paul was. whoever he was. And where Stendahl does cite sources. "It was a JewishChristian mission that was active in Rome. He was honored yet pushed aside. says." Moreover." and all the evidence that supports that. his main source. Jurgen Becker's 1993 Paul." This speculation ignores all of the contrary evidence—including the most decisive Gal. p. "that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. "What Paul brands 'Judaizing'—circumcision and dietary laws for Gentiles—was not a barrier to Christianity but quite attractive to Gentiles. without his doing.

175 . he must conclude. his achievements as a Christian. but his citations themselves are unreliable.14: How the Scientific Approach Differs From the Religious One to their reliability or even authenticity. one must always examine the source itself (which. the "achievements" that Paul here was repudiating. not his shortcomings. humbly. in this as in virtually all cases. were his "achievements" as a Jew." But obviously. 3:8). and definitely not the Jesus-sect of Jews that had preceded it and that Paul's gang overthrew and replaced) appear not anti-Semitic: turning Paul's meaning on its head. 13 of the 1976 edition): "Few are those who can read their Bibles with sufficient simplicity as to understand what it is that Paul forgets: his achievements. they were not. Stendahl studiously avoids quoting. but rather cites Paul himself." Here is how this arrogantly anti-Semitic statement comes out in Stendahl (p. Elsewhere in the essay (part 2). It is all those achievements which he now says appear like rubbish (Phil. And true to form. Stendahl exhibits another common trick to make the early church (by which we mean Paul's church. But you can look at it. just open up your Bible. referring to Paul's Jewish heritage and his previous adherence to the Jewish Covenant by saying that now as a follower of Christ. This is why our discussion of Paul does not cite the "experts" on Paul. Examine the passage yourself. his paraphrases of their meaning are so extremely loose that they cannot be trusted. 3:5-8. contemptuously. that would have made it too easy for them to know that he was lying. contempt for Judaism into humility. which culminates a passage. "J consider it all as mere garbage. such as he does by citing Philippians 3:8. thus making that inconvenient to do). he refrained from providing his readers with the quotation he was lying about. and verify how baldfacedly a leading scholar turns truth on its head.

which a believer would quite naturally prefer not to know. played no 176 . Therefore. Thus. In keeping with the difference between the way that a religion treats its Scripture. on the other— in other words. entities that are part of the world. in which they were written. the typical scholar s assumption that politics. faith is often studied in the supernaturalized light that religion claims to be appropriate. rather than in the naturalized light by which science views everything. in keeping with the distinction between blind faith in an allegedly "inerrant" Scripture from an "infallible" God.15: Paul's Detailed Account of Christianity's Split from Judaism The sources are important when one presents the history of the origins of Christianity as this story has never before been "told"—even though the story actually was told. maybe because they worshipped Paul's "Jesus" and so were afraid to discover why Paul had invented Him. and the way that science treats any scripture. by Paul himself. rather than supernatural. Even within academe. in order to assist New Testament scholars to understand what they would evidently rather not. this would mean that Paul in fact had invented Him. on the one hand. in the New Testament. the society. but perhaps scholars didn't want to understand the story. after all. the eye of science has been averted. versus skeptical questioning and analysis of everything—Paul's writings will here be viewed as natural. wealth and personal power-cravings. I shall here facilitate such comprehension by providing the detailed exegesis for this history. and the times.

. But we shall accept certain other things from the scholars. it might also have served for Paul an additional more personal function: to help him deal with feelings of guilt he might have then been experiencing on account of his having "persecuted 177 ." in favor of faith and grace—the salvationdoctrine that he will introduce in its stead. Paul explains the "without mercy": "I was ahead of most fellow Jews of my age in my practice of the Jewish religion. his break with Judaism has already occurred). i. We thus accept the Christian historical priority of Paul's letters. We also shall accept the scholarly consensus dating the authentic Pauline letters earlier than the four Gospel accounts of Jesus. To start with. so that it is vastly likelier that Paul influenced the Gospels. In sum. We are going to accept." Not only is he here explaining the mercilessness of his early opposition to Christianity by reference to his Judaism. against "the Law. We therefore share in the historiographical respect granted Paul's letters within Christianity. Finally. and Paul's authorship. we learn from Paul "how I used to live when I was devoted to the Jewish religion" (which means that Paul once was a Jew.15: Paul's Detailed Account of Christianity's Split from Judaism role in Paul's writing of his epistles. We seek merely to read the sources with closer attention to what they are saying. but he is setting the reader up for the coming onslaught against "the traditions of our ancestors". However. and not to challenge. And so (please get out your Bible): In Galatians 1:13. This obviously serves a practical purpose in Paul's program toward the achievement of his ends. the scholarly consensus favoring the authenticity.e. we take no issue against contemporary scholarship. even over the Gospels themselves.e. than that the Gospels influenced Paul. we are going to be as accommodating as facts permit regarding the pertinent historiographical foundations. we are also going to accept the scholarly consensus (amounting virtually to a rule of logic itself) that later writings in the church are far likelier to follow in the tradition of their predecessor (earlier) writings than the reverse (in which a later writing is interpreted as having caused or shaped the account given in an earlier one). but also that at the present stage of his followership of Jesus." will here be rejected. which are "beyond such mundane considerations. and was much more devoted to the traditions of our ancestors. of Paul's letter to the Galatians. Paul has renounced Judaism and no longer considers Christianity to be a sect of Judaism. and also. i.. In 1:14. then: historiographically. "how I persecuted without mercy the church of God and did my best to destroy it" (which brings into focus his view that Jews are hostile to Christianity—a theme that Paul reiterated in numerous contexts).

nor heard Him speak "from man by means of man" (thus belittling any competing claims to authority on the part of those. such as Paul's now-enemies the Jerusalem elders in the Jesus-sect of Jews. In 1:17. "nor did I go to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before me. Peter at about this time is described as having successfully 178 . "I did not consult any man in order to do this." In 1:15. he is claiming to have been chosen by God "even before I was born. who had known and lived with and spoken with. he reiterates his disrespect for them—thus also helping to set the reader up to accept his superiority to them in the coming disagreement. "I went to Jerusalem to get to know Peter [Cephas]." He is here reinforcing that even though he had never personally met Jesus." Given that he now felt this way about what he had previously done. By Paul's emphasizing that he had not even so much as consulted with these people. rather than having supposedly encountered Him in "a revelation. it is very likely that (unless he was now lying) he felt deep pangs of guilt about it." These are the same people that Paul is setting the readers up to be breaking away from in 2:11-14. the New Testament climax and birth of Paulianity. Paul reasserts that. and places the blame instead upon his having been "devoted to the Jewish religion" and "the traditions of our ancestors. he closes in on the coming issue." so as further to impress upon his readers that his authorization came from higher sources. In 1:16. He now allays that. he is implicitly referring back to 1:1. over years of intimate contact with Him)." and after this. 1:18 indicates that three years into his ministry. who raised Him from death.15: Paul's Detailed Account of Christianity's Split from Judaism without mercy the church of God" and done "my best to destroy it. Paul tells of his mission assigned by Them: "that I might preach of Jesus and proclaim Him as the Christ among the Gentiles. and I stayed with him for two weeks. by stating." referring here to the apostles (now Paul's own foes) who had actually met and intimately known and for years conversed with Jesus. But Paul now simply reinforces by implicit means a key point: that Paul was not speaking on behalf of those who had known and suffered along with Jesus but were still living and able to state from their own recollections what Jesus had actually said. Paul was nonetheless authorized on even better grounds—directly from God Himself and from the resurrected Jesus—to speak for and on behalf of Jesus. but from Jesus Christ and God the Father. to reassert that his letter comes "from Paul. whose call to be an apostle did not come from man by means of man. Jesus. Then." and is thus setting the reader up to accept his authority on a basis that only Jesus Himself had previously had with the reader." In Acts 10:34-11:18.

which show Paul meeting all of the elders. and Acts 21:21 forward. the speech by Peter in Acts 15:7-11—if that is the same occasion— constituted Paul's defense at this tribunal in the council of elders. according to Galatians 2:7. Paul received from James the qualified and tentative approval of his execution of his mission to the Gentiles. largely because Peter in 15:7-11 himself stood up for Paul's actions and policies. Paul himself did not get to speak there. God knows that I am not lying!" shows that. In Galatians 1:18. But at this stage in Galatians. which were no different than Peter's as Paul's predecessor had been in 11:2." but Peter managed at least temporarily to allay those concerns. "What I write is true. 1:19 states. Paul even standing up himself before them to present his case. and (11:2) "those who were in favor of circumcising Gentiles criticised him. the Lord's brother. including 179 . If Paul in Galatians 1:20 is referring to the same occasion as either or both of those. "I did not see any other apostle except James. there had evidently been a contrary account of some sort circulating. Paul could not have here been intending to contradict any account given in Acts. in any event. that it seems inconceivable that the passage of yet more time would be required in order for Paul's admission of uncircumcised males into the sect to produce the crisis reported (correctly or not. The likeliest prospect here is the evident contradiction with both Acts 9:26-30 and 15. both of which might actually refer to the same visit of Paul to Jerusalem. we don't know) in Acts 15. However. nor was he even present. This is quite likely it." Finally. that he spoke then only with Peter and James. 1:20. Peter has been reassigned "the task of preaching to the Jews". according to Paul's account. By this time. In the latter (15). Paul here meets the leader of the Jesus-sect of Judaism—the man who is ultimately to be his nemesis in 2:12. 2:1. it appears that Paul is finally coming to Jerusalem to receive acknowledgment and advice from his senior in his mission to the Gentiles. This might be the same visit to Jerusalem that is reported in Acts 9:26-30 and/or Acts 15. which had not yet been written. there is not yet a split between them. as of the time of this letter." indicates so very long a passage of time. By inference. the Acts account would have been based upon the contrary story then circulating that Paul was claiming not to be accurate. "Fourteen years later I went back to Jerusalem. then. Paul has now taken over Peter's former assignment. instead.15: Paul's Detailed Account of Christianity's Split from Judaism preached to the Gentiles. Now Peter is at least starting to feel the pressures from (circumcised) Jews to require all converts to Judaism to adhere to the Jewish faith. and in 15. he is saying that he did not.

laid down long before Moses." If this 180 . should go to Jerusalem and see the apostles and elders about this matter." also serves two goals. yet again. "God does not judge by outward appearances. and thus reinforces Paul's previously established disrespect for them. Paul was above such concerns. this passage of Acts is clearly of Gentile origin. according to Paul's own testimony. Barnabas. it was a Law of God. it raises the question in the reader's mind as to whether these people (who were soon to be his opponents) really were the leaders. versus (of course) faith (supposedly. First. Peter is probably experiencing inner conflict during this transition-phase. I say. there is a crisis brewing.'" (Actually. I explained the gospel message that I preach to the Gentiles. are nothing less than the failure or success of his mission. and some of the others in Antioch." Here is an incredibly revealing admission: the stakes now. no mere mortals. in Genesis.15: Paul's Detailed Account of Christianity's Split from Judaism circumcision." performs two functions. The great issue all along has been circumcision. second. "But those who seemed to be the leaders—I say this because it makes no difference to me what they really were. "Those leaders. with the "authentic" followers of God. (Also see Acts 15:1-5.) "Paul and Barnabas got into a fierce argument with them about this. so the schism with Peter is in the process of developing. 'You cannot be saved unless you are circumcised as the Law of Moses requires. which he has to resolve if he is to be able to continue his mission as a representative of the Jerusalem community. it again sets the reader up for the coming assault against judging by actions (here supposedly to be equated with "outward appearances"). "In a private meeting with the leaders." This is the great crisis. Circumcision is clearly the issue. it identifies Paul. obviously. The pressures coming from the two constituencies will shape and form the positions of their respective proponents. First. and with supreme subtlety. As Acts 15:1-3 was to put the matter. "Some men came from Judea to Antioch and started teaching the believers. 2:2 is hardly to be believed when Paul asserts "I went because God revealed to me that I should go". I did not want my work in the past or present to be a failure. made no new suggestions to me. But Peter's memory of the Gentile's objections is still fresh. inward reality).) 2:6. no longer from (uncircumcised) Gentiles refusing to be circumcised. the only one remaining. second. and so Paul was oblivious as to whether or not any given person was a "leader" in Jerusalem. 2:3-5 reports the scheming of his opponents to force Paul's Gentile companion to be circumcised. so it was decided that Paul. it restates by implication the point that Paul's own "leaders" were God and Christ. They were sent on their way by the church.

" This passage also informs us that Paul and Barnabas were equals within the organization. . on any grounds." and that therefore only the easier-tocomply-with commandments (dietary. Peter.. 2:6 is thus reinforced. Subsequent Christianity knows little of Barnabas. probably the Galatians already knew Barnabas to be at least Paul's equal—Paul was not one to downplay his own status." not only communicates that Paul had received the approval of his methods from the people that his readers had been accustomed to looking up to as their own religious leaders. ". "We were instructed . since Peter had far higher seniority than Paul.. and was likely one of the original 12 apostles and known to the Galatians as such. the leaders. .. as a sign that we were all partners. "For by God's power I was made an apostle to the uncircumcised. the Father and the Son. 2:7. just as Peter was made an apostle to the circumcised. 2:9. then Paul might here be referring to the Jerusalem leaders ultimately accepting (Acts 15:19) "that we should not trouble the Gentiles who are turning to God. It is also interesting here that Paul refers to Jews per se as "the circumcised. But 181 .15: Paul's Detailed Account of Christianity's Split from Judaism encounter is the same one reported in Acts 15. .) should be enforced upon the Gentile converts. . such as his now-enemies James and the other elders. .." reasserts that Paul's authority was granted not by mere men. recognized that God has given me this special task" reinforces yet again that Paul's own authority comes from God Himself rather than from Paul's merely mortal enemies. and that each of the two groups within the sect seems to have been preached different gospels." which the Galatian Christians probably assumed anyway. within the sect he had clearly never been. and John. but instead directly by God. "James. "We agreed that Barnabas and I would work among the Gentiles and they among the Jews." thus yet again implicitly denying what is clearly the fact that the Jerusalem elders were his "leaders. . ." very subtly boosts Paul's status yet again: instead of Paul's saying here. it also makes Paul the "partner" of these individuals "who seemed to be the leaders" (2:6 & 2:9).". "On the contrary. and only one epistle is attributed to him in the apocrypha." Paul opens with "We agreed . who seemed to be the leaders" again raises doubt for the Galatian Christians as to whether this triumvirate really were what they were reputed to be—namely. just as He had given Peter the task of preaching the gospel for the circumcised. so they shook hands with Barnabas and me." and to Gentiles as "the uncircumcised". . he has nothing in the canon. 2:8. etc. "." presents Paul as equal in status to Peter—which. they saw that God had given me the task of preaching the gospel for the uncircumcised.

(Nonetheless. its mood changes from one of cooperation to one of fierce hostility and war..) What we are told here is that James and the other elders decided. but that (Acts 15:19) "we should impose no irksome requirements upon those of the Gentiles who are turning toward God. but clearly not the "irksome requirement" as Acts 15:19 put it. and that Paul's Gentile converts were freed totally from Jewish Law or Covenant. it seems reasonable to assume here that if Acts 15:19-29 is truthful and Gal. Paul's account of the agreement that was reached is at variance with Acts." or in other words. "All they asked was that we should remember the needy in their group. By contrast. Thus. 2:7 and 2:8—the equation of "the circumcised" with "the Jews. Paul is claiming that the Jerusalem community had capitulated totally. Thus far. there is no friction. then. which is the very thing I have been eager to do. at least for the time being." and of "the uncircumcised" with "the Gentiles". he accepted the food and sexual laws. we've no way of knowing independently of Paul and his followers. from this point on. is dubious. as the last boxed item at the end of Part II.. however.) ". as well as to the food-law of Exodus 34:15 against eating food (meat) that has been sacrificed (slaughtered) in worship of idols. and those sources are not to be trusted on this. there is a very sudden transformation in the tone of Paul's account: without explanation. The likeliest explanation is 182 . (The latter. according to Paul's account here. this is probably instead the event in 15—but still. thus again focussing on circumcision as the central issue.15: Paul's Detailed Account of Christianity's Split from Judaism it is possible that Paul was not even the leading evangelist to the Gentiles within the sect. that these converts need not go under the knife. to adhere to none of the Covenant. and they to the circumcised" repeats the respective assignments. in any case. However. on "What Kind of A Man Was Paul?" explains. that he had been imposing upon his converts at least Leviticus 18 and Exodus 34:15. Paul's Gentile converts would be required. and notably employs again—as in 2:3. not to prohibit Paul from accepting into the sect uncircumcised males. to impose upon his Gentile converts anything that he opposed." contrasts strikingly with both Acts 15:23-9 and 21:25. Acts did inadvertently let slip in a strong piece of evidence that Barnabas was actually Paul's superior in the mission to the Gentiles. 2:10 is false. since it doesn't even address the question of circumcision that had been raised in 21:21 as the only violation of Jewish Law that had been mentioned specifically as a charge against Paul. Paul himself elsewhere informs us in J Corinthians 5. that we should go to the Gentiles. 2:10. Acts 15:20&29 says that Paul's Gentile converts must adhere to the food and sexual laws of Leviticus 17 and 18. Paul was probably not being required. 8 and 10.

" the threat of those who were demanding Paul's Gentile companion to be circumcised was starkly cast. "I did not want my work in the past or in the present to be a failure. say. part of that reading is necessarily of the translation itself. It is a moment of very mixed emotions for the founder of "Christianity. given 2:2-5. Peter "drew back and would not eat with the Gentiles. and Paul opposes him in public. because he was afraid of those who were in favor of circumcising them. the debate within the Jerusalem community continues. in 2:12. in any event. The event described here is nothing less than the birth of Christianity. Paul wrote in ancient Greek. to Jesus' own Aramaic tongue." who were clearly identical to the "men who had been sent by James. for which he felt embarrassed." as a result of which. dominant among the Jewish poor). 2:11-16 comprises Paul's account of the climactic break with the Jerusalem community of Jesus-followers. one of the two languages (the other being Latin) of his era's power-elite with whom Paul personally identified (as opposed.") A FINE POINT OF TRANSLATION When we read Paul (or any other translated source for that matter)." then see the next box on "A Fine Point of Translation. James clearly changes his mind. its separation from Judaism." because he knew that he was violating the instructions of Jesus' own religious organization. and sends agents to Paul to instruct him that he must no longer accept the uncircumcised. 2:12 represents Paul's account of a turning point in his life: the moment at which he gave up on Jesus' Jewish sect and set forth to found his own faith worshipping Jesus Himself. Here we shall explore the single biggest translation-problem in the New Testament. And when in 2:4 Paul went so far as to charge.15: Paul's Detailed Account of Christianity's Split from Judaism that Paul is skipping a key intervening event: after Paul returns to Antioch. Gal. However. about a subject that is unnamed. Peter is at first portrayed here as accepting of Paul's uncircumcised Gentile converts." (If your Bible happens to be one of those that mistranslates this passage to have Peter here fearing not proponents of circumcision but instead anyone who happens to be Jewish or "circumcised. For unexplained reasons." 2:3 makes clear that the conflict was about circumcision. But then. there can be little doubt as to what it had been that drove Paul to demand. yet he was also pioneering a new religious movement that he was convinced stood a far better chance than Jesus' own did of enshrining Jesus' name in the hearts and minds of billions of —continued— 183 . "some men who had been sent by James arrived. "They wanted to make slaves of us. Peter comes to Antioch. which concerns a phrase at the end of Galatians 2:12.

15: Paul's Detailed Account of Christianity's Split from Judaism people in future generations, and for this he felt immensely proud. Consequently, Paul's conflicted emotions about this momentous event produced from Paul an ambiguous expression to describe it; and, as a result, bible-translations of this key passage vary significantly in their meaning. The biggest variance concerns the meaning of the end-part of 2:12, in which the Greek original can in a somewhat generic sense be said to refer to Peter's fear of the party of circumcision, which could possibly be interpreted either as fear of the circumcised ones, namely of the Jews; or else as fear of the proponents of circumcision, irrespective of whether such individuals might happen to have been Jews or rather Gentiles. In other words, Paul's phraseology here is ambiguous as to whether Peter was afraid of a group (the group from James) on account of whom they were (namely Jews), or rather on account of what they were advocating (namely circumcision). Although the context (e.g., Gal. 2:3 & 3:6-10 & 5:2-7; Acts 15:1-3 & 15:19; etc.) indicates clearly that proponents of circumcision, not mere Jews themselves, were the adversaries in this climactic incident, Paul refrained in Gal. 2:12 to employ words that would nail that meaning down. This has given scholars an opportunity to avoid dealing with the reality that Paul is referring to here. This opportunity was enhanced by Paul's passing reference in 2:12 to Peter's having been dining with Paul's Gentile followers, so that one could conceivably interpret the cause of this tumult to have been the Jewish dietary laws: Peter might have backed away from the table because James' men had caught him dining at an un-kosher table, not because Peter's dining-companions had not been circumcised. This changes the meaning of the entire passage, and scholars have overwhelmingly chosen this interpretation; but how likely is it to be true? Extremely unlikely. Here is why: According to Paul's own account (Gal. 2:10), the Jerusalem sect of Jesus-followers demanded of Paul only that he keep in mind the poor among the Jerusalem community of Jesus-followers—not that Paul's group adhere to any of the laws of the Jewish Covenant, neither the dietary laws, nor the circumcisionlaw, nor any other. And according to Acts 15:29, the Jerusalem sect required Paul's followers to adhere only to the dietary and sexual laws, but (considering 15:19) to permit violating the circumcision-law. Thus, according to both accounts, the standard scholars' interpretation of Gal. 2:12 makes no sense: if Peter was dining un-kosher, then that would not have been an issue in violation of Gal. 2:10, but only James ' change of mind on this would have been—but Paul says nothing of that. And according to Acts 15:29, while it certainly would have been an issue—of Paul's having violated his promise to the Jerusalem-sect elders—this would not have been at all an issue of Peter's "cowardice" such as Paul is charging in Gal. 2:13; such a charge of cowardice can make sense —continued— 184

15: Paul's Detailed Account of Christianity's Split from Judaism only on the basis of Peter's now siding with the agents who came from James to report James' change of mind on the circumcision-issue: Paul would have felt furious at Peter (who had participated in James' prior decision favoring the relaxation of the circumcision-requirement for Paul's followers) for so suddenly siding with a view that Peter hadn't favored even when he himself (Acts 11:2) was proselytizing to Gentiles. In the full context it becomes clear why Paul is outraged at Peter here. Further evidence that circumcision was the issue here is that throughout Gal. 2:2-9, "the uncircumcised" is synonymous with "Gentiles," and "the circumcised" is synonymous with "Jews"—not with "those who dine kosher" (or etc.). Some (but by no means all) of the standard Bible-translations reflect this studied obtuseness of the scholars. For example, the King James, New Catholic Edition, New American Bible for Catholics, New Jerusalem Bible, New Century Version, Contemporary English Version, and Revised English Bible, all present Peter (who himself was a circumcised Jew) in Gal. 2:12 as fearing simply Jews, not fearing advocates of circumcision. The New International Version is thoroughly ambiguous on this point— undecided as to what Paul is saying here. The Revised Standard Version, New Revised Standard Version, and Amplified Bible, tilt in the direction of Peter's fearing advocates of circumcision, not Jews per se. And admirably, the New English Bible, Good News or Today's English Bible, and Jerusalem Bible, all get the meaning right here: they portray Peter as fearing proponents of circumcision, not Jews per se as an anti-Semite. The standard, old, directly anti-Semitic, interpretation of this passage (as also of Titus 1:10 and Acts 11:2), is simply false. Paul's followers are indicated in Gal. 2:11-4 to be violating the Covenant; the issue is merely which law they are violating. And regardless the answer to that, this passage describes the founding of "Christianity."

This is the explosive moment at which the Christian religion entered the world. Paul had first been introduced to Peter 14 years earlier as his own elder in the very same mission to convert Gentiles to this Jewish sect, and as one who (according to Acts 11:2) had back then himself accepted the same practises as Paul did now. Furthermore (again according to Acts, later, 15:7-12), this same Peter had himself defended Paul's practises in this very same regard. So it is understandable now why Paul would be calling Peter a "coward, ... and even Barnabas was swept along by their cowardly action." The "men who had been sent by James" were finally laying down the gauntlet to Paul, and demanding that his following of uncircumcised adult male Gentiles were either going to have to go under the knife, or else get out of the sect. If you try to place yourself in Paul's 185

15: Paul's Detailed Account of Christianity's Split from Judaism shoes, you will probably feel them pinch so tightly as to break your feet. Paul removed them. He was faced with either continuing a very "successful" mission, and enjoying the fellowship of followers whom he no doubt had grown to love, and who had looked up to and come to love if not to worship him; or else hewing to what every indication is had been the strict and unyielding teachings of Jesus himself, and failing. He chose the former. Paul chose "success." Years earlier, when Paul was still trying to work within the Jesus-sect, and before he was forced to make his choice between Jesus and "success," Paul had put the matter this way, in 1 Corinthians 9:22-25: "I have become all things to all men, so that by all possible means I might save some. I do this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings. Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one gets the prize? Run in such a way as to get the prize. Everyone who competes in the game undergoes strict training. They do it to win a crown that will not last. We, however, compete to win a crown that will last forever." Paul competed to win; he won. His prize has lasted for 2,000 years, and still counting. Now, Paul had to find a "justification" for what he had done. That is the rest of his mission, starting with 2:16: "A person is put right with God only through faith in Jesus Christ, never by doing what the Law requires," and going on 3:1-10, and in Romans 2:25-9 & 3:20-4:13, as well as elsewhere. Unlike the Jewish dietary laws, which were also a problem that was prominently mentioned as having been raised with regards to the missions to the Gentiles, the circumcision of adult males was a mortal threat in an era without antibiotics, and a living terror in an age without anaesthesia. It was the kind of issue that could very well tear this Jewish sect apart; and it did so. This is revealed unambiguously in the key phrase in 2:2, "I did not want my work in the past or in the present to be a failure." It is furthermore unambiguously and emphatically reiterated in 5:2-3: "Listen! I, Paul, tell you that if you allow yourselves to be circumcised, it means that Christ is of no use to you at all. Once more I warn any man who allows himself to be circumcised that he is obliged to obey the whole Law." With that, Paul explains why, in 2:2, the success or failure of his whole life's work is at stake in the circumcision-issue. Clearly, it was not the kosher laws that were behind the blowup in 2:12: Peter did not want to be seen dining with Paul's uncircumcised "converts." We can even go further to reconstruct the precise nature of the event that had precipitated Paul's writing this letter to the Galatians: this is 186

15: Paul's Detailed Account of Christianity's Split from Judaism revealed in 5:1-12, in which Paul warns the Galatian Christians of dire consequences "if you allow yourselves to be circumcised," then reminds them, "You were doing so well!" and asks them, "Who made you stop obeying the truth?" and concludes of those persons, "Let them go and castrate themselves!" which is one of Paul's strongest expressions of hate against the Jerusalem elders. It is clear from this that the Galatian community had presented Paul with the very real danger of its blowing apart on account of one or more of its Gentile members having accepted the Jerusalem elders' command to be circumcised. Once one follows, others who have not done so are faced with the necessity to decide whether it is that person, or rather they themselves, who are following the true Christian path. That is a prescription for the breakup of the community. Paul's stand on this issue was clear; if the Galatians had not gone along with it, he would have lost them. That is what had precipitated this letter. It was outright war against the Jewish Covenant. As Paul put the matter in 5:4, "Those of us who try to be put right with God by obeying the Law have cut yourselves off from Christ. You are outside God's grace." And now we also know why Paul had opened his letter to the Galatians the way he did: first, he claimed an authority to speak for Jesus that was higher than the authority of the Jerusalem elders who had ordered these people to be circumcised; then (1:6), he warned them that "by accepting another gospel," they would lose "the grace of Christ"; and, following that (1:13 onward), he detailed his own Jewish credentials and how hostile to the faith that all Christians share the Jewish faith is. He was, right from the letter's start, trying to convince his readers that he, Paul, knew Judaism as well as anyone, and that they could take his word for it that circumcision was not required, and that the Jerusalem elders were their enemies and that that is why those people demanded circumcision. Scholars cannot, and really do not try to, explain what occasioned this letter of Paul, what shaped it, and what its message was intended to be for its readers in the context of that occasion. But all these things are right there in the letter itself, for anyone who really wants to understand them. However, in order to read these things from it, one must read the letter as a document for scientific analysis, as an object of nature; not as a document for religious analysis, as an object of "the supernatural." The difference is like that between night and day. Why, then, does history not record that Paul's Jerusalem enemies ejected him from the Jesus-sect? The obvious reason is that Paul's followers succeeded in becoming the "Christianity" that we today know as such. However, there may well be another important reason: it is unlikely that 187

15: Paul's Detailed Account of Christianity's Split from Judaism Paul was ejected, for that would have meant ejecting also his thousands of followers as not true followers of the Jesus-sect. That could have meant ejecting a large portion of the sect's own "success." It is hard for any organization to fire its "best" salesperson and say to his customers, "Here's your money back; your salesman cheated you; he misrepresented the product; it's not what he said it is." And although the real "currency" that measures success in an evangelical organization is increase in the numbers of believers, money itself helps crucially in that; and Paul's mission (since it was directed at converting those who possessed money and power) was also valuable because it was bringing into the sect a much wealthier class of believers: Romans 15:27 states, "the Gentiles ought to use their material blessings to help the Jews," right after acknowledging in 15:26 the need "to help the poor among God's people in Jerusalem"; and 2 Cor. 8:13 says, "since you have plenty at this time, it is only fair that you help those in need." Therefore, quite possibly the events spoken of in Acts 21:21 forward, were viewed in an essentially passive way by the Jesus-sect elders; that they simply could not bring themselves publicly to repudiate this man Paul, even though he was so reviled by their own followers. Further indication of this is that Acts itself makes no reference at all to the event that Paul in Gal. 2:11-14 describes first-hand, the key moment in which Christianity was created, the moment when it broke away from being a sect of Judaism and became a new religion with its own new covenant. Acts 21:25 even, in effect, denies that the event occurred: it presents Paul, upon this subsequent trip to Jerusalem, as still being under the same requirement regarding Gentile converts as had been imposed upon his mission by James' letter printed in Acts 15:23-29, requiring that these converts adhere only to the sexual and dietary laws, but permitting their violation of the circumcision-law. This denies James' change-of-instructions on this that Paul reports in Gal. 2:11-14. If Paul had been outright expelled from Jesus' religious organization, then that fact would have been widely known throughout all the congregations; even after Paul's death, when Acts was almost certainly written, it would have been very publicly known that 21:25 was false and that Paul's instructions had been changed. Luke wouldn't have been able to get away with a falsehood like that. The fact that he was able to do so when he was writing those many decades later, means that Paul had not been expelled. Furthermore, if Paul had been officially expelled, then James would have circulated to all congregations a letter announcing the fact; all followers of the Jesus-sect would have known not to trust the account that Acts later memorialized. But that was not the case. The only way that Acts would have been able to pass off its omissions and falsehoods regarding 188

15: Paul's Detailed Account of Christianity's Split from Judaism these matters, is if the Jesus sect, acting through its leader James, failed to expel Paul for Paul's disobedience of their instructions to him. And it is tragically obvious why he might not have been expelled. That sect, in any event, died out; perhaps it was crushed by the Romans. Christianity, in fact and not only in name as in Acts 11:26, started in Antioch (present-day Antakya in Turkey, near the northeastern tip of the Mediterranean), at Paul's headquarters, at around 50 A.D.; not in and around Jerusalem during the lifetime of Jesus. It was Paul's followers and religious organization, not Jesus', who carried the Jesus-torch forward into the future, even if this would entail their using it to bludgeon the very people, Jews, that Jesus himself had been trying to save. Paul conquered Rome (posthumously after the Emperor Constantine legalized Christianity), by joining Rome in conquering the religious organization that had been founded by Jesus. The first step in Rome's conquest of the Jesus-sect was the crucifixion of Jesus; the second was the sacking of Jerusalem about 40 years later in 70 A.D., which apparently decimated this Jewish sect, destroying the surviving apostles and the leadership-structure, and left Paul's renegade faction of anti-Jesus "Christians" unopposed carrying the "Christian" torch forward into the future as the Roman Catholic Church and the subsequent numerous "Christian" churches, all constituting the "Christianity" known today, which was the third and final step that completed the work that the crucifixion began. Paul's followers who wrote the Gospels went far beyond Paul in providing detail to the myth of Paul's own 1 Thessalonians 2:14-5 and Galatians 6:12, that "the Jews" crucified Christ; this was just a single event, and the public had no way to know its details, and so virtually anything that the Gospel writers wrote about it would have been believable if it included such basics as the "King of the Jews" charge and the crucifixion— things that were then sufficiently common knowledge that they could not in that era have been explicitly denied. Likewise, what Jesus Himself preached, and especially his core message, were too well known then to place Paul's core message into Jesus' mouth, and they did not do so. The only constraint was that such lies in their accounts would have immediately discredited them. This is why Paul's small-"g" gospel of salvation by faith alone (and God's grace) as the core of the message of "Christ," did not end up in "Christ's" mouth. The Gospel writers went as far as they could in Paulifying "Christ"—but there were limits.

189

16: Christianity's War Against Judaism

Acts 21:21 forward portrays Paul as the subject of Jewish riots against him over Paul's preachments and policies regarding circumcision and the Covenant. This general thrust of Acts can probably be believed; these were highly public—even mass—events, so that if they had not occurred then Acts' pure invention of them would have been widely recognized even in Luke's era. Furthermore, given that Paul had been preaching that the Jewish Covenant had been terminated by God, so that the religion these people believed in and practised was now mere "garbage" (or "refuse," or "excrement," according to Philippians 3:8), it is certainly understandable that Paul would elicit riots from Jews. And what Acts describes here is nothing less than a state of war between Paul and the Jews—not just the Christian sect of Jews; all Jews. Paul was fortunate enough to survive these riots and escape; but his hatred of Jews and of Judaism— both Jesus-followers and not (e.g., 1 Thessalonians 2:15-6, Galatians 6:12, 2 Corinthians 11:13-23, and Philippians 3:2&8)—can only have been increased thereby. And this hatred also freed him to go all-out to win the Romans and thus ultimately the entire Empire, by absolving the Roman regime of the crucifixion and pinning the Deicide upon Paul's own enemies, "the Jews." The only highwire routine he had to worry about from now on was (as in Romans 9-11) keeping the few Jews who were in his congregations. But the anti-Semitic die was cast. According to many scholars, 1 Thessalonians was the earliest written of all Paul's epistles, and the earliest of all the books of the New 190

that circumcision is not required. expressed in 1 Thessalonians 2:16.. at around 400 A. And. And that is how it came to be that Christianity emerged as the religion that we know today—a religion for example. It is obligatory for all Christians to hate the Jews. How displeasing they are to God! They are the enemies of all Mankind! They even tried to stop us from preaching to the Gentiles the message that would bring them salvation. John Chrysostom: "God always hated the Jews. the common term for "Christ" was "Chrest. the expulsion of the Jews from Rome at around 49 A.D. and persecuted us. which itself occurred immediately after Paul had defended his practises to the Jesus-sect elders at the council in Jerusalem.) 1 Thessalonians was quite possibly written shortly after the event that is described in Galatians 2:11-6—the creation of the "Christian" faith. All this time they have been filling their guilt to the fullest. referred to "the Jews." saying that they were the ones "who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets. Romans 13:1-4) that political rulers are God's agents on Earth carrying out God's divine justice.D. the delegation to Antioch headed by Peter and sent by James." probably referred to this Jewish expulsion from the imperial capital." At that time. It thus is quite understandable that 1 Thessalonians might contain Paul's first rabidly antiSemitic outburst—which it did. (I believe that 1 Corinthians contains parts of a letter that Paul probably wrote even earlier. and now God's retribution has at last come down upon them!" In Paul's view. and was probably heightened by Paul's knowledge that all Jews in Rome were suffering on account of only the Jesus-sect Jews. whom Paul especially hated. Suetonius says that Claudius carried out this expulsion out of fear of commotions that were caused specifically by the Jewish followers of "Chrestus.16: Christianity's War Against Judaism Testament. Thus." and his followers were known as "Chrestians". in which its great saints.g. "Chrestus" was almost surely Christ. in keeping with Paul's repeatedly expressed belief (e. set the following ideal of what it means to be a "model Christian. by the Emperor Claudius that is recounted both in Acts 18:2 and in the 25th chapter of Suetonius' biography of that ruler." 191 . ordering that all of Paul's adult male Gentile converts must be circumcised..e. in 2:15-6.. it would appear that Paul's gloating at the misfortunes of Jews. was a clear demonstration that "They even tried to stop us from preaching to the Gentiles the message that would bring them salvation"—i. it seems that Paul is here probably interpreting as an example of precisely such divine justice." as recounted on pages 78-80 of Grosser and Halperin's 1976 Anti-Semitism: St. "and now God's retribution has at last come down upon them.

is not even listed among the traditional "7 Sins"). 192 . Ambrose: "I hereby declare that I set fire to the synagogue. who sells the Lord for silver. including Naziism. but that was the condition: only followers of Paulianity were "God's people. These things have happened to you in fairness and justice. and from us. "Christianity" itself was anti-Semitic. .. even those (such as Justin) who (just as Paul himself had done) attempted (as in 1 Cor. The Jew will forever bear the guilt for the death of Jesus. the world has ever since borne the consequences. so that you may be made to suffer that which you now justly suffer. which absorbed so much of Christianity. Justin (or Justin Martyr) addressing his enemy in Ch. All of these writers were followers of the tradition started by Paul. inserting it into the beliefs of additional billions of Mankind. For the circumcision according to the flesh. that your land may be made desolate and your cities set aflame. this had been so institutionalized that it was no longer even necessary to mention Paul's name as authority for it. by Justin's time." All these saints of "Christianity" were actually saints of Paulianity." and so to be accepting of any Jew who capitulated to Paul's new covenant and became a Christian." St. and venerated as such by believers in the faith." In fact. and even Marxism (see Appendix 2B). Augustine: "The true image of the Hebrew is Judas." the men who wrote these hateful things were not sinners (bigotry of any kind. 9:22-25 & 10:33) to "become all things to all men.. for you have slain the Lord. And perhaps for the future the grandest outcome of all being Islam. And thus. Paul's war was now the war of "Jesus Christ. by official status beatified upon them by "Christianity. Jerome: "Jews are congenital liars. but also on a more-modest scale. there appeared the following from St.16: Christianity's War Against Judaism St. Yet these "saints" libeled and provoked the destruction of Jesus' own people. was given in order to mark you. to separate you from other people. which is from Abraham." St. within even less than a single century from Paul's own time. Strange to say. of widely diverse kinds." In fact. every Christian church and ritual observance. they were "saints. as perhaps the two biggest examples. Paul's doctrines had become the doctrines of "Jesus" Himself. while strangers eat your fruit before your own eyes." canonized by the Church as models of virtue. 16 of his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew. in fact.

and to cut his umbilical cord.16: Christianity's War Against Judaism We all live in the wake of Paul's choice. p." So. as Paul himself explained in Galatians 3:23-5 and Romans 7:6 & 9:31-10:12. Similarly.. and the new people of God. 136) of Philippians 3:5-8 which Paul concludes by calling Judaism "garbage"—or. He does not say that he wishes other Jews to do the same. Paul once had the former and has shifted to the latter." as Paul expressed in Gal. from the law (in the sense of the covenant) or from the faithfulness of Christ. Gaston's exegesis (p. "For the goal of the law. But scholars persist. the Covenant. Paul made the opposite clear (as in the places just cited). 14: "Paul's quarrel with his fellow Jews is never about Judaism as such but rather about a Jewish understanding of Gentiles") is by blatant falsehood. he was. "outside God's grace. in Galatians 2:16.g. following Gaston. other scholars build upon Gaston's own and other brands of—again using Gaston's term of praise—such scholarly "excrement. they worship Paul of Tarsus' fantasy of a man he never met. 5:4 and explained in Romans 3:23-4. in effect. His was the new covenant. the meaning is not only to praise but to praise as one among only two pathways to God and to salvation." as John Gager does in the concluding part of his 1983 The Origins of Anti-Semitism. don't actually worship Jesus of Nazareth." Then. as with Romans 10:4." which still leaves nonbelievers in the Jesus-Messiah. is righteousness of God for every believer. and Paul wasn't intending to claim his "Christianity" to be any superior to that "excrement. 130) as. When Gaston comes to key passages that disprove his thesis. declaring war. even worse in Gaston's own translation: "excrement"—inexplicably interprets as: "It seems that it is possible to have a status of righteousness from either of two sources. was by that individual's capitulating to Paul's new covenant. even when Paul calls Judaism by a formal nine-letter version of a certain common four-letter Word. arguing that Paul himself had nothing to do with it other than unfortunately being 193 . in turn. normally translated as saying that the Jewish Covenant has been brought to an end by Christ—and thus that "Paul's quarrel" is indeed "about Judaism as such"—but which Gaston retranslates (p. The only way a scholar like Lloyd Gaston in his 1987 Paul and the Torah can deny this (e. Paul's choice was decisive for all history: at the very moment. tying him to Judaism and to all unconverted Jews. Christ. the only basis now upon which he could accept anyone born a Jew. both of which Gaston's "Paul" contradicts. including Jewish non-believers. And many millions have been forced to die in its wake. when Paul chose to go his own way. And that is how it came to be that the people who today consider themselves to be Christians. he simply elides the contradiction.

But no re-writing of history was needed in order to show this: the history was written by Paul himself. "the ones who want to show off and boast about external matters. and other deniers or apologists of its origins airbrush the image of Paul. and of the other Jews who demanded that circumcision be done: "Watch out for those who do evil things. however. It's all re-writing history." It is an outpouring of hatred.16: Christianity's War Against Judaism misunderstood by others. According to both Galatians and Acts. for we worship God by means of his Spirit. In any case. and the 194 . According to this analysis of the origins of "Christianity. who had finally laid down the gauntlet." calling them. only so that they may not be persecuted for the cross of Christ". it was Jesus' own brother. that Paul rejected the circumcision-law because Paul rejected the Jewish Covenant. Robert Faurisson. enforced the Covenant. circumcision was the last issue to be resolved. and other deniers or apologists of the Holocaust air-brush the image of Hitler. and forced Paul to make a choice between "success" and Jesus. Of course." meaning Jesus' own brother James. the only thing that might be questioned is whether it was primarily the circumcision-issue or that of the dietary and sexual laws. who have received the true circumcision. and let the scholars read each other. saying of him. and we have shown that instead Paul rejected the Jewish Covenant because he rejected the circumcision-law. And Galatians itself closes with a peroration. There can be no question but that this is indicated in the Scriptures themselves." and of course especially against "the people who are trying to force you to be circumcised. scholars will say that it is this that is the re-writing of history. that precipitated the crisis. Just as David Irving. as Paul rewrote Jesus and others re-write the Holocaust. We'd rather let history speak for itself. They re-write Paul. he buried it in his epistles because he wrote so early that he implicitly had to acknowledge it. It is we. We merely unearthed it. too. the head of the Jesus-sect. those men who insist on cutting the body. those dogs. we'll stick with reading Paul. They do it. in Paul's letter to the Philippians 3:2-9. In fact. thereby indicating that the myth that the crucifixion of Jesus had been done for Jewish rather than for Roman purposes is already part of Paul's ideological armamentarium against "the Jews." Paul's enemy was James above all else. so. That hoax has here been exposed. 6:12-17. Krister Stendahl. against "the people who are trying to force you to be circumcised. do Lloyd Gaston. not they. Paul is simply livid at James over this matter. Scholars insist on accepting Paul's line. and in both accounts it precipitated intense conflicts when it finally was. because this re-writes their "history" that propagandizes Paul's legitimacy and that sustains Paul's hoax.

They include materials mixed together from various stages along Paul's road to schism. which take precedence over any pretenses toward 195 . so central to Hitler's formulating the Holocaust. he boasts himself (2 Cor. only here Paul recites it in the third person (switching it to first person in 12:7). turning away not only from Judaism. Jesus had been the anchor. Finally. and makes the shocking admission that "1 do not know whether this actually happened. here is the precursor to the writing of John 8:44. is here accusing of Jesus' crucifixion. as John 8:44 also describes the crucifiers of Jesus. I believe that the evidence in favor of circumcision as the issue that split Christianity off from Judaism is overwhelming. identifying these "false apostles"—who. at least three letters are parsed into the two. and parts (like 2 3:5-9 & 11:13-15) were late period. these were the first two historical occurrences of the Deicide-charge against the Jews. "Those men are not true apostles—they are false apostles. 12:1-6) about his own "revelation" from the risen Jesus. but from Jesus himself. It is too devastating to their own religious commitments. just as Paul does in Galatians. unlike Galatians. are liars representing Satan—as being Jewish Christians. James himself also did. And they "boast" (11:18&21&30). 2 Cor. but what cannot be questioned at all reasonably is that these are the passages within the New Testament that describe the true foundations of Christianity. James' people emerged as representatives of Satan. who lie about their work and disguise themselves to look like real apostles of Christ. elsewhere made this key anti-Semitic charge." Parts of the Corinthian letters (like 1 7:19) were early. including all members still living from amongst the original 12 apostles—all of whom this man Paul.16: Christianity's War Against Judaism rest of the Jerusalem Jesus-sect community. parts (like 2 12:1-7) were middle. continues 11:22 forward. they are Pauline pastiches. in 1 Thessalonians 2:15. Paul cut it loose and set sail with no anchor into the Roman-Empire sea. (Paul had also. In the beginning—like 1 10:33." Now the emissaries from James represent the devil.) Can there then really be any doubt that Paul is accusing the authorized representatives of these very same elders in the sect when he also warns in 2 Corinthians 11:13-15. no wonder! Even Satan can disguise himself to look like an angel of light! So it is no great thing if his servants disguise themselves to look like servants of righteousness. As schism came near. About what do they boast—perhaps that they had gotten their commissions from Jesus himself? So. who never even knew Jesus. And this necessarily entails a reading of the New Testament as anti-Semitic propaganda. "I try to please everyone in all that I do"—he tried to please both Jews and Gentiles. Scholars ignore this evidence. Well.

and we now have the myth of Mat. by the time that Paul's followers were writing the four Gospels. right away." he is reminding them of the dangers of the medical operation to their physical safety in an era prior to the advent of antibiotics. when Paul warns his adult male Gentile followers that. with Jesus appointing as his successor Peter. 16:18. Above all. those dogs. or are both groups the same? A likely outcome of such origins to "Christianity" would be also a turning away from Jesus' own family. everyone would have known that it was not just false but ludicrous. quite another when scholars do. scholars. the Jesusestablished organization of Jesus' followers. It's one thing when theologians do this. and was—as we have just noted. After Paul's followers having placed words into Jesus' mouth naming Peter as his agent—which. 2:12 as being about the Jewish dietary (kosher) laws. Peter was Paul's own immediate predecessor as the chief evangelist to the Gentiles. even though all that we know about the agents "who came from James" is that they were "advocates of circumcision. But this enables the scholars to say that Paul's enemies were "Judaizers. Scholars invent a term to refer to the Jesus-sect of Jews.16: Christianity's War Against Judaism a scientific commitment—a distant second-place finisher. whom Paul had joined and then subsequently overthrown and replaced: "Judaizers. not James—and who was Peter? According to Paul. James has been written even out of that capacity. Paul made that mission the core of his new church." James is presented as the discredited original leader of the Jesus-sect after Jesus' own death." They virtually put the term into Paul's mouth. 196 . Throughout the writings of Paul as the earliest known artifacts of what we now know as "Christianity. if even that. James now became a non-person. that circumcision was so important. against vast evidence to the contrary. For example. it's not in any of his letters. and also to Acts. Scholars are willfully blind. whose function is to hide history and distort it. spread amply in Acts and the epistles." (See previous box for the evidence. "you will be safer" to "beware of those evil ones. who insist on cutting the body" or "mutilating the flesh" by "circumcision. not about circumcision. not to represent—much less explain—it accurately. they simply don't want to see the evidence. What they actually were is simply the followers of Jesus. he was even tarred with the charge of having participated in Jesus' crucifixion. insist on seeing Gal." or "Judaizing Christians." rather than Jews. because if he had used this term (or phrase) in his own time. But we are not. That's the scholars' word-game. Jesus' brother James would be repudiated. Clearly.) Scholars also choose not even to see the possibility that in Philippians 3:1-3.

whoever loves his son or daughter more than he loves me is not fit to be my disciple. about Jesus' other relatives? Did Paul and his followers follow through with them as well—with Mary. because everything that is authentically known about the historical Jesus. asking for Him. I came to set sons against their fathers. 'Who is my mother? Who are my brothers?' He looked at the people sitting around Him and said. "I will give you the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. '"My mother and brothers are those who hear the Word of God and obey it.'" Are these authentic quotes from Jesus? The indications are that the "not peace but a sword" probably is. 3:31-5 has Jesus. then. I did not come to bring peace. James. Jesus is instead quoted here. but the precise object of Jesus' opposition here is highly unlikely. 'Look! Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does what God wants him to do is my brother. grateful. and they want you. and even some strong statements that 197 . It was a religious coup d'etat with a flourish.) Let's see: Mark 3:21 has Jesus being "taken charge of by "his family" when trying to start his ministry. in fact (thanks to his admiring.'" In Luke 8:21. Whoever loves his father or mother more than he loves me is not fit to be my disciple. the second Pope in his own new church. and they said to Him. and what you permit on earth will be permitted in heaven. repudiating his family: "Then Jesus' mother and brothers arrived. he was. and with Jesus' other brothers? (Any of his sisters who were not legitimate mothers would have been non-persons in the culture anyway. daughters against their mothers." Paul was now not only Peter's successor in the Jewish sect's mission to the Gentiles. my sister. What.' Jesus answered. in essence. my mother. 'Look. They stood outside the house and sent in a message. No. what you prohibit on earth will be prohibited in heaven. for example. a man's worst enemies will be the members of his own family.'" clearly implying that Jesus' own "blood" (Hitler's "the Jews") did not. A crowd was sitting around Jesus.16: Christianity's War Against Judaism if they had been true. but a sword. 16:19 has Jesus telling Peter. would have meant that James would not have been Peter's superior in command within the sect after Jesus' death. Matthew 10:34-37 could not be clearer on this score: '"Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the world. Paul was retrospectively handed "keys" that even Jesus' authentic agent. and dutiful followers). daughters-in-law against their mothers-in-law. had never possessed. which even Acts and Paul's own letters acknowledge James to have been—they had Jesus empower Peter in a way that only God's agent over Mankind could possibly be: Mat. essentially. your mother and your brothers and sisters are outside.

e. with himself." Bauckham established beyond any reasonable doubt that not only James. the coup d'etat by means of which Paul managed ultimately to replace James the brother of Jesus. ." who just might possibly be the Mark who wrote the earliest of the canonical Gospels.16: Christianity's War Against Judaism are attributed to him in the New Testament itself. and Luke 8:21 & 11:27-8 have Jesus himself violating one of the Ten Commandments by his outright repudiating his own mother. Paulianity's "Virgin Mary. 374). 131.. and the remainder of Jesus' birth-family and other disciples. Both in Jerusalem and in Galilee. and mother. and that many of them are documented to have attended Jesus at the cross. but his sisters. happens to be the very same James with whom Paul was competing for the leadership of what Paul was planning to be an entirely new church. were leaders in the sect. at first along with members of the twelve. later more exclusively. Richard Bauckham published in 1990 the most intensive study yet on Jude and The Relatives of Jesus in the Early Church. one among the Ten Commandments is "Respect your father and your mother. In addition." Mark 3:31-5.g. aunts. present Jesus as an extremely ardent proponent of the Covenant. with his own followers." no less. uncles. This casting-aside of Jesus' own blood-relatives additionally served another very important purpose for Paul: it helped prepare the way for the Roman conquerors of the Jews to accept ultimately as their own savior the very same person that (just as they had routinely done with all other persons who had claimed to be "King of the Jews" without Rome's appointment as such) they had crucified.. the Jesus-sect of Jews was a family operation. extending well beyond merely Jesus and James. Mark 3:31 5 and Luke 8:21 describe Jesus as repudiating. By no coincidence. the family of Jesus were the most influential and respected leaders of Jewish Christianity. It therefore is probable that Jesus' brother James was not Jesus' 198 . it is clear that the New Testament's portrayal of Jesus' repudiation of his blood-relatives was simply part-and-parcel of Paul's own anti-Semitic program. Jude and Jesus' other brothers. ." listing (among others) both times someone called "Mark" and another person by the name of "Luke. establishes the very considerable importance of the relatives of Jesus in the mission and leadership of the churches of Palestine in the first century after the death and resurrection of Jesus. by implication." And. "the evidence . . some of whom Paul refers to at the ends of Philemon and of Colossians as "my fellow workers. To a large extent. of course.. "Not the least point nor the smallest detail of the Law will be done away with—not until the end of all things. and the Luke who wrote another of the four and also Acts. until the Bar Kokhba war. Thus. Roman Catholicism. one of the people that. in which he concluded (pp.

27:25 "the whole people" of "the Jews" willingly accept the hereditary nature of their own presumed guilt in the Deicide.D. nor guilty of Jesus' crucifixion as Paul's Galatians 6:12 implies. Even the fact that in Mat. and that these charges themselves violated the Commandment. no one has explored the more-basic question of why the Roman involvement in the crucifixion—which is accepted even by the Gospels— was not so much as in a single instance in the New Testament broadened or generalized into a condemnation or damnation of all of "the Roman people" as was done there to "the Jews. where Jesus' own religious organization did. but was instead headquartered in Rome. The Romans now had won not just the battle. and he did it with great "success. they have tried to push as late a date as possible for the inception of the Deicide-accusation in the New Testament. did not have its headquarters in Jerusalem." Paul had a mission to do. Yet scholars have been quiet about it. they had won the war. The real "Judas" was Saint Paul. And that is how it came to be that the mother-church founded by Paul. he slaughtered Christianity. it was the headquarters of the authorities who crucified him. Nor was there a drought before Hitler's flood. That is an astounding anomaly. and that the punishment of "the Jews" that it gloats over in 2:16 is Rome's sacking of Jerusalem in 70 A. However. (and therefore 199 . But scholars have gone even further: in order to protect the New Testament from the charge of anti-Semitism." has been essentially ignored. not by Paul himself. the Roman Catholic Church. There has been scholarly debate about whether the charge that was made in 1 Thessalonians 2:14-5 and elsewhere in the New Testament accusing "the Jews" and not "the Romans" of the Deicide was true. But Paul's war had just started." What the crucifixion itself had started. With no evidence whatsoever." At the very moment when Paul gave birth to the Roman Catholic Church. many scholars have chosen to assume that 1 Thessalonians 2:14-6 was a later insertion. which not only was a place that Jesus never visited. Paul finished. passages such as Romans 13:1-7 pay homage to the Roman authorities as an agency of God Himself. 23:33) and "children of the devil" (John 8:44)." Nowhere in the New Testament were they called such things as "snakes and sons of snakes" (Mat. "Accuse no one falsely. the founder of "Christianity. The seeds of the Holocaust had been planted. To the contrary. while there is not so much as a hint anywhere in the New Testament of a comparable hereditary damnation of "the Romans.16: Christianity's War Against Judaism enemy at the outset of Jesus' ministry as these passages imply.

2:1-16. this passage is threatening to the scholars' cover-up also because of the direct evidence it supplies about the reason behind Paul's antiSemitism and behind his founding "Christianity" as an anti-Semitic religion: 2:16 blurts out. of course. "They [the Jews] even tried to stop us from preaching to the Gentiles the message that would bring them salvation." It was not just the Jesus-following Jews that were rioting against Paul in Acts 21:21 forward. far from Paul's not having been an anti-Semite. Indeed. the removal 200 ." Thus. 2:14-6 for two reasons: first. That fraud/cover-up passes as scholarship. The present book holds up a mirror to it. and thus exposes also the real reason behind the founding of the world's largest religion. one way that scholars have tried to deal with these problems is to declare 2:14-16 to have been a later insertion. but also because 1 Thessalonians 2:14-6 itself is an integral part of the personal story and personal justification of himself and of his own actions that Paul presents in the broader passage. all Jews were outraged at Paul's preachments that God had renounced the Covenant and replaced it with a new one. superseding their religion and themselves as "God's Chosen People. instead of the expulsion of all Jews from Rome in 49 A. inasmuch as the falsity of that charge is now blatant even to most of them. all Jews and not only the Jesus-following ones "tried to stop us from preaching to the Gentiles the message that would bring them salvation. rather than the needs or requirements of science. The result is scholarship." In fact. that it blurts out the real reason behind that anti-Semitism. as a Ptolemaic monstrosity. and thus not intrinsic to Paul's "Christianity.D. but rather to protect the credibility of religion itself. 2:14-16 is the culmination of that passage. with the exception of the small number of former Jews who remained in Paul's congregations and whom Paul tried to pacify with statements such as Romans 9-11. The scholars thus cannot accept the plain meaning of 1 Thes. that it introduces the anti-Semitic Deicide-charge too early in the new faith's founding to suit their liking." as Paul put it. The unvarnished reality is that. And. 1 Thes. (and therefore an event that occurred shortly prior to the writing of 1 Thessalonians). Its real function is a crucial PR-one for the Christian faith itself: to pretend that so evil a thing as anti-Semitism does not go all the way back to this faith's founding.16: Christianity's War Against Judaism after Paul's death). Thus scholarship contorts itself to accommodate the needs of the respectability of the myths of the predominantly religious culture in which it is embedded. which collapses from its ever-increasing weight of external falsehoods and internal contradictions. and second. but was rather a later distortion. The absurdity of that position is blatant not only because no evidence has ever been presented to support it. So this is done not actually to protect Paulianity. as ever.

then. 2:14-16 as "not authentic. In this sense. the founder of "Christianity. Paul's continuing "success" has come to depend upon precisely such epistemological corruption. Do not bow down to any idol or worship it. it is perhaps the supreme irony of all history. historical Jesus." actually acquiesces in religious bigotry out of obeisance to religion per se. such cover-ups as the dismissal of 1 Thes. more than to any particular faith such as "Christianity" itself. Indeed. with massive historical victimization not only of Jews. That is epistemological corruption.. but rather to a different one founded after his death. and subsequent failure to discredit and condemn. Jews. the faith's entire cargo depends upon that dangerous and false ingredient. but to faith itself against science." in direct violation of the chief requirement of the faith he practised and preached his own life.. as supposed Christ-killers and children of Satan. and whose very symbols of the crucifix and the blood of this very same Jesus of Nazareth. If the Antichrist were not a fictional character. To hate Jews is to hate Jesus. But really. And that is how it came to be that Jesus of Nazareth. Hitler can be viewed as the greatest fool of the AntiChrist.16: Christianity's War Against Judaism of anti-Semitism from his "Christianity" would leave it an empty hulk. This was a cosmic tragedy. who included the authentic Jesus—someone these "Christians" consequently were profoundly alienated from. the Jew. the AntiChrist would be Saint Paul. Scholarship. because I am the Lord your God and I tolerate no rivals. were built largely upon the demonization of the faith that he had spent his own life struggling to protect and to promote. who lived and died as the founder/leader of a tiny sect within a religion whose First Commandment was "Worship no God but Me." came himself to be worshipped after his death as an idol not just in his own person but in "graven images" to which worshippers even did "bow down. That is how corrupt the institution of scholarship is: its commitment is not to any particular faith against others. created by whomever was the actual author of 1 John. but of "Christians" as well. and to have as professed followers adherents not to this faith. that in order for Paul to succeed in deceiving billions of people to worship his concocted Jesus." and the real inspirer of 1 John and of nearly all the rest of the New Testament. whose teachings. he made them hate. in fact. he was just Paul's greatest fool—such a great dupe in fact that Hitler not only became convinced that the "Jesus" that Paul 201 . and a more-profound corruption cannot exist. and Saint Paul's "success" was to trick billions of people into worshipping his mythological Jesus by actually hating the real. by its proposing. flesh-and-blood. .

the wholesale invention of a certain character named "Zebedee." If Hitler answered this call with total commitment. carried out by Paul's followers. according to that invented "Christ. Key follow-throughs. which severed the blood-line on Jesus' father's side. Perhaps Paul today would consider that he had been too successful. but we do it for one that will last forever. then did not Paul "harden my body with blows" sufficient to absorb a blow even from such a team-mate? We shall never know. in order to be crowned with a wreath that will not last. I harden my body with blows and bring it under complete control. including the descent from King David. in Philippians 3:14. James was not only "the Lord's brother. this is why I am like a boxer who does not waste his punches. believed in and aim for. That heritage includes. the supposed prophesied ancestor of all subsequent legitimate Kings of the Jews. writing at a relatively early time. But then again. the "afterlife" that Hitler said that all truly religious people." and that if he were ever to come back to Earth. and the Resurrection-myth. which is God's call through Jesus Christ to the life above. such as himself. as he did in Galatians 1:19. and also. perhaps not. to keep myself from being disqualified after having called others to the contest. could not be credible without acknowledging. Although Paul." As for the real Jesus." Paul was going to "win" the "prize" by converting the world to his invented "Christ. As Paul put it. "I run straight toward the goal in order to win the prize. consisted of the introduction of the myth of the Virgin Birth.16: Christianity's War Against Judaism had invented was not a Jew. for Paul had said in 1 Corinthians 9:257: "Every athlete in training submits to strict discipline. among other things." We will take the last of these first. then this "King of the Jews" and "Savior of the Jewish people" would likely drop his sword (if he ever really carried one) and weep uncontrollably. but that Hitler condemned Paul himself for having been born a Jew. Paul was so extremely successful that that person has been lost to history. except by what he was not—such as that he was never a "Christian. It is only his heritage that lives on." —continued— 202 . for Paul has left us. a focus on personally winning a place in heaven. that even only shortly after Jesus' death. quite possibly. This is why I run straight for the finish line. PAUL'S FOLLOWERS FOLLOW THROUGH STRIPPING JESUS OF HIS FAMILY Paul had only begun the job of de-naturalizing Jesus so as to remove him from his family and from other Jews." Hitler was going to win it by exterminating Satan's spawn. since it picks up directly from Paul's own efforts to diminish James.

" which in those times could have been understood as consistent with their being. was its claim to legitimacy. in order for a believing Jew to accept Jesus as the foretold Jewish messiah. in fact. he/she would have to reject the virginity of Jesus' birth. And thus. It therefore became necessary for Paul's followers to find within Jewish Scripture a supposed prophesy if not requirement for the virginity of Jesus' birth. Isaiah 7:14 was settled upon for the purpose.16: Christianity's War Against Judaism but was also an "apostle. Of course. existed there. the four Gospel authors were not subject to such constraints: their readers had no personal recollections of such matters. so one had to be invented. this faith was itself based on the myth that it was the very fulfillment of Jewish Scripture. Consequently. It said that "a young woman who is pregnant will have a son and will name him 'Immanuel' [meaning 'God is with us']. Unfortunately." and "Peter. In order for a believing Jew to accept Jesus as the foretold Jewish Messiah who would save the Jews from the suffering and injustice of their being subject to alien kings and restore the Davidic line. passages such as Mark 5:37. Joseph. The "Virgin Mary" matter concerns Joseph in a different way: it was he who carried the prophesied Davidic blood-connection." "John. was by acknowledging that the three leading apostles of Jesus were named "James.9:2. no such prophesy. in fact. was even able to say. produced the last of all." but calling this "James" (and also his brother John) "sons of Zebedee. That. "Not even His brothers believed in Him". Jewish God were not enough to lock Jews out of Christianity. and thus from Christian salvation. who of course carried that bloodline-connection according even to the standard Christian accounts. and Luke 8:51 & 9:28—all acknowledging that the three leading apostles were named Peter. Thus.14:33. much less requirement." and even a leading one if not in fact the leading one. James." meaning "sons of God's gift. established an unbreachable wall separating Jews from accepting Jesus as the Jewish messiah. Matthew 17:1 & 26:37. The Virgin-Birth myth. sons of Joseph. after all. in other words.13:3. The way that the Gospel writers removed James from that group. Acts 12:2 would then be fictitious. Paul's followers did not want to make it obvious to non-Jews that Jews were being locked out of the Christian faith. therefore." The original is in Hebrew. unitary. Jesus' own father. John. If the First-Commandment prohibition against worshipping anything other than the one. in 7:5. while at the same time not blatantly violating such written records as then still existed. and uses the term —continued— 203 . and John—might have been referring to the very same three leaders of the sect that Paul himself identified in Galatians 2:9. then the Christian doctrine of the Virgin-Birth alone would have sufficed to do the job. that no brother of Jesus was among the 12 apostles. such a believing Jew would have to reject this severing of Jesus' bloodline-connection and consider Jesus to have been truly the son of his human father.

Jude. this myth "legitimizes the authority of certain men who claim to exercise exclusive leadership over the churches as the successors of the apostle Peter. it was thoroughly unnatural. her marriage to Joseph was unconsummated. But no matter: a "young woman" became a "virgin. fewer than 30 generations separated Jesus from King David. 79). "The Virgin Mary" was a purely Christian myth. "almah" was the term used in Isaiah 7:14. Isaiah 7:14 actually had nothing to do with the birth of Jesus of Nazareth. it can be seen that the process of religious myth-construction can be shaped by clear-cut political designs and agendas. Paul's followers retrospectively changed the prediction to the supremely extraordinary "a virgin who is pregnant will have a son.) Perhaps this is one reason why the Church didn't mind that whereas in Matthew 1:1-17." such as virtually all women were then who were giving birth. such as the replacement of circumcision by baptism. The Hebrew term for "virgin" was "bethulah. From these examples. which then may reverberate amongst the fooled ones and their victims for thousands of years afterwards." and this was not only extraordinary—it was miraculous. if not outright impossible. but rather "adopted" siblings. As the courageous renegade Bishop John Shelby Spong noted in his 1992 Born of a Woman (p. with God). perhaps. According to the Church. However. Revised Standard Version. it also served other purposes that we have not mentioned: the Church extended this "virginity" to Mary's last days. just so that James. as well as those of Paul's own time. Mary never had sexual intercourse (except. (Some of the newer translations of the Bible have restored the original reference here to that of a young woman: The Good News or Today's English Version. However. the doctrine has served to validate the apostolic succession of bishops. This was just a Jewish matter anyway." just so that Joseph and thus King David could be obliterated from Jesus' biological family and thus from Paul's enemies in Paul's own time." As was mentioned. the followers of Paul didn't really care about it. the basis of papal authority to this day.16: Christianity's War Against Judaism "almah. New English Bible. In a less obvious way. and Jerusalem Bible. From the second century." In other words. and perhaps other reallife brothers and sisters of Jesus. There was nothing extraordinary about that aspect of the prediction. it assisted Paul's coup d 'etat against the religious organization that Jesus had founded and that had been headed by Jesus' brother James after Jesus' own death. could be said not to have been blood-relatives. for a young woman to give birth was commonplace." which meant "young woman" or "maiden. more than 40 generations did so in Luke 3:23-38. 6-ff). 204 . the myth of physical Resurrection served also to separate Jesus from his actual followers: as explained by Elaine Pagels in her 1989 The Gnostic Gospels (pp.

I try to please everyone. "T have much to say in judgment of you. a man's worst enemies will be the members of his own family.16: Christianity's War Against Judaism PAUL'S FOLLOWERS FOLLOW THROUGH WITH PAUL'S UNCONCERN FOR TRUTH Paul had set the tone: Winning isn't the main thing.'" Jesus in John 8:15. the other must be false. in order for one of these statements to be true.'" Jesus in Matthew 10:35-37. his "history" of the founding of "Christianity.. and John. "Just do as I do. Whoever loves his father or mother more than he loves me is not fit to be my disciple. in 1 Cor. said." perhaps there was a twinkle in his eye.. and maybe this was even accompanied by knowing chuckles from the real authors of Matthew. in 10:33. daughters against their mothers. instructing —continued— 205 . In line with this. 9:22-25 had put it). 9:22-25. "I become all things to all men." he does not need to honor his father.. it seems not to have mattered at all to Paul's followers writing the Gospels. Mark." and who. "Respect your father and your mother." . just as I imitate Christ. But you teach that if a person has something he could use to help his father or mother. when they placed words into the mouth of Jesus that presented Jesus as lying just as they and their leader Paul did—such as in the following instances: '"I pass judgment on no one. fabricate whatever you must in order to win "the prize" (as 1 Cor. scapegoat "the Jews" so as to be able to win the non-Jews.." But when Paul then said. In which of these two instances is this "Jesus" lying? And in which of these two: "'Why do you disobey God's command and follow your own teaching? For God said. as "Luke" wrote in Acts. "This belongs to God. of course.. they logically contradict each other. Luke. concerning Jesus' supposed posthumous appearance to a "Christian" in a vision. They can't both be true. For example.'" Jesus in John 8:26." at 9:15. They can't both be true. instructed his followers. a few verses later. but says. In this way you disregard God's command in order to follow your own teaching. Which "Jesus" in Matthew's account is lying? Their real model. was not the real Jesus. but the real Paul—the Paul who. You hypocrites!'" Jesus in Matthew 15:3-7. "'I came to set sons against their fathers. it's the only thing. "Imitate me.

then does not this fact. and supposedly "objective" scholarly university appointments on the other.16: Christianity's War Against Judaism him to follow Paul: "The Lord said to him. addressed only in passing and timorously to no conclusion—might be the revolving door that sometimes exists between positions of partisan theological employment on the one hand. joined the Executive Council of the Lutheran Church in America in 1968. and became consecrated as Bishop of Stockholm in 1984. but here we have a person who elicited no complaint as to his scholarly objectivity when alternating as "investigator" and preacher of Paul's doctrines. at best. it has been necessary for Pauline scholars to avoid dealing with the mostimportant questions concerning Paul and the founding of "Christianity. For example. These are the central questions that such people avoid: 1) If Paul's own testimony concedes that he was required to justify to the leaders of the Jesus-sect of Jews—the Jesus appointed James and the other followers of Jesus—Paul's abandonment of the Genesis 17:14 circumcisionrequirement. Krister Stendahl (referred to herein in two other places than this). nobody is laughing today: The joke's on us. was ordained as a priest in one church in 1944. the revolving door is publicly criticized. THE CENTRAL QUESTIONS THAT PAULINE SCHOLARS CHOOSE TO AVOID In order for things to have continued this long to be the way they are. was again appointed a Guggenheim Fellow in 1974. served as the Vice President of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences from 1968-72. 'Go to Paul. then in another in 1951. became Dean of Harvard Divinity School from 1968-79. reluctantly admitted even by Paul. because I have chosen him to serve me.'" Of course. then taught at Harvard Divinity School starting in 1954. not of Paul's "Christianity". prove that Jesus had himself been the founder of a sect of Judaism. and why do you not even discuss the possibility of such a religious coup d'etat by Paul? —continued— 206 ." One of the reasons these great issues are ignored—or. to make my name known to Gentiles and kings and to the people of Israel. became a Guggenheim Fellow in 1959. one prominent Pauline scholar. Paul's victory came at our expense. In affairs between government and industry.

16: Christianity's War Against Judaism 2) If Paul's arguments in favor of elimination of the circumcisionrequirement relied for their authority not on Jesus but on Jewish Scripture. then does this not indicate that his audience recognized themselves to be followers in a Jewish sect. at what point did he break away from the claim of being King of the Jews." then when and how did he do it. and why do you not even discuss the possibility that that is the case? 4) Why do you ignore that the circumcision-requirement constituted an inevitable threat to Paul's ability to succeed at his mission in life of converting large numbers of Gentile adult males in an era that knew no anaesthesia. then what evidence can you present that Peter was officiating in that capacity in a new religion rather than in a sect of Judaism? —continued— 207 . and what does this implicit acknowledgement by Paul of lack of authorization from Jesus for Paul's abandonment of the Jewish Covenant indicate about the authenticity of Paul's claim to be a follower of Jesus? 3) Why do you interpret the conflicts over circumcision as being a result of Paul's abandonment of the Jewish Covenant. to claiming and being the Lord of all Mankind and of all creation. even within Paul's own writings. his own brother James. you nonetheless believe that Peter rather than James was Jesus' appointed successor. not in a new religion. to replacing that with salvation by faith-and-grace alone? 7) If Jesus established "Christianity. indicates instead that Paul's abandonment of the Jewish Covenant was the result of the conflicts over circumcision. the head of a Jewish sect. rather than of this new religion with a new covenant? 8) If despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. when vast evidence." then why was his successor. as authority for Paul's new "Christian" covenant of faithand-grace. and what do you think is indicated about the authenticity of this "Christian" covenant by Paul's pathetic attempt to ground it in Jewish Scripture rather than in Jesus? 6) If you nonetheless continue to believe that Jesus established "Christianity. and from supporting the Jewish Covenant. such as Galatians and Acts both portraying James as superior in the organization to Peter. and not even antibiotics? 5) Why do you ignore Paul's citing Jewish Scripture rather than Jesus' words and arguments.

in other words. etc. In other words. namely that Paul's claim to be following the faith that Jesus had promulgated was not a hoax? Not at all. Here is why: We are now accepting the scholars' line. and not only was it not their unwillingness —continued— 208 . Would we then end up with their conclusion. namely that Paul's conflict with the Jerusalem community was about the entire Covenant. rather than about the circumcision-law (Genesis 17:14). The middle-part of Appendix 2-F probes further the scandalousness of Pauline scholarship. Perhaps you will have better luck: if other members of the general public than simply myself confront the "experts" with these questions. the sincerity of Paul's repeated assertions that not even Jews have succeeded at following the Covenant. according to the scholars' interpretation. and which were causing them to communicate to Paul that they would join or stay in Paul's faith only if the faith did not require them to do these things—not to "love your neighbor as yourself. In other words. and that his objection to the Covenant was not just a pretext he employed in order to free his adult male Gentile "converts" from the requirement that they go under the knife in an era that knew neither anaesthesia nor antibiotics. even if the Torah-arguments that Paul presented to support it were invalid. as being all the laws of the Covenant. not even circumcision. but some other law or laws. it was these things." etc. Thus far. but as a scientist who is also an investigative reporter. as being about not the circumcision-law. I ask them here not as a scholar. the dietary laws (Leviticus 17).. not only was the barrier not the prospective converts' fear of the pain and danger of the circumcision-operation. indicated in Galatians 2:2. suppose that we were to follow the scholars' line. that Paul's objection to the Covenant was sincerely principled as he claimed. and the implication that prospective Gentile converts were rejecting the Covenant as impossible to follow. We are accepting. not merely the circumcision-law. Supposedly. but rather not to eat un-kosher food. at Galatians 2:12. the scholars have remained silent. such as the requirement to drain a carcass' blood before serving it as meat.16: Christianity's War Against Judaism Those are the key questions. We are specifically interpreting the blowup. such as kashruth. that Paul really did see the threat to the success of his life's mission. THE CENTRAL POINT AT ISSUE Suppose that we grant the scholars their basic point. that Paul's "converts" would not do. then perhaps the "experts" will answer.

" That's how low Paul set the bar. Not only do the scholars posit a slimier. Paul. It was over these "converts" that Paul and James came to their blowup in Galatians 2:12. Of course. Even those people do not fit the implicit caricature of Paul that is buried in scholars' analyses. 209 . Of course. very hardworking. which Jews themselves had no difficulty following.16: Christianity's War Against Judaism to follow the moral rules such as Leviticus 19:18 ("love your neighbor as yourself). The scholars' position is unsustainable. He quickly came to the realization that he could not even make a phony Torah-case for this. Since this was a Jewish sect. was a totally dedicated man. and the scholars'. There is no evidence that that was the case. more repulsive. Paul's "converts" would not follow even the easiest-to-follow laws. To assume that the blowup in Galatians 2:12 was over mere "tablefellowship. This is according to the scholars. without his arguing for the invalidity of the entire Covenant: if the Covenant was still binding. Paul had to argue that the Covenant was no longer binding. far from being so utterly unprincipled that his objection to the Covenant was sincerely "principled" on the scholars' terms (and we are talking here of the unsustainability of their assumptions in terms of their logical inconsistency. than I do. quite apart from their content). which the scholars consistently underestimate: the success of his life's mission required him to abandon Genesis 17:14. it is unlikely that Paul himself was so thoroughly despicable as the scholars are implicitly assuming: Paul. then Paul would have to put his "converts" under the knife. and willing to place himself in great physical jeopardy in order to advance his cause. According to the scholars. but at the same time they imply a James—and entire Jesus-community—who themselves were so low that they would even have seriously considered "converts" on such ultra-cheap terms. bizarre twistings of terms and of meanings. clearly. Paul was faced with a very real problem. And he had to accept the continuing authority of the Torah as his basis for terminating the Covenant. There is no evidence (unless Paul's own." No fraud can remain safe. so too are some very evil people." or that Paul would have been unwilling to demand of his "converts" even their adherence to the kosher-laws—much less their undergoing the knife— is simply unrealistic. That kind of fraud will succeed for a while. Paul was compelled to make a case for doing so based upon the Torah. or some leaders of organized crime. they will say that what is unsustainable is the present attack against their views on these matters. According to the scholars. which would scare practically all of them away. such as Adolf Hitler. but the world is increasingly battering down the walls of that prison called "authority. Furthermore. but these people weren't willing to make even a few minor dietary changes in order to win their salvation as Paul's "Christians. Thus. constitute "evidence") that the actual followers of Jesus were like that.

The scholarly community's assertions about Christianity are subject to no external liability for lies. And if there is no legal or regulatory liability for a manufacturer's lies about its products." Appendix 2-F exposes the scholarly community as being no more-reliable a source of "information" about religion—or about the Christian religion in particular—than the manufacturer of a commercial product is about its product. then one should expect such "information" to include lies. but one should expect it to be very biased. and did not pertain to moral laws — the falsehood that Paul's rejection of "works" and "the Law" referred only to ethnocentrically exclusionary aspects of Judaism — the falsehood that Paul's opponents whom he wrote condemning as Judaizing Christians were Gentile Christians. not Jewish ones — the falsehood that Paul was not an anti-Semite. because he was writing figuratively not literally — the falsehood that Paul's rejection of "works" and "the Law" referred only to religious ceremonies and rituals. 210 .16: Christianity's War Against Judaism OTHER LIES AND DISTORTIONS FROM THE "EXPERTS" The middle part of Appendix 2-F provides further explorations into a number of other falsehoods that scholars have prominently peddled so as to sustain a favorable image of Saint Paul. The interested reader is referred there for discussions of: — the falsehood that Paul's vicious statements shouldn't be taken seriously. The six falsehoods listed here are examples. and thus are as unreliable as manufacturers' assertions under the worst of circumstances. but instead a great proponent of Jews and Judaism within early Christianity — the falsehood that the historical truth about Christianity is unimportant or even irrelevant because religion is supernatural or "spiritual. One should not ignore such "information" from a product's manufacturer.

their religion. Scholarship on Paul accepts all-too-readily Paul's own etherialized. the values that they held dearest of all. The scholars have ignored that. Paul is treated as if it were not inevitable that his pro-Roman orientation would brand him among Jews as a traitor. without overthrowing and disrespecting their very religion.16: Christianity's War Against Judaism THE CRUDENESS OF THE SCHOLARS The many problems that have here been noted regarding Pauline and early Christian scholarship share in common a cultural crudeness. a failure to consider the circumstances in which the Jews. including all but the first of the Ten Commandments. the cultural crudeness of the scholars can reasonably be compared with the cultural crudeness of Adolf Hitler. Many scholars have even treated what was at issue for the Jews as if only Jewish rituals were at stake—rituals that these scholars disrespected—when the actual stakes were the entire religion. who were asked to have their penises cut as a precondition to enter the faith. repudiation of the laws that were promulgated in the Pentateuch or Torah. the Gentiles. These people were in a very politically charged situation as regards Rome. The scholars have discussed the Roman rulers as if they had any alternative but to treat Jesus and his followers—and all other independenceoriented Jews—as enemies. The scholars have treated the Jews as if "the Law" could be overthrown and even stamped upon contemptuously. Judaism itself. The scholars have failed also to put themselves into the place of adult male Gentiles living in an era that knew neither anaesthesia nor antibiotics. under these circumstances. In these respects. had to function. that they worshipped a man whom the Roman Empire had executed for sedition. The scholars have discussed Paul as if his mission to the Gentiles. the Jesus-followers. were not a political and cultural minefield. and even Paul himself. who also had a blindness to the cultural situation of individuals and peoples who faced challenges different from his own. for the Jews of that time. rather than even attempts to understand the man and his writings in the context of his situation. It was these people's religion that Paul was trashing. presentation of himself. the Roman rulers. The scholars have utterly failed to integrate into their understanding of the Jesus-followers in the First Century. meant repudiation of what these people held to be their Covenant with God. supernatural. because Paul was saying that salvation now no longer required obedience to the other commandments. 211 .

Can anyone specify any other field of scholarly "expertise" that has a greater reliance upon a greater number of falsehoods than does Pauline/early-Christian-history scholarship? What could account for such a heavy dependence upon so many falsehoods? The answer is obvious. 3: Circumcision was an issue because the Covenant was an issue. all scholars have selected to promote and endorse one or more of the following falsehoods: 1: 1 Thessalonians 2:14-6 was a later insertion." 13: The four Gospel writers were followers of Jesus. 5: Paul's opponents were not Jews. not Roman Law." 9: Paul's "gospel" was that of Jesus. 6: Jesus' followers when Paul joined the faith were not Jews. to hold fast to Paul's fraud that the religion he was preaching was founded by Jesus of Nazareth rather than by himself as perpetrator of a coup d'etat against the religious organization that had been established by Jesus. 16: The wine as Christ's blood at Mass was also not anti-Semitically intended. 212 . Those will suffice for starters. not by Paul. 12: Galatians 2:12 does not represent the birth of Paul's "Christianity. not of Paul. 10: Jesus passed leadership to Peter. 15: The choice of the Crucifix as the faith's symbol was not anti-Semitic. 11: Paul's "gospel" was not intended to supersede the Jewish Covenant. But in order for them. as a professional sub-culture. not created by Paul himself. 14: The doctrine of the Virgin-Birth is not anti-Semitic.16: Christianity's War Against Judaism THE PATENT FALSENESS OF THE SCHOLARS Scholars disagree among themselves. 7: Jesus was crucified under Jewish Law. 8: Circumcision was no big problem for Paul's "converts. 17: Galatians 6:12 does not refer to what 1 Thessalonians 2:15 does: Deicide-guilt. 2: Galatians 2:2 is not referring to the conflict over circumcision. not to James. 4: The "garbage" that Paul discarded in Philippians 3:8 was not Judaism.

A man reflects the image and glory of God. even his frailty. . and draws damnation upon himself." the mighty king of the gods. that was harnessed to a foresightfulness and an ability that even the largest modern corporation could only dream of attracting to its chiefexecutiveship. but rather the expression of an iron will.. making no claim to be a God. wiry and articulate messenger who carried communications amongst the gods. written by Paul's follower Luke. backed up by a boundless ambition. if sheer ability is to be measured by its impact. Paul describes his own appearance and even sound: 10:10 asserts. but his appearance is weak." 1 Corinthians 11:3&7&8&9: "God is supreme over Christ. 9:25 he asserted that he was competing to be crowned with a prize "that will last forever. "they say. His impact upon the world has been awesome. or even one might say more powerful." and differences of intrinsic individual rights and obligations existed for him even amongst his followers. he who opposes authority rebels against God. that "What I may lack as a speaker. whereas Paul himself was referred to as "Hermes. His letters speak with unimpeachable authority about the man's values. Paul was simply in a different league. Other than in occasional bragging about his "revelation" he was modest. then Paul was perhaps the most able human being in history. But a woman reflects the glory of —continued— 213 . He acknowledged his own humanity. For those with power are feared only by the evil ones. Christ is supreme over every man. and played for vastly higher stakes. In 2 Corinthians. I make up for in knowledge. than Paul. He sought mutual love and harmony amongst his co-believers. 'Paul's letters are weighty and powerful. irrespective of their nationality or background. in 14:12 states that at Iconium the crowd called Paul's partner Barnabas "Zeus." even this proved to be mere idle boast. for there is no authority except from God.16: Christianity's War Against Judaism WHAT KIND OF A MAN WAS PAUL? It is hard—perhaps impossible—to imagine a human being more effective. But compared with any mere tycoon in history. was obviously not physically imposing to either the eyes or ears. Thus. and every man is supreme over his wife. including both Jews and Gentiles. and all authority that exists is established by God. As a consequence. This man who probably made a bigger impact upon human history than any other person who ever lived. Here are some prominent examples: Romans 13:1-3: "Let everyone obey the authorities that are over him. But when in 1 Cor." the small. and as a speaker he is beneath contempt'". 11:6." Acts. Yet he still supported status-distinctions that transcended whether you were "with him" or "against him" in terms of religion: not even all "Christians" were full-fledged members of "the People of God..

6:1. is Acts. 3:22. but woman from man." and received privileged Roman treatment for that. it seems that Paul knew where the power lay. it was the woman who was deceived and broke God's law. and do it with a sincere heart. Perhaps at that very moment he had dreams of ultimately converting all the Roman rulers. To Paul: Where power was. They deserve to die. then Saul. we learn that Paul had been born not just a Jew but a "Roman citizen. . and that he went for it." in honor of his first major Gentile convert. also known as Paul.) 1 Timothy 2:11-15: "Women should learn in silence and all humility. but woman was created to serve man. submit yourselves to your husbands as to the Lord." (See also Col. God was. But a woman will be saved through having children. 22:25 & 23:27). "Paul. Nor was man created to serve woman.." Romans 1:27&32: "Men give up natural sexual relations with women and burn with passion for each other. at which point it makes the change simply by saying. For Adam was created first. 3:18. Paul has succeeded in converting Paulus. discussing Paul's early career as an evangelist for Jesus as the Christ. "who was an intelligent man. Especially pertinent to Paul's values is the following: Acts calls Paul by the name of "Saul" up until 13:9.. 1 Tim." (See also Col. which purports to contain information about Paul's biography (beyond that which we have already presented. . And it was not Adam who was deceived. . ". & Tit. and then Eve." If one is to include the "Paul" of the epistles whose authorship by him is in doubt. In other words.. Elsewhere in Acts (e. introduces a certain Scrgius Paulus. which was not available to just normal Jews. 2:9. I do not allow them to teach or to have authority over men. but about Paul rather than asserted to be by him." Ephesians 5:22: "Wives.." and who was Rome's appointed governor of Crete.g." The Context of the change suggests an explanation for the change: 13:7-9. as thought you were serving Christ. obey your human masters with fear and trembling. .16: Christianity's War Against Judaism a man. then the following as well: Ephesians 6:5: "Slaves. from Paul himself). The general inference has been that Saul dropped his Jewish name for a Greco-Roman one. for man was not created from woman.) Likewise of questioned authenticity and doubted authority. . By 13:12. with more-certain veracity. 214 . right from the start.

CONCLUSIONS 215 .

. without that Jew-hatred. that drove him—he said like a sleepwalker— to need that power. if Paul had placed honor above success. art would have had different iconography." Nor would the German masses have hated Jews either—they. since what Paul did was really quite odd—history itself would have been different in more ways than we can even imagine. after all. etc. then the 20th-Century man we know as Adolf Hitler would never have perpetrated the Holocaust. it is hard enough to explain what has happened. And that source was Paul. then—unless someone else had taken his place and done what he did. perhaps less so.17: Bringing It All Together Historical causation is complex in ways that theorists have never imagined: If the First-Century man we know as Paul of Tarsus had placed honor above success. Would Western culture have risen to dominate the world as it has done? Perhaps more so. too. Hitler. would never have been so obsessed with the possibility of his having had a Jewish grandfather. the Crusades as we know them would never have been. Furthermore. if. the reason-to-be. Christmas would have continued to have been celebrated as the birthday of Mithras and of Sol Invictus. In fact. and finally as to organize the Holocaust—a massive campaign to "purify" Germany itself of what Hitler viewed as its "blood poisoning. For example. which is highly unlikely.. had gotten their anti-Semitism from the same ultimate source as had Hitler himself. as to have had leeches "purify" his blood. and would quite possibly never have come to power at all in Germany. only a god itself would be able to explain what would have happened. because Hitler's mission in life would never have had the raison d'etre. 216 .

without a doubt. and individuals. is the road never known. . And that has made all the difference. the fate of German Jews was as certain as is the fate of a mouse being carried in the mouth of a cat who has caught it. Whoever imagines otherwise. Of the estimated near-six-million Jews that Hitler slaughtered. even more importantly. Surely. but for the world. "The Road Not Taken": Two roads diverged in a yellow wood. Hitler was not so naive or callow a leader as to imagine 217 . does not understand history. Only details had then to be settled upon: how he would kill them. Decisions make a difference in history—a big difference. long I stood And looked down one as far as I could To where it bent in the undergrowth. Hitler did intend to kill them. and I— I took the one less traveled by. (This number represented 91% of pre-Holocaust German Jewry. Judenrein—Jew-cleansed—was Hitler's policy not merely for Germany. but once Hitler had obtained power. The Holocaust was the result of decisions made not only by Hitler— and. but. it's also ideas. germs. who voted for him.17: Bringing It All Together what would have happened if there had never been a Holocaust? Would one of the people that Hitler exterminated have become the next Albert Einstein and the greatest physicist of the 20th Century? No one knows. and steel. only about 210. so as to ship them off to his death-factories. he was the indispensable component—but by millions of Germans. who helped bring Hitler to power. It's not only guns. we know this not only by his having sometimes acknowledged the fact. And sorry I could not travel both And be one traveler.. it was precisely the transcendence in this case of purely national borders. and by conservative German politicians such as von Papen and Hindenburg. will. Robert Frost captured this in his poem.. However. That distinction is basic. It was also the result of decisions by Germans to cany out Hitler's will. if anything distinguishes the Holocaust from other genocides (besides the mere fact that this one was by far the largest). by his obsessive desire to scoop Jews up from France and his other conquered countries. I shall be telling this with a sigh Somewhere ages and ages hence: Two roads diverged in a wood.000 (3 1/2%) were Germans. The road not taken. though.) In fact. no one will ever know.

pp. Hitler knew better. Hitler was trying expulsion. and could thus realistically not even be considered as a short-term measure which is what it was presented as being. which could mean either expulsion or extermination.") Hitler gleefully observed the embarrassment of other countries that proclaimed their opposition to antiSemitism but that turned a cold shoulder to these desperate refugees. indeed. 50-1. 29-30. it failed even to admit as many Jews as the official quota permitted.17: Bringing It All Together that such an unprecedented bureaucratization of mass death could simply be imposed upon a nation at one fell swoop as a mere Fuhrer-decree. Wyman's 1984 The Abandonment of 218 . not only his own nation but the entire world had to be made ready for so drastic a measure. documented that even Hitler had acknowledged that expulsion of Jews was really intended as nothing more than "exporting anti-Semitism. for example. toward that ultimate policy as a natural outcome. As a gifted and masterful leader. by a succession of steps. Hitler had even fired Reichsbank chief Hjalmar Schacht early in 1939 because Schacht had been too effective in promoting the expulsion of Jews. But a display nonetheless had to be made. By January 1939. at least of his nation's leadership-group. The United States. he understood implicitly the leader's function: to build consensus around the ultimate objective that he was convinced was required. (As Rudolph Binion noted in his 1976 Hitler Among the Germans.) Expulsion obviously had to be presented as having been tried but failed. Hitler's official policy was for the expulsion of all Jews. since the "Madagascar Plan" required as prerequisites the defeat of both France and England. The consensus with which he started was only for the elimination of the Jews. only then could the entire hierarchy unite behind Hitler's plan to carry out God's "admonition finally to put an end to the permanently continuous original sin of a race poisoning and to give the Almighty Creator beings as He Himself created them. it was for their expulsion specifically to Madagascar— a goal even less practicable than expulsion itself. and both Binion. he skillfully set up numerous highly visible public displays of the unwillingness of foreign nations to accept the flood of dispossessed Jews that he was offering as refugees." Mere expulsion could provide no such assurance. not only did not increase its immigration-quota for Jews. to bring his people along. (Stcrlizing the Jews was ruled out by Hitler: as an alternative to extermination. By June 1940. as an emerging national consensus. And along the way. Hitler did this effectively: his "final solution" became the only solution. other nations just refused to receive what he was offering them. pp. and Richard Breitman's 1991 The Architect of Genocide. David S. it might have drawn too much support.

Hitler would see to it that God was once again pleased. diseased. For Hitler. When three days later. The universalism of this policy was. . actually. a sign of its religious origin: Hitler. . but others that he viewed as imperfect. the better. itself. the entire world was to be made Judenrein. Adolf Hitler was a Crusader. founded upon the bedrock moral principles with which he had been raised. it was not enough merely to "purify" Germany. his proudest service to Christ. Hitler's God would smile upon his great service in carrying out upon them the vengeance of the Lord. and not such as to "give the Almighty Creator beings as He Himself created them"—then so much the better. Heaven was Hitler's sought-for payoff. He served God in order to join Him in heaven. By the time of the Wannsee Conference on 20 January 1942 to coordinate the actions of all state agencies involved with the "final solution. Roosevelt to meet with Jewish leaders to deal with the problem. . after all. The more horrifying that vengeance. 365. And by that time. Himmler understood very well what he meant by saying of his policy toward the Jews. But if they refuse to leave voluntarily. such international response was itself part of the "sleepwalking" toward genocide." all participants were reading their respective roles from a playbook written by none other than the Fuhrer himself. Was this self-serving? That depends on how you look at it. the Holocaust was his personal ticket to salvation—an eternity in heaven rather than in the Jews' hell where he would be surrounded by other "people of the devil. was convinced of the universality of the moral principles that motivated him. he would "shoulder this burden" so as to please his Father in heaven. regarding the extent to which Hitler was actually concerned with anyone's welfare but his own. One might reasonably be uncertain. For Hitler. for all these were "people of the devil". defective. This universalism was shared by the medieval Crusaders who had sought to win the world to God. I see no other solution than extermination. Imperfections did not exist in the Garden of Eden. The Holocaust was his ticket to heaven. however. 219 . 100. they were all prepared for those roles—knew them by heart. on 23 January." The Jews never were to be expelled. like any fundamentalist. He was the good boy. "I'm extraordinarily humane. 410) the repeated refusal of President Franklin D.17: Bringing It All Together the Jews documents (pp." If the cost of his ticket of eternal membership was to be the deaths of millions—not only Jews. doing what Daddy in heaven wanted done. his vision was global because it was universal. Hitler in his Secret Conversations (Table-Talk) addressed Himmler sarcastically about the matter. and also establishes the President's own personal knowledge of the Nazis' antiSemitic exterminations.

"But in the Aryan conception one cannot conceive of a religion which lacks the conviction of the continuation of life after death. of leading members of Yugoslavia's former Nazi government. and to which His "Chosen People" go after death. . one instance of which was covered in a featurestory by a team of reporters in U. "in some form. . . Even though it disagreed with Hitler about who should be bossing whom. even despite Hitler's having committed suicide. surrounded by Jews for all eternity." prided himself on a belief in it. whose prospect terrified him. some of whose top figures were Croat Roman Catholic priests.17: Bringing It All Together In Mein Kampf. was like. as an "Aryan. after death. which is why it held a Requiem Mass in his honor on 6 May 1945. but of unearthly heaven—a place where God Himself dwells. According to the article. News & World Report on 30 March 1998. Hitler said something intimately revealing about his most personal. under the heading. which had reigned as the Ustasha political party." It concerned the Vatican's alleged protection immediately after World War II." He did not say anything about what this heaven. but he clearly." and that "Catholic officials were funneling money to war criminals even after they escaped to Argentina. "Through an underground railroad of sympathetic priests." It describes "Ustashas being hidden at the pope's summer residence at Castel Gandolfo. of more "worldly" character. definitely not that of Jesus— recognized in Hitler a faithful son. the Roman Catholic Church—Paul's church. and even deeply private. The inference is thus likely that Hitler's Christian fundamentalism extended to an acceptance not only of earthly Paradise. "A vow of silence. "Because of 220 . between "the Jew" and "the Aryan. religious convictions: after asserting of "the Jew. This was to be Hitler's personal reward.S. Some of the most-sensitive government-files on these sorts of cases are only now starting to be made public." And also." this "afterlife" was supposed to be distinct from merely the blessed earthly "Paradise" referenced several times in Mein Kampf. virtually the entire Ustasha leadership went free." and notes that. for his restoring Paradise here on earth." that he "does not recognize any belief in the hereafter." he stated. in eternity. "Ustashas ate at the papal mess. And it also honored his memory in other ways. It is indeed ironic that Hitler perpetrated the earthly hell of the Holocaust just so that he could avoid a supernatural hell." The piece cites OSS (pre-CIA) and other recently declassified documents claiming that a prominent priest "was supplying false passports and money to members of the Ustasha." An official of the World Jewish Congress was quoted as charging that. or afterlife. such as assisting his war-criminals to flee prosecution. by the distinction he was here making.

as he had to in order to work off "this curse. As Paul himself had said in Romans 13:4. "One state after another has opened its archives and banking records to aid the search" for the vast sums in loot stolen from victims by the Ustashas. Hitler was the humble chosen one. an agent of wrath to bring punishment upon the evil ones." If even the German people themselves ended up being bombed or destroyed." The Vatican's response to the recent inquiries was that. 'I must enter Berlin like Christ in the Temple at Jerusalem. not the synagogue of Jesus: "Stand by your man. he was like a possessed person at a seance.'" he was preparing himself to becomes God's agent of wrath. He never really was aiming to serve the German people." Hitler practised for what he saw as his Providential role: when he was described by Eckart in the account of Hanfstaengel as "striding up and down in the courtyard here with that damned whip of his and shouting. the failure to uncover the truth can only be laid at the doors of the Vatican. But these myths were then overlaid in adulthood 221 . only God could deal with that. Hitler held himself accountable to God. it was weaned on the Bible. Hitler tried to please God. "with one glaring exception: the Vatican. "What is important for the earth's future is not whether Protestants vanquish Catholics or Catholics vanquish Protestants. but whether Aryan humanity maintains itself or dies out. and that were thus the most deepset within him." and so "atone." Hitler. however. The Bible supplied the myths that he had acquired from the crib and his mother. but they say they cannot allow outside researchers free access to their archives because the collection contains sensitive personnel files. the Fuhrer "is the servant of God." Yet the reporters noted. but as a Christian. not to the German people. In his view. following in the footsteps of Jesus Christ Himself. but this did not guarantee that the German people would be up to the challenge. was not only a man of the Roman Catholic Church—of Paul's mother-church—but was more-ecumenical than that: as he said in Mein Kampf. This was a Wagnerian vision. if they weren't.17: Bringing It All Together their silence in the face of accumulating evidence. as merely the medium through which God executed His will on earth. it is in this way that he was "sleepwalking" through politics." This is the church of Paul. then so what? Anyone who disappoints God must experience the wrath of God." Hitler embraced the entire Pauline family. and like Wagner's. it was between himself and God. with the aim of ultimately "purifying" it. "Vatican officials insist they are hiding nothing because they have nothing to hide. serving the Father in heaven. it was his own personal agenda that drove him. He earned his Requiem Mass not merely as a Catholic.

very white. But all of the moral fuel for this engine of fantasy. (Not. straight out of Hitler's early childhood. 222 . By no means was he the only agent of Saint Paul's revenge. people as unlike "the people of the devil" as Adolf could imagine. after all. since they were the ones who ruled the world. (Hitler never knew that. and of blondes. In that childhood. That is. Adolf Hitler applied Paul's teachings with as much consistency as Paul himself taught them. Adolf Hitler was a man with a big vision. founded on lies. it meant his devoting his life to his own anti-Semitic salvation.) However. came the Bible. anti-Semitic. Paul's greatest fool.") So Paul did not have to design an anti-Semitic "Jesus" in order to appeal to anti-Semitic Romans. (For example. was if he could fashion a "Jesus" who would serve as a model to the Romans. This caused Hitler to deny that the fantasy-figure had ever been a Jew. was too close in time to Jesus for that lie to have been a workable option for him. while it was Christian Rome that gradually repealed this protected status and began to create the legal instruments of the ghetto. "Aryan. since the Romans of his time were not anti-Semitic. the two men had different reasons for shaping that fantasy not as Jewish but as anti-Semitic. as Rosemary Ruether observed in her 1974 Faith and Fratricide. the white of snow. Would Paul have minded that the biggest agent of his own wrath would turn out to hate even Paul for his Jewish origin? They were just two people trying to "atone" for their Jewish roots. he became Paul's unwitting tool. Hitler's model in life was his fantasy of Jesus.17: Bringing It All Together also with Nordic myths—white myths. To Hitler. faith that he was establishing. The Holocaust was the result. Thus. containing Paul's teachings. "It was a pagan Rome that found formulae of special accommodation of Jewish ways within Greco-Roman society. came straight out of the Bible. was to shape Rome's future culture. p. his vision combined folk culture with Christian mythology. that fact was entirely unobjectionable to them." ideal. Saint Paul was the original source of it. Paul knew that the only way he was going to stand even a chance of converting the world. fusing the two into one. 28. since they were not anti-Semitic (Paul. on the other hand. and especially the New Testament. Paul. But the Romans knew that Jesus had at least been born a Jew. not its past one). from all around him. And. and did. which he believed with all his mind (until 1937) and all his heart (until he died). Hitler pondered those teachings. but he certainly was the most effective. of course. To Paul. including those of Paul's followers who authored the Gospels. it meant devoting his life to the cause of winning over ultimately even the Roman conquerors themselves to the new.

17: Bringing It All Together that is to say. But circumcision was another matter 223 . As a result. This. Paul knew what he had to do in order to make Jesus become ultimately the Roman God. he had to pin Jesus' execution on Jesus' own people whom Jesus had been aiming to be the salvation for. The Romans would have been no more open-minded to such conversions than. Paul mastered step two of the plan. If Genesis 17:14 had not existed as part of the Jews' Covenant with God. but nothing like the Christian anti-Semitism. Paul's chief hurdle was to overthrow Genesis 17:14: That came first. any more than they and all other ethnic groups of that era criticized and felt themselves superior to just about every other ethnic group. Though Jesus might have been entirely unlike that Mideastern terrorist. for there is no authority except from God. just as well as step one. in fact. were the conquerors. Americans would be likely to convert to worshipping Osama Bin Laden as God. and he acted on it. he knew that the Romans were not going to accept as a model a man who had led an anti-Roman rebellion and whom the Romans had executed for that. he was certainly catering to the rulers when he said in his letter to the Romans 13:1-6. For those with power are feared only by the evil ones. "Let everyone obey the authorities that are over him. these rules would "not trouble the Gentiles who are turning to God" (Acts 15:19)." But still. For example. however. he who opposes authority rebels against God. say. He created the kind of Roman model that Romans could worship. and all authority that exists is established by God. Paul understood this elementary fact. he had to throw out Genesis 17:14. The dietary and sexual commandments in the Covenant posed no insuperable barrier to otherwise-willing Gentiles (according to Acts 15:20&29). Paul would not have had to take the drastic steps he had to take in order for him to be able ultimately to convert large numbers of the non-Jewish world into what in that time was a Jewish sect. And in order for him actually to win those conversions. Paul's plan was brilliant: in order for him to be able to convert the adult Roman males who controlled the world. And he did it. is why Paul succeeded in developing the following he did: his converts accepted those rules of the Jewish faith. this analogy between the two of them at least is sound: it is ridiculous to expect to be able to convert people to worship someone whom they know as their own enemy. and draws damnation upon himself. and Paul knew that he would have great difficulty in getting the Romans to accept Jesus as their model if it were to be acknowledged that the Roman imperial regime had itself been responsible for Jesus' execution. Paul made accommodations in other ways as well.) The Romans. Of course.

that "revelation" became the essential personal authority by means of which he could credibly assert foundations to his own new church: if he was not the prophet from God. But that was not a "blood" conflict. who was circumcised. He would still have had to present to his prospective Gentile converts to this Jewish sect an explanation for Jesus' crucifixion that would have condemned some Jews. he had his own doubts about that. 1 Corinthians 9:23-27. Paul chose "success" (Galatians 2:2. So Paul never again would refer to his 224 . Ultimately." such as inevitably evolved out of Galtians 6:12." especially within the context of Paul's efforts to convert the Roman rulers. he felt no need to proclaim his "revelation" from the risen Jesus to have been genuine rather than delusional ("inside the body" in the terms of 2 Cor. and expressed them then. Catholic vs. and Philippians 3:12-14). he was even willing to overthrow Jesus' own religious organization to achieve this "win. millions were slaughtered in Europe's largely religious Thirty Years War. A people would not have been condemned. Matthew 27:25. He chose the latter path. Paul pursued this approach for as long as he was permitted to. or else to go the anti-Semitic route and succeed. nothing more. This does not mean that there would not have developed some differences that could have led ultimately to massacres of some sort. What we would today know as "Christianity" would have had the same general relationship to (the rest of) Judaism that. 1 Thessalonians 2:15-16. And it seems that while he did so. not "racial". not a war against an entire "people. Christianity would then have evolved truly as a sect of Judaism. belief-distinctions became distinctions of "blood" or "race. but only those who—unlike the Jesus-following sect—rejected Jesus as the Jewish Messiah. they would not be. then he was now nothing at all. But circumcision did not permit Paul so (relatively) benign a "win. 12:2). only Jews who did not agree with the Jesus-sect viewpoint on this would have been scapegoated. after all. and certainly no need. and to obtain acceptance of his uncircumcised adult male Jesus-followers as Jews." At first. not as the separate and constitutionally anti-Semitic religion that it became. Without the barrier of Genesis 17:14. Mark 3:31-35. say. Protestant. But after Paul was semiforced out of the sect. and John 8:44. for Paul to go the anti-Semitic route that he did. by means of which. It would have been the standard religious-based bloodshed. he had tried to stay within Judaism. Luke 8:21. They would adopt Jesus as the model in all respects save one: unlike Jesus.17: Bringing It All Together entirely. 1618-48. however. the Protestant religions do to Roman Catholicism. there would have been no motivation. even if in cloaked language." His only choice was either to fail.

whom Jesus had been trying to save. and thenceforth the scapegoat for that was no longer to be merely some Jews—those who rejected Jesus as their Messiah—but rather all Jews. Paul's plan. Paul's choice of success instead of honor. must be circumcised. represented Paul's most cravenous capitulation and even sycophancy toward the the actual crucifiers of the historical Jesus. As indicated in Acts 21:21 forward. which meant that these newcomers. as Paul himself reported in Galatians 2:12. fashioned. too. ordered Paul to have all his male "converts" circumcised. and molded. because he was: it was blocking his own "success. And as he did so. This choice.17: Bringing It All Together experience of Jesus as having been of questionable authenticity. to abandon the Covenant and start his own church. Jesus was shaped. seen in this light. the Jesus-followers demanded that these adult newcomers must likewise comply with the Jewish Covenant that they and their model Jesus did. the Jewish people. custom-tailored to serve as the model for the Roman conquerors. James himself. 10:33) and would "become all things to all men" (1 Cor. to their worship of him. Jews also were opposed to Paul's plan to admit into Judaism uncircumcised adult male Gentiles. or non-Jesus-sect. and most thoroughgoing condemnation of the real Jesus as an individual who did "evil. non-Christian. and notwithstanding how painful such an operation would be to adult male Gentile converts in an era with no medicine and not even anaesthesia. reinforcing this pressure. The Jesus-sect Jews had already experienced difficulties converting their fellow-Jews to this Jewish sect. increased the skepticism of Jews that the Jesus-sect represented the right path for Jews to follow: the Covenant itself was being challenged here. he alienated the members of the Jewish sect that had been Jesus' followers all along. It's no wonder. obviously. for which purpose a new. then. 9:22). But before that break with Judaism came. Romans 13:1-4. Paul was now free to invite the Roman conquerors into his faith with the Roman regime's complete absolution of the crucifixion of Jesus. was the decisive one for Christianity. that Paul felt himself to be at war against the Covenant." And when the Jewish mobs rioted against him (as reported after Acts 21:21) and the leader of the Jesus-sect. Another factor appears also to have been at work here. ricocheted down through the millennia to Hitler and beyond. made-over. the chief focus of the new faith was to be the winning-over of the same Roman regime that had executed Jesus. Paul would "try to please everyone in all that I do" (1 Cor." 225 . They had been circumcised as infants. From this point on.

was itself exacerbated by yet another distinctive feature of the faith: its theocratic nature. loyalty was split." or then synonymously to a "race. And part of this Covenant was circumcision. Hitler's concept. but was instead their God. referring to a "people. "Two roads diverged in a yellow wood . their Israel. as their own majority. everywhere that Jews lived. there was no tension between the state and the god as the source of the laws. Adolf Hitler's concept of what constituted a "race" was based on ancient myths that long predated the scientific study of biology." A SEPARATE WAY IN WHICH GENESIS 17:14 LED TO THE HOLOCAUST There was also another pathway by means of which the circumcisioncommandment ended up producing tragedy for the Jewish people: as a barrier against entry into the faith of adult males from the dominant cultures amongst whom Jews lived as a minority population. . The Jewish Covenant itself was theocratic: God made the laws. in which the ultimate source of the laws by which the people committed themselves to adjudicate their own social intercourse with one another." as a national. to the state and to a god. in fact.17: Bringing It All Together Little could Saint Paul have imagined how effective that model would eventually turn out to be for a German Caesar two millennia later. meaning either the potentate himself (if a totalitarian regime) or else the people (if a democracy). we indicated this in the first part. in which case the ultimate source of the laws was the state. served to isolate Jews off from the majority-population everywhere Jews were a minority. including biblical times. But the situation was very different everywhere and any time when Jews lived as a minority amongst some other majority. And little could whoever authored Genesis 17:14 have imagined the outcome either. a separate nationality living amongst the majority. . and as a separate people." as an "alien" minority living amongst the majority to whom legal loyalty was solely to the state. was not the state in which they lived. and that particular law in it in particular. then mean—continued— 226 . has a very different lineage. and so to keep Jews as a minority. Both the Covenant itself. the two were one. This feature of Judaism. going back to ancient times. segregated Jews off as a "separate people. When Jews were controlling their own state. circumcision helped to isolate the Jewish people from those majority-populations and cultures. This toxic combination of theocracy in general and of circumcision in particular. for Jews. which worked so much to the detriment of the faith's followers.

so as to explain in a favorable light this feature of the Jewish "race. which today is actually far more like what cultural anthropologists typically mean by the term "culture. Josephus. the link between Hitler's view of "the Jews" and the Jewish circumcision/theocracy features. no less—allegedly wanted to become a Jew. was not responsible for the vulnerabilities of Judaism." or "people" (as he himself refers to Judaism from the very first sentence in the work). It was actually in this sense that Hitler hated Jews." nonetheless warned her son that circumcision "would be dangerous. Only the theocratic matter would then have presented a problem." yet he nonetheless "sent for a surgeon" and had the "operation" performed. worst of all (given Hitler's personal fear). Paul took advantage of both these vulnerabilities of Judaism. the rate of conversion of non-Jews would thus have been vastly higher. The entire conclusion of his Against Apion (11:184-) is intended by him as a defense of the theocratic aspect of Judaism. and whose mother. Book 20 (paragraph 4). The writings of the ancient Jewish historian. a physical. but by his effort ultimately to achieve such integration at the expense of such perfect scapegoats whose resistance to his new faith was not only an enormous thorn in his side personally. as a culture/ nation. describes an instance in which a certain adult male—a Roman king.g. and so "alien. he simply exploited them brilliantly and with a vengeance (e. matter). biological." who lived amongst "God's People" and "polluted" them with both their ways and. for him. 1 —continued— 227 .. If circumcision had not been part of the Covenant.17: Bringing It All Together ing a cultural. Paul. conversion to Judaism would have been vastly easier at least for the people "who mattered" in the society of those times. the operations of both the theocratic and the circumcision features of the faith. their "blood" via "miscegenation" (which latter made this. That describes a second way in which Genesis 17:14 contributed towards the Holocaust. Josephus in his Antiquities. display sometimes even better than does the Bible itself. But inadvertently in doing so." or "nation. but in the final analysis even a physical threat to himself. that segregated Jews off from the majority-populations amongst whom they lived. who herself "was highly pleased with Jewish ways. Consequently. And as regards circumcision itself specifically. not separate itself off as a different. there would have been a much greater influx from these surrounding populations constantly joining the "Jewish people" and so enabling Judaism to integrate better with other societies. entity." than what a contemporary biologist would mean by using any term of biological distinction. not only by his separating his "Christianity" from them and thus freeing his new faith to integrate itself with the power-structure anywhere. was direct. it documents the very problem that I have mentioned concerning God as the source of the laws. "the people of Satan. who was a contemporary of Paul's. Paul made the link fatal. Thus." cultural entity. of course.

17: Bringing It All Together Thessalonians 2:15-16). and blindly joined hands over the millennia. 228 . Like Hitler. he not only freed his new religion of Judaism's intrinsic vulnerabilities. Both leaders were driven by very personal motives to perpetrate their evils. but he employed those vulnerabilities to scapegoat Judaism so as to win ultimately the entire Roman Empire as the Holy Roman Empire. By doing so. "sleepwalking" toward genocide. which served to make his crime likewise immense. Paul was a leader of immense achievement.

" Eichmann's recollection was exact to the day: Heydrich's official order. Heydrich had made known to him the "basic conception" of "the physical extermination of the Jews" as "the ultimate aim" that was "promulgated by Hitler. The Fuhrer had ordered the physical extermination of the Jews..' These were his words." And (xxii. there is no serious question that the Holocaust existed and that it constituted a crime of unimaginably vast scope. and that the Nazi Party and the other perpetrators "on the ground" were his instruments in carrying it out." was dated 21 September 1939. Equally without doubt—again notwithstanding hoaxers both inside and outside the universities—is the fact that Adolf Hitler held the motive for the crime. I reported. . 92) Eichmann also acknowledged that by no later than 21 September 1939.18: Of Smoking Guns and Hot Bullets Despite the transparent frauds of the Holocaust-deniers inside and outside acadcmia. then said.. it was in August or September 1941 that his boss "Heydrich sent for me.. On 31 July 1941 Goring instructed Heydrich to draw up detailed plans for "the desired final solution of the Jewish question" (document 710-PS in Trial of the Major War Criminals). Hitler's signature even appears on the document (630-PS) dated 1 September 1939 authorizing the "euthanasia" of the disabled and other "incurables. 75). and got 229 . Chief of the Bureau for Jewish Affairs at the Reich Security Headquarters. referring to "the final goal (which will require a lengthy period). According to Adolf Eichmann." The physicians had wanted that in writing. in his 1983 Eichmann Interrogated (p.. . He began with a little speech. 'The Fuhrer has ordered physical extermination.

Nor can there realistically be any doubt such as structuralist historians seek to spread. And in his Secret Conversations (Table Talk) of 21 October 1941. on the basis of that case. and we have found both a "smoking gun" and a "hot bullet" that meet all the requirements." Hitler's guilt in the Holocaust is beyond any reasonable doubt. on the occasion of his meeting with Hitler on 28 November 1941. This is a very different kind of "smoking guns and hot bullets" from that of a normal crime. the present book is the result. regardless of what neo-Nazis say. In what sense." The present author will not participate in that vile chicanery. This. Madegascar. might there be said to be a search for "smoking guns and hot bullets" in regards to a crime of this nature? The real search has always been for the motive. Anyone with even so much as a trace of normality in this regard. concerning whether Hitler might have been satisfied merely with expelling Europe's Jews to such a place as Palestine. would rather avoid the issue and leave the motive for this crime as it has been left till now: in the dark. it identifies. we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea. he concluded his long tirade against Jews: "By exterminating this pest. however. they are within the hearts and minds of the motivators. Thus. who never wanted them to know. now. This book has presented the case. or elsewhere." Hitler publicly stated in a speech on 24 February 1943 that this was necessary in order to have "exterminated a bacterium because we do not want in the end to be infected by the bacterium and die of it. and this book has focussed upon motivation. Few people have wanted to engage in that search. it is complicity with Hitler. even though he was proud to explain it to "my people. then. because the closer one gets to the motive. or whether his animus was only towards Europe's Jews. According to the notes of Hitler's admirer the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. Thus. both the "smoking gun" and the "hot bullet": 230 . is an affront to the victims. finally. and not towards Jews everywhere. the "smoking guns and hot bullets" in this crime are matters of motivation. there is every indication that he was nonetheless still planning the extermination of all Jews ultimately.18: Of Smoking Guns and Hot Bullets it. the more forcefully is drawn into question the culturally dominant approach to morality itself: religion. the Fuhrer privately promised to exterminate all Jews in Palestine as soon as his Nazi regime finished off the Jews of Europe. The guns and bullets that are to be found in this case are not physical. even if Hitler was seriously considering the explusion of Jews to Palestine.

Science has closed it." that is asserted by religious faith. of "Truth. Regarding motivation itself. like science." rather than by the far kinder means of merely sterilizing them. This witness record. it requires instead a keen mind when the type of evidence that is being sought is motivational rather than physical. In other words. the torturous killing-program itself was powerful physical/ circumstantial evidence that Hitler saw Jews as being what he claimed they were: "people of the devil. The witness evidence consists in such things as the notes by Hitler's friends such as Putzi Hanfstaengel. (2) witness. this case is solved with every kind of motivational evidence. (4) circumstantial. (3) physical. In a motivational case such as this. there arc other pieces of evidence as well—the kinds of evidence that supplement the smoking gun and the hot bullet so as to make those the clinchers to the case. comprising a wide range.18: Of Smoking Guns and Hot Bullets The smoking gun is: "The Bible—Monumental History of Mankind" (Hitler). Nonetheless. This standard has here been 231 . extending all the way from the habit of Hitler to "purify" his blood by using leeches. immovable by any reason for doubt." to the actual way that Hitler chose to "purify" the world of the "blood poisoning" of the "people of the devil"—namely. This does not mean proof to a certainty. the kinds of evidence have an analogue from the physical world of "Who done it?" into our world of" Why was it done?" that is in accord with the standard four kinds of evidence: (1) documentary. The physical and circumstantial evidence in a motivational case like the present one constitute a single category. Whereas the identification of the smoking gun and of the hot bullet in solving a normal crime requires a keen eye. this is the most difficult type of crime to solve. which is the standard of infallibility." Thus. This documentary record has been amply provided here. by torturous extermination designed to punish "Satan's people. The hot bullet is: "I did not want my work in the past or in the present to be a failure" (Saint Paul). Of course. the documentary evidence is Hitler's own statements made in his private notes to himself. has been cited amply here. it is solved. and. requires instead the more-realistic standard: proof beyond a reasonable doubt. and the testimony of others such as Dietrich Eckart regarding Hitler's religiosity and anti-Semitism. in the present instance. and also in any form when he was addressing his friends and supporters. Law. too. case closed. to Hitler's use of the whip to model himself symbolically upon the Jesus of John to "enter Berlin like Christ.

(b) An all-powerful being exists. Illusion is not good. After two-thousand years. is at last encountering history told as science tells it. the final figleaf covering the old myth is ripped away. not just end with it. The big problem comes when people behave on the basis of them. that is too raw: each religion has its own way of cooking this logic. And so: Where lies guilt? And what do we learn from this? The time has finally come.) Thus. The Bible is "history" told as religion tells it. and now we know why it lied. it derives from the syllogism that: (1) God is all-powerful. evolution) wrong. disillusion in the Twenty-First Century. But for public relations purposes. Maybe even hypocrisy is less bad. and what stands exposed this time is rape: people's minds have been raped by a historical account that lied. Why is this? One must understand the real source of religion's authority. History told as religion tells it. From what derives the moral authority of any religion? Logically. God's moral monopoly in religion. No longer is the challenge to the religious account just Darwin and Mendel— the Bible got the prehistory (i. (3) Therefore. so as to make a different—and palatable— 232 . No longer is the challenge to the religious account just Copernicus and Galileo—the Bible got the cosmology wrong. The time has finally come for science. Never again.18: Of Smoking Guns and Hot Bullets amply met. the difference turns out to be like night and day.e. it is vastly worse than disillusion." (The second of these propositions is actually itself a compound of two: (a) Might is right. Religious myths are not benign. Now it's history itself that is at stake. That is what we learn from this.. Best is never to have been illusioned in the first place. best is to start with science. Illusion in the First Century. and. WHY The Holocaust Happened is history told as science tells it. only they are carefully crafted to appear that way. the Holocaust was the final straw: "The Bible—Monumental History of Mankind" is a dangerous falsehood. (2) The all-powerful defines what is "right". God defines what is "right. and that the Holocaust was its result.

to deny Roman culpability for crucifixion. whom or what are we really convicting—and of what? 233 . they were not "in the image of God. is more-truly modelled upon the "Christian" God than is the real Jesus." a key part of the recipe is the claim that Jesus died not for what he did (since he was God and so can do no wrong). and they might have been worse. cripples. homosexuals. every one of the millions of people—Jews and other "imperfects"—who perished in the Holocaust not for what they did but for who they were. he was crucified. Now. But in reality. Gypsies. Paul was determined. as evangelist to the Romans. It "cooked" the facts just right for his purpose. Thus. but in terms of real moral authority. but for who he/she was: "a Jew. this recipe made a perfect fit." There were millions of others that Hitler also killed. And. Roman culpability for the crucifixion can therefore not be accepted in order for Paul's recipe to work. By no means does this imply that they were any better than the real Jesus. God). In solving this case. with him as the Jewish king. can one even imagine move-innocent victims than the approximately six million Jews who died in the Holocaust? These were no gods— just normal people—and they were no more nor less perfect human beings than others less-unfortunate. and for doing it. Jesus was the archetypal innocent victim. that cross was multiplied millions of times. but still no one can say that those people died for who they were rather than for what they did. but for who he was (namely. Roman rule was barbaric. But what defined every single one of them is that he/she was brutally murdered not for what he/she did. and those people-not Jesus of Nazareth—are upon it. In Paul's "Christianity. as we know. on the basis of which people will grant it moral authority." they were lesser "Jews. And there were also the morons. and in the highest sense Jesus might have been doing the noblest thing to try to lead his people to freedom from that rule under self-rule." not "God's people.18: Of Smoking Guns and Hot Bullets moral meal. Thus. and other "defectives" that Hitler also killed." who also died for whom they were rather than for what they did. But in his effort to do that—in his asserting himself as "King of the Jews"—Jesus was doing something. and we might even call many of those "heroes" because they were Christians who resisted Hitler's monstrous regime. And now we know that Paul and Hitler placed them there.

the merchandising of religion. But elsewhere—where people increasingly know the case against it—things are different. now. setting forth the case against Christianity in particular as the cause of the Holocaust. Scholars have written and spoken voluminously to provide intellectual support to this general cultural endorsement of religion as the basis for morality. and finally. Your whole life you have known the religious side. Each has individual responsibility for what he did. and the decision is yours to make. the selling of religion. "Christianity" did it. you have been exposed to the opposite position from what has been presented here. Your whole life.18: Of Smoking Guns and Hot Bullets We are convicting "Christianity" of having caused the Holocaust. Science has closed its case against "Christianity. You now know both sides. You are the jury. *************** The myth-making machine still has a future. you have had the views and the documentations from both sides: from everyone else defending religion in general (and Christianity itself perhaps most of all). you arc exposed to the opposite position from what has been documented here in relation to the Holocaust. Now. now—as with Galileo and Darwin on earlier historical occasions and on different subjects—the side of science has been introduced. in backward parts of the world." Science has closed another case against religion. you are exposed to the defense of religion. or hear a politician on television extoll religion as the foundation of moral behavior. for compassion. and for tolerance. ********** 234 . ********** Science has closed this case. and this includes Paul. or attend a religious service in which a clergy person does the same. for love. Every day that you read the newspapers. We are convicting Paul of having perpetrated a huge fraud upon his "Christians" that caused so many of them—especially Hitler—to have done it.

and will control even long after we are dead. Religion might be considered. science itself would repudiate the very idea that morality should be based on history—not even on true history. etc. It is because of history-based morality that Serbs and Croats murdered one another in the former Yugoslavia. not from history. If that history is false. such a morality is groundless. ********** The Age of Science is only an infant in swaddling clothes. But the point here is simply that any religious or other history-based morality is of a totally different kind. morality is based on history. Religious moral beliefs are always based on a historical account. a sub-category of a form of morality that in principle scientists cannot accept: moralities that are based upon historical accounts or "stories. not even a non-scientific rational one. that Hutus slaughtered Tutsis in Rwanda. must themselves be true. right after its peak during the Middle Ages. The alleged "inerrancy" of Scripture is always attributed to that Scripture's origins. always. The way is science. Science has disclosed the falsity of religious moral beliefs that are based on false history. a religious-based morality was at fault. 235 . to a scientist. Instead. that Catholics and Protestants murdered one another in Northern Ireland. not from a specific story. etc. then the morality has not just no scientific foundation. standard. The Age of Religion is in its maturity. Those abstract principles. typically in a supernatural God. history-based morality was. like any in science. No authentic scientist can accept such a morality." Science sets a far higher. By contrast. it has no rational foundation. in that sense. and more rigorous. Usually. It must derive from abstract principles.18: Of Smoking Guns and Hot Bullets The final solution is truth. they cannot just be any abstract principles for morality—principles such as philosophers have called "ethics. In religion." Even if the story is true.. Science has disclosed why the Holocaust happened: it has disclosed that the Holocaust happened because of anti-Semitic beliefs that are themselves based on lies. morality must derive from ethics. that Jews and Moslems killed each other in Israel.

are we so committed to that which caused the Holocaust. now. and we know how. Even Jesus—the real one— would probably demand it. ********** One might disagree with certain aspects of this verdict. It will be a better day. passionately. In accord with the consistent massive evidence. but nonetheless worthwhile. Our grandchildren will need it too. We know why. Jesus. our responsibility is to that coming dawn.18: Of Smoking Guns and Hot Bullets The dawn is coming. and the arguments and the counter-arguments (from all the scholars cited). We have had all the evidence presented to us. price to pay for the benefits 236 . can perhaps more reasonably be considered as having been an unfortunate. the Holocaust. and other mass horrors. Or. or that the massive suffering of millions of innocents in the pogroms. that we cannot do our duty? The choice is ours. The choice is ours. "Christianity" caused the Holocaust. and carrying out the responsibility justice bears to the millions who were crucified in the Holocaust's crematoria. The time for a verdict has finally come. including the smoking gun and the hot bullet. The dawn is ours to make—or not. and the counter-counterarguments. The victims of the night need a verdict for the dawn. historical. or that the good aspects of Saint Paul's "Christianity" overcome the outrages it has perpetrated upon and in the name of the actual. the Crusades. That verdict—that recognition—will help bring the dawn. the verdict of history is: "Christianity" caused the Holocaust. the Inquisition. one might say that it goes too far. Might the Holocaust happen again? Decisions make a difference in history—a big difference. ********** We live in our day. our responsibility is to the ugly truth of our present night. the Age of Religion: "Christianity" did it. now.

the making public of the reason why the biggest single organized mass-murder and mass-theft was perpetrated. of the true motive behind the greatest single crime in all of human history—that is to say. but he won much: his ultimate goal was to die in the conviction that he was going to heaven where God's People are. in no way is such punishment proportionate to so enormous a crime. just as Hitler was determined that his victims. all of these victims suffered for reasons that the modern age recognizes to be entirely innocent. the present writer does not agree with these views—not even with their mere moral acceptability. you do not need to know the motive of the chief executive officer. which have no bearing on the matter. practically speaking. But what cannot be reasonably disputed at all. rather than to hell to spend an eternity with the Jews who are the people of Satan—and Hitler probably was indeed able to console himself with such an expectation as he committed suicide in his bunker in 1945. Obviously. even though it guides your own actions just as if it were your own motive— which. Hitler's final 237 . which some of them perhaps did not know. is that the accountability for the Holocaust that was imposed at the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials fell far short of full measure. A few people were executed. And. In a bureaucracy. it is. which alone should utterly disqualify the position. Indeed. such as their not having been of "the right" faith (irrespective of any actual sins that they—just as the peipetrators themselves—might otherwise have committed. And what was absent at Nuremberg was what would have been Hitler's final defeat: the exposing. We today live in the shadow of what was never there. and his enemies. But in addition. just as the irrelevant virtues of both the victims and the victimizers do not). who were the beneficiaries of this particular faith. Hitler's henchmen themselves carried it with them to their graves. even though that motive became theirs by obedience and by bureaucratic fiat. to all the world. the very idea of achieving a proportionality by means of deathsentences would have been absurd. However. to the extent that even they knew it. these matters can still be reasonably debated. would never know his motive. considering the monumental nature of the crime. Hitler lost the war. because they did not know Hitler's motive. inasmuch as the interests of the victims are being subordinated to those of the victimizers. This was Hitler's supreme victory. Yet did Nuremberg aspire to more than that? What was present at those trials was far less than what was missing. And it was this: The victimizers took to the grave the secret of their ultimate motive.18: Of Smoking Guns and Hot Bullets Christianity has brought to others.

What Nuremberg lacked. this was because Hitler's motive was not discovered. We know why. would Hitler have wanted defeat that was combined with the final expose of his motive. Least of all. but also as the groundwork for a better future for Mankind: First. We have shown what the result of that view has been: it is not good for Man. has been presented here: the motive for the crime. This verdict counters that result. He died with hope. that our future as a species will not be unexpectedly brief). and because his country was itself Christian. and we know how." After World War II. Control presumes understanding—is impossible without it. in favor of "God's People.18: Of Smoking Guns and Hot Bullets Political Testament shows that he still retained the hope: he himself would die. but he yet retained the hope that "Providence" would carry out his victory." We have shown that Hitler. accepted God's control. Hitler. so as not to give his enemies the satisfaction of downing him. And second—and perhaps even more importantly—if we do not truly understand the past. in fact. one reason is that it is based on lies. implicitly and explicitly. This point warrants amplification: Some would say that control of Mankind by Mankind itself is unnecessary—perhaps even foolhardy: "Leave it to God. His final act before his suicide was not to order his people to surrender. this verdict crucially helps to define what a better future itself consists of. then we can reasonably only expect to repeat it (assuming. in places such as the Balkans and Rwanda. but rather to order them to continue the struggle until their final victory." Here is why this verdict is important not just as the culmination and missing component in the Nuremberg process regarding the accountability for crimes that were in the past. 238 . And it is in this sense that we can say with confidence: "'Christianity' perpetrated the Holocaust. thought that a better future consisted of racial purification. his vision of "a better future" has continued to be put into practise—to similar disastrous effect. after his passing. Nuremberg complied: Hitler's motive was not exposed. of course. of course. Hitler perpetrated the Holocaust—and his people overwhelmingly followed his will in it—because Hitler was a Christian who passionately wanted to go to a Christian heaven.

I have never gotten a direct answer.18: Of Smoking Guns and Hot Bullets Others would say that such control is unnecessary because democratic process alone will suffice to protect Man's interests. rather than the expose. academia has assisted the cover-up. and assert that. Indeed. as individuals who are knowledgeable and unbiased. Thus. are opponents of expose: it leads to truth. Conservatives could do the same in the United States. I was speaking with specialists. And that is why the opponents of control of Man by Mankind itself. concerning specifically the two pivotal figures in the present work. But we go further. but the answers that I have gleaned by listening "between the lines" have been a variant or mixture of the following three: The scholar is a Jew who does not want to offend Christians. just as there and then. for it will be this mythology that will have prepared the people when they enter the votingbooths to cast their ballots. and their platforms. and with the support of mainstream conservative parties and politicians. The public expects academia to behave in the opposite manner. ********** Unfortunately. (These are also scholars who have read my work. Of course. this is a myth. in a democracy. Yet Adolf Hitler came to power by means of democratic elections. and that has prepared the leading candidates and political parties. democracy itself is not a protection. under comparable circumstances. the same religious mythology is potent now that was potent then. One might even conclude that a democratic country—by virtue of its being so—is inevitably vulnerable to whatever defects might happen to exist in its particular dominant culture's mythology. as honest brokers in the marketplace of ideas. Britain. and/or who does not want Christians to know that antiSemitism was part of the Christian faith from the start. who are enormously well read on one or the other of these two figures. the only protection is the present kind of expose. The 239 . which leads to such control. which they oppose. The reason is that the goal of expose is to uncover the truth—and control is impossible for anyone who does not know the truth. not only of his own Nazi Party. The scholar is a Christian who does not want Christians to know that Hitler was a Christian. or any other country.) As might be expected. sustained in colleges and universities by scholars themselves. Conservatism embraces it—here and now. Hitler and Saint Paul. Why do scholars violate their public trust? What benefit do they expect to gain by doing so? I have asked that question of a fair number of them. scholars are looked to as authorities.

and cover-ups? If the reactions of people are more important than is science itself. And to meet this challenge. lies. but rather how people will react to it. This is thus Man's ultimate challenge. in some instances. Essentially. Man's ultimate challenge is to control his culture. All three reasons share one thing in common: the overriding consideration is not truth. Look at Kosovo. but other people might not be. including beyond the battlements of the ivory tower—to the scholars' cover-up? Look at Bosnia. What would be the excuse next time? 240 . truthful understanding of Mankind's major blunders and societally imposed horrors—such as the Holocaust— is the indispensable prerequisite." The scholar does not want to offend and to become an outcast from his/her professional colleagues by being known to support an interpretation of Hitler and/or Saint Paul that they all repudiate. then what have been the reactions of people—of the broader society. In previous eras. Look at Israel. in fact. "I am smart enough and/or good enough not to become an anti-Semite from such knowledge. Look at Northern Ireland. even if this was a willful ignorance. Look at Rwanda. Man could plead ignorance. been reacting to the scholars' distortions. Man must first see realistically what the consequences can be—and have been—when culture controls Man. culture has controlled Man. but has Man learned from the Holocaust the lessons that have been required in order to provide any reasonable assurance that it will not recur? The identities of the victims may be different—but that is irrelevant. seems to be generally along the lines of. In other words. rather than to be blindly controlled by it (as has been the case in all past history). in both instances.18: Of Smoking Guns and Hot Bullets motivation. What do you see? "God's People" and "the men of Satan" may. have different identities than they did in the 1930's and 40's. But how have people. But in order to do that. Thus far. conformism overrides the scholars' pretenses at science. The purpose of authentic social science is to change that: Mankind is now challenged to control its own culture.

in a few cases. The defendants who were convicted were found guilty of having obeyed criminal commands. his criminal motive would have had to have been established. But in order to convict Hitler himself. If he were to have gone to trial and no motive were found. To convict Hitler on undiminished charges would have required. 241 . their motive. means. Even a routine criminal trial is challenged to prove all three. to obey those criminal commands. was not put on trial. as all criminal convictions do. in order for him not to have been found to have been criminally insane. Adolf Hitler himself. of the work of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg. proof. and thus not guilty by reason of insanity. the crime s motive could not be legally established. but psychiatrists were to adjudge him to have been sane—which he was— then the trial of Hitler would have been in crisis. and of the insufficiency. of the standard three things: motive. because he escaped prosecution—he committed suicide. was a criminal motive. or else to find the defendant not guilty—even if. not guilty by reason of insanity. and so without trying him. Now this will be brought down to earth. beyond a reasonable doubt. and opportunity. What is the significance of that fact? It is this: Hitler held the motive for the crime. and made concrete and specific: The chief war-criminal.19: Completing the Work of Nuremberg We have spoken in general terms of the incompleteness.

or of science. and therefore the criminality of the Holocaust's motive was never able to be addressed at Nuremberg. It also serves the interests of the scholars. Iran. whether that be in Bosnia. and you have just rendered your verdict on Hitler's case—the verdict that Hitler himself deprived the world from being rendered at Nuremberg (if it even would have been). Northern Ireland. Consequently. The prosecution. There is no statute of limitations on this. or of posterity.19: Completing the Work of Nuremberg Thus. or wherever. are the jurors. the verdict of history itself would have been convulsed. You have rendered your verdict. for a reason that is even worse: Hitler himself was never tried. has argued against Hitler's case. in such a trial. But obviously. or of truth. Rwanda. here in this book. and for the motive not having been established and the case against him having failed for lack of having established a motive for the crime—has already been presented by the scholars. including everyone whose lives are damaged and destroyed by mass bigotry. this book has presented the Prosecution's case establishing Hitler's motive—the case that Hitler. or of justice. neo-Nazis. Was the Holocaust really a crime. stole from the world at Nuremberg. it pre-existed his death. and Hitler-supporters. If you have decided for Hitler. Israel. would have been presented with a moral and legal crisis of virtually unimaginable proportions. and is presented here. Hitler's motive would have had to have been established. but not a crime. then the Holocaust has been ruled by history to have been. Mankind. it is a continuing curse. who have continued to cover up Hitler's Holocaust-motive. But it did not happen. or of the advancement of knowledge. And the victims of this are all the victims of the failure. because 242 . This is not a crisis. because Mankind has still not had an opportunity to deal with the criminality of the Holocaust's motive. by his suicide. perhaps. by posterity. Russia. a great tragedy. The trial is one of public opinion—the judgment by history itself. or just a tragedy? Nuremberg never answered that question. Hitler's case—against the motive's having been Christianity itself. Fortunately. and that therefore now has to be presented by an investigative journalist so long after the fact. You. This situation serves the interests of today's anti-Semites. Hitler's testimony does exist after all. Kosovo. the readers of this book. or else the gross injustice of a "not guilty" verdict would have been legally required on the full charges. it does not serve the interests of Mankind. because Hitler shot himself and thus stole away with the motive into death's dark night.

According to Hitler's defense-case. and Hitler was merely carrying out the will of The Lord. If you accept the scholars' case. then Hitler is not guilty because the prosecution has failed here to establish one or both of these prerequisites for a "guilty" verdict: the motive itself. which arc discussed in the closing chapter that follows. The Hitler/Holocaust scholars have tried to persuade the world that Christianity was not Hitler's motive for the Holocaust. then there are policy-implications. is not itself criminal. or its criminality. perhaps the NeoNazis are right. that Jews are children of Satan. If that verdict has been in the prosecution's favor. 243 . that Hitler's motive was criminal because the Bible lied. as that has been left to us by Paul and the authors of the Gospels. The scholars— Hitler's defensecounsel at this trial—accommodated their accounts and arguments to at least the feasibility of the fundamentalist Christian position. But they have not accommodated their accounts and arguments to the feasibility of the prosecution case. You have reviewed all the evidence and arguments. which was behind the Holocaust. or else the motive was not criminal. presented here. In that event. either the motive was not established. and rendered your verdict.19: Completing the Work of Nuremberg ultimately no criminal motive was behind it. the Bible is inerrant because it is the Word of God. and the Pauline/Christian scholars have tried to support the culturally pre-existing viewpoint that Christianity. but is either truthful or else at least thoroughly benignly intended by those writers. whatever else one may say of the Holocaust. and against Hitler and Saint Paul.

but of genocide in its more universal sense. etc. are end-products of such essentially religious thinking. as well as of the ongoing bigotries that are based upon them. Blacks." Scapegoating of others not "God's People" is a natural result. etc.) but group-ethnic (German. applicable in the past. he/she would at least follow or participate in one— given ripe circumstances to do so. the ballotbox is a weapon against whomever is so unfortunate as not to be "God's People. and to strip them of voting-rights and other rights to participate in politics where not. Serb. cruel. or they could be Jews. Christian. Christians. If such a person would not initiate or lead a genocide. kind. Muslims. and other genocides. no matter how democratic the country might be. Here is that understanding: The religious mentality entails an acceptance of infallible authority that leads to the conceptualization of co-believers as (in effect. Jew. and future. if not literally) '"God's People. The Holocaust. Individuals whose primary social conceptual categories are not individual-behavioral (thief." Such victims could be immigrants. It will permit policies to be constructed on the basis of true understanding—not only of the Holocaust.) accept Hitler's most basic conceptual view: "we" are "God's People". Whites. Chechen. generous. Hutu. present.20: Policy-Implications This historical verdict will free Mankind from the shackles composed of the falsehoods of the past. It thus is of paramount socio-political importance to prevent such people where possible (such as by educating them about the falsity of such views). because the collective possibility of genocide exists always in such individuals. "they" are not. For them. or any other minority 244 .

where prejudice. however. by means of which the direction of social policy is established. Thus. any such individuals whose conviction was for a "bias" crime can already be prohibited from voting. non-behavioral markers would even be bigoted themselves. to take the simplest example. which is belief that violates science and even scientific modes of thought. Beyond that simplest example. application of this principle in less-patent instances could be debated in the light of that initial step. as a start. conviction for discrimination. and certain other individuals. inasmuch as such an individual's participation in politics would constitute a threat to the whole society. In any democracy. it must be both at once. are likewise prohibited from voting. Fortunately. Bigotry is obviously a form of prejudice. and is thus simultaneously not only a right but also a privilege.20: Policy-Implications group. and so it is appropriate that in a scientific society bigotry should be viewed as a violation of the most-basic accepted norms. new precedent would have to be established for the forms of bigotry that are not already subject to legal sanctions. such already-existing voting-prohibitions also affirm that the right to vote is itself conditional. More-broadly considered. since even at present. is unacceptable because it is incompatible with science in the broadest sense. but the key thing in the current context is simply that this precedent already exists. At present. Therefore.. ought certainly to qualify a person for the withdrawal of his/her right to vote or to participate in politics in any other way. but this should not be difficult to do in a scientific society. There is pre-existing legal precedent here because some convicts and exconvicts are already stripped of their voting-rights. hate-crime. This would establish in the law the basic social restraining principle against the expression of bigotry in state-policy. etc. How then can such bigots and potential bigots be identified? Only behavioral (including verbal) indices will succeed. it would be possible to apply that policy to all ex-convicts whose conviction was for a bias-crime. That should certainly be done. It is the first step along the path. the legal authority to do this is unfortunately actually arbitrary. 245 . The step proposed here would be a non-arbitrary application of that preexisting basic legal authority. no new precedent is needed in order to deal with criminals. whatever the particular majority group might happen to be. even ex-convicts can be legally prohibited from voting. Afterwards. certain criminals already provide this opportunity. The first step should thus be the one that is clearest within the context of the pre-existing legal precedents. However. This is furthermore made clear in that children. Since convicts and ex-convicts can already have their voting-rights withdrawn.

or crying "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Threat. If it is accepted that convicted bigots ought not to be permitted to vote in governmental affairs. even in nations with the strongest free-speech protections. an unlimited freedom to libel or slander individuals or corporations. We shall discuss that category momentarily. and they also sometimes incite riots. In this context. a very special category. This brings us directly to the freedom-of-speech issue. Nor is there. Next would come the logically derivative further restrictions for which the pre-existing legal precedents might presently be lacking: prohibitions against bigots participating in politics at all. Bigoted statements constitute threats against an entire group. such as libel. against an entire group. as mentioned. for which the victims of such acts have claims extending not only to the direct perpetrators but also to their inciters. Bias crimes. Amongst all forms of behaviors there is. is how to make the right to vote a rationally conditional right—how to condition the privilege in a rational way. because even in such societies there do already exist constitutionally acceptable limitations upon that freedom. defamation." However. and incitement-to-riot. are the pre-given "starters. in every country.20: Policy-Implications The real question. in no nation is there an unlimited freedom to threaten. the only question is 246 . Furthermore. perhaps the principal principle of all is: Bigots have no right to the voting-privilege. then from there the case can be made that any convicted bigot ought not to be permitted to contribute financially to a governmental political campaign. are already subject to legal liability. For example. However. and is generally expanding to encompass a growing number and range of behaviors. the concept of what constitutes a "bias crime" is actually in flux. in order to apply this basic principle. of speech-behavior. specifying which acts are "bigoted" and thus constitute disqualifications from the voting-privilege. Therefore. of course. they also defame an entire group. Even in countries such as the United States. where Constitutional provisions protect the freedom of speech—and especially of political speech—there would not necessarily be an insuperable bar against restraining principles protecting all individuals and the society-at-large from the political predations of bigots. It is going to be the most difficult. it is accepted that everyone is held legally responsible for the consequences of speech that incites riots or other acts of violence. etc. in any country. therefore. it is essential that bigotry itself must possess a legal definition. and also that convicted bigots ought not to qualify as candidates for any public office..

of a violation against the individual: a civil violation. ought to receive protections that are not granted to other forms of speech. that is. There is no reason whatsoever why bigoted expressions ought to be granted a protected. or some other "inerrant" source of right and wrong." No one but God can revise the Ten Commandments. the people do have the means to revise their own charter of basic laws. from the supernatural God. which threaten." Here. or of whatever kind—adhere to a body of basic Law that is found in already-existing "inerrant" Scripture. but those are bias-crime laws that already exist. their "constitution. In the Scientific Age. from the individuals or "people" themselves. privileged. It is "perfect. deciding. in a democratic state. because we were speaking just before about bias-crimes. or some medieval Emperor or King or whomever. and even genocides. It is essential to make clear that what is being proposed here is not a proposal to extend or expand the concept of crime. Even the Constitution is not "inerrant. of a violation against the state: a state-violation. In the Religious Age." so there is no reason why it ought to be altered. Joseph Stalin. defame and/or incite to riot. Fundamentalists—whether they be Christian." In no way is a constitutional democracy comparable to a theocracy. in which the fundamental Law comes from God. Not at all! Some readers might understandably find this confusing. It is mythological. Nor is this a proposal to extend or expand the concept of tort. Pol Pot.20: Policy-Implications whether bigoted expressions. Regardless whether the dictator is Ayatollah Khomeni. not from the people themselves. Even the Constitution in a scientific/democratic society has real provisions for its own amendment. That is the theocratic State— the totalitarian state. Science meets it. Kim II Sung." It is religious. lynchings. there is no "inerrant" source— none at all. To the contrary: bigoted expressions. the bodypolitic is bottom-up. this is a proposal to refine or make more specific the concept of democracy—the body-politic itself in the Scientific Age. the natural Marx. not new ones that are being proposed here. ought to be granted less legal protection than any other speech. by themselves. Marxist. that is. However. Mao Tse Tung. Instead of being a proposal to extend or expand the concept of either kind of violation. Instead. it is already "inerrant. because no other speech is as dangerous and harmful. what is "right" and "wrong. producing riots. status. the body-politic was top-down. Adolf Hitler. that "glory" is based upon myth. those proposals concern solely restrictions of political participation—and even those restrictions would be in addition to the ones that already exist. This cannot be altered. if anything. it is a lie. 247 .

or whatever. as "God's People. the search for an ever-refined. as the owners of the means of production—private employers. whether Crusades. rests ultimately upon a recognition that no one possesses capital-T Truth. who are prohibited from being educated and from competing on an equal basis in the economy. Jihads. half of the population. that meta-myth or myth-generating super-myth—the myth of the "inerrant" source— is struck down. in scientific society. So too. The question is how we can refine our concept of the scientific state. in line with the Bible or some other Scripture. communist takeovers. Hindus. of course. The cultural tendency toward backsliding is natural during our transitional age. So too do many conservative Jews. this has been bigotry against a class of people who are economically defined. In communist states. it does not exist. such as Stalin rounded up in the Soviet Union as "kulaks" and exterminated. And that is not only a Moslem form of bigotry. The concept of democracy has to be refined. were the natural result. so as to move forward more readily and more rapidly into stable democracies. so as to protect ourselves against those natural holdover forces. Even in the most democratic nations. just as its foundation which is science. Such stability is greatly threatened in our present transitional age. Thus.20: Policy-Implications The totalitarian state is the vehicle by means of which bigotry becomes politically institutionalized. Many conservative or fundamentalist Christians in Western nations likewise believe in law-imposed gender-inequality. geneologically or "'racially" (or by "blood") defined. small-t. or political participation of persons found guilty of having violated anti-bias laws that 248 . In Nazi Germany and to a lesser extent some other of the right-wing totalitarian states. or democracy. the great threat. But in the Scientific Age." Holy wars. so as to reduce that instability and thus those civil and international wars. Instead. the bigotry has instead been. there are racial and "foreigner" conflicts that occasionally break out into riots. did Hitler. is what progress is based upon: that is science itself. There is no inerrant source. it is crucial to make clear here that no change is being proposed to either the criminal or tort laws per se. this is the great problem. but that restrictions are instead being proposed upon the political franchise. truth. etc. Everywhere we look in the world. This instability produces many civil wars. Democracy. In Afghanistan today—a Moslem state—the victims of bigotry arc not restricted only to individuals of other faiths (a virtually non-existent group there anyway) but also include all females. Occasionally (such as during the Third Reich) it also produces international wars.

20: Policy-Implications already exist. to the extent that anti-bigotry laws. such as in any case already exist. The question for the society-at-large is simply this: Is there anything constructive and valuable that would be lost by removing bigotry from politics? I maintain that there is not—nothing at all. if in force during the Weimar Republic.. if they advocate bigotry against a group of people? If such politicians were placed under the restrictions here proposed. For example. the entire political debate would transform. Furthermore. It is only this that is at issue here. since the bigoted far-right would be disabled. But should people like Adolf Hitler qualify to vote or to run for public office. we face here a constitutional matter. then the politicians or political party that had made those charges would be ruled guilty of group-libel and disqualified from politics. Should it have been the case that a rabidly anti-Semitic political party qualified to compete in German elections? Should people like Hitler have even qualified to vote'? It might reasonably be objected that such policies would boost the vote of mainstream conservative parties. They just would not be able to participate in politics. In other words. However." But that is not true at all. which would be of long standing. in other words. these restrictions themselves would be in addition to the political franchise restrictions that already exist. bigots would still have the same freedoms to express their views that they have always had. themselves have teeth and are enforced. be the same as foreigners are today. they would. the entire political dialogue would be affected: extremism would decline. the Holocaust would have been prevented: Hitler and the Nazi Party would have been disqualified from politics. And the same restrictions would exercise the same effect against the bigoted (e. were maliciously false. about a certain type of constitutional amendment. But this is important. those mainstream conservative parties would likewise be prohibited from promoting bigotry—or at least would face barriers in that respect. Rather than a matter of criminal or tort law. as stated. Politicians could still freely make charges—any that they wished. But if representatives of any attacked group were able to demonstrate in a court of law that the charges. Nothing that is being advocated here would restrict freedom-of-expression. It might be objected that bigots would "just be driven underground. Such restraining principles would have an enormous impact. Marxist) left.g. The purpose here is to begin a constitutional debate. in this respect. as well. if bigotry played 249 . But even if that were not the case—even.

But that is not "never. such as flag-burning amendments. it is easier to care when things get desperate. Perhaps even within their own lifetimes they are right. that is what it is coming down to: Do we even really care? Of course. Blacks.20: Policy-Implications a valuable role in politics—then there would still be the question of whether that role were so valuable as to warrant race-riots." But "never" is a very long time. initiate. Scapegoating—whether of Jews. "It could never happen here. The smug ones in liberal democracies say. too. who want to roll back the clock. at long last. then it is only to be expected that such wanton horrors as genocides and race-riots will continue to occur. Those means consist of the introduction of the concept of bigotry itself into constitutional law." Is it only people such as Hitler who are concerned about future generations. state-encouraged or sponsored mass violence. Whites. Moslems. If democratic countries do not resolve this matter now. etc. ten. genocides." Because from now on. it fails to address the real problems of "God's People" (whomever they might consider themselves to be). Maybe such lemmings are right about the timeframe of the next five. Christians. not merely to react to such reactions. And what will the smug say then? What would be the excuse next time? Only: "We did not care. as a disqualification from political participation. It furthermore adds to those real problems. are not progressives also concerned about the long term? Cannot they. or do they only react to the reactionists? Is it really only the reactionists who care about what might happen to their children and their children's children? Such a public debate must begin now. anti-abortion amendments. and to deal instead only with whatever are the latest political hot-button issues of the day. or any other group)—does not only destroy "the devil's people". and other such mass violence and victimizations. immigrants. Progressives will have to find their own voice. or even twenty years. This can be done only by way of an extended public debate. It is easy to avoid such deep issues. The means exist to prevent genocides and other. If these available means are not employed. All of those intiatives come from conservatives. by extension from already existing laws. that is how such things are done. In a constitutional democracy. business-owners. and the 250 . lesser. then later will surely be too late. when times are good.

but to provoke a Japanese attack and to assure its success by preventing the military commanders at Pearl Harbor from defending against it. and the United States would have been faced subsequently with the necessity to go to war all alone against the Axis powers in order to maintain freedom and democracy at home in the United States. This would have meant an American war against a united fascist Europe and Asia. quickly joined the war against the Axis powers. Hitler would have won. Stinnett's Day of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor. Even if only the pacifist/isolationist efforts had succeeded. in recognition of the fact that unless the U. so that the American President and his Administration had no other alternative for stopping Hitler.S. the public-at-large clearly did not care.S. any other route would take too long. The Pearl Harbor attack. while the oligarchic coup attempt had not. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. and all the loss of American life and weaponry that it entailed. If such efforts had succeeded. then Hitler would have won. published in the final month of the Millennium. During the 1930's and 40's. was by means of such a successful and apparently unprovoked Axis attack. But even so. and did not respond. This posed an excruciating predicament for U. as revealed in Robert B. It documented that the American public did not care about Hitler's threat enough to favor the country's going to war to stop it. even in the most-liberal nations. Jules Archer's 1973 masterpiece.20: Policy-Implications economy and even the whole world seems to be falling apart. Yet that is exactly what was happening during the Third Reich and the Great Depression.S. The Plot to Seize the White House. and both religious liberals and religious conservatives were passionately organizing groups for pacifism and isolationism to prevent the United States from joining the war. were the successful outcome of an eight-step secret U. the world stood back. dictator patterned after the European fascist models. established the immense political dangers that FDR faced domestically: a cabal of America's wealthiest families were pouring millions of dollars into a scheme for a coup d'etat to overthrow him militarily and to impose a U. Naval Intelligence strategic memo that President Roosevelt began implementing in October 1940.S. by which time Hitler would already have won the war. the Axis (including especially Hitler) would win. and that the only way possible to turn American public opinion around from its then-existing isolationist consensus toward supporting America's going to war against Hitler. America would have been forced to fight virtually the entire world in order to maintain its 251 .

S. we can't much longer rely just on luck. in any country. When Franklin Delano Roosevelt made the decision to sacrifice Pearl Harbor to the Japanese— the greatest political decision in history—the U.20: Policy-Implications own democracy and independence. Religion has never. Probably no political leader in history has ever had to face such a painful choice. the stakes become ever-larger. is: Do we even really care! Now do we care? After all. What then! With the advancement of technology. So the question. It had better happen soon. is nothing less than—at long last—the completion of the epistemological transformation of the species that commenced when the Renaissance itself did: the transformation from the Religious to the Scientific Age. that fascist rule over the entire world was able to be averted. The public did not care enough. we might not be so lucky as to have in the U. from this point forward. 252 . from today forward. if an equivalent challenge ever happens again.S. because the public—both religious liberals and religious conservatives—did not understand what the stakes really were. White House must have seemed a very lonely place indeed. Is Mankind itself up to the challenge? What is needed. It is only because America did not join the war too late. Franklin Delano Roosevelt had to deceive his own people—both religious conservatives and religious liberals—by sacrificing Pearl Harbor to the Japanese in order to save for us and for all future generations the world that we have today. This is the warning. The stakes are simply becoming too large for that to be tenable any longer. been so reality-oriented as to educate the public about what really counts. White House a President of FDR's caliber. because the Axis would already have beaten England and the Soviet Union he/ore the United States joined the war too late as the lone bastion of freedom and independence.

APPENDICES Random thoughts on other causative factors behind the Holocaust. and a guide to the best works published relative to causation: 1: 2: Hitler's Essay. "My Theory of Eugenics" A: Is bigotry associated with fundamentalist religion? B: Is atheism the solution to bigotry? C: Naziism and psychopathy D: Why did the German people support Hitler? E: The majoritarian arrogance of German mass-culture F: The great failure of intellectuals and the academy G: Mass-media peddling of lies H: The role nationalism plays in genocide I: The future of the social sciences 254 277 294 298 304 314 325 340 344 346 253 .

400.421-3. This theory had a bigger impact than virtually any other theory in all history. Volume I. 392. However.606. and that. does Hitler credit or acknowledge his source. 390. much less cite the specific chapters and verses from it that he is using.434-5. "The Bible—Monumental History of Mankind. aimed to "purify" the human "race" or actually species. that. 336-7.) (The following is excerpted from the 1939 Houghton Mifflin edition of Mein Kampf pages in the following order: 610. Here in Mein Kampf he fills in the details of this theory for the Holocaust that he had previously merely outlined in his private notes in 1919. 612-3. 581. At the foundation of Hitler's theory was the conviction that Hitler expressed several times elsewhere.452." Hitler. 338-9. in brief.288-9." to restore in a contemporary setting the Garden of Eden." Jews are "the men of Satan.396.4489. 344-5." all that you will see here is unattributed borrowings from that source. while Aryans are "the men of God.452. We are God's People". "There cannot be two Chosen People.390. 960-1. 826-7. 3469. 78. where he credited his source. and that was most dramatically captured by Hermann Rauschning's account of Hitler in conversation. unlike in those private notes. perhaps only Karl Marx's stupidity surpassed it.604-5. for The Germanic Revolution.675-7.406.993. by exterminating "the men of Satan"and by breeding "the men of God.) 254 .392.APPENDIX 1: "My Theory of Eugenics" by Adolf Hitler (Extracted from Mein Kampf.608-9.621. Nowhere in Mein Kampf which of course was public. Hitler presents here the theory behind the Holocaust—the reason why he was subsequently proud to organize the selection of millions of people for systematic slaughter.

obliged and bound by nothing but a command of the Church. It has to make the child the most precious possession of a people. and this right is at the same time the most sacred obligation. an era in which the one knowingly and silently renounces. but rather in the uplifting of mankind itself. It has to 255 . Thus a folkish State primarily will have to lift marriage out of the level of a permanent race degradation in order to give it the consecration of that institution which is called upon to beget images of the Lord and not deformities half man and half ape The folkish State has to make up for what is today neglected in this field in all directions. and the other gladly gives and sacrifices. Should not the same renunciation be possible if it is replaced by the admonition finally to put an end to the permanently continuous original sin of a race poisoning and to give the Almighty Creator beings as He Himself created them? *** There is only one most sacred human right. That this is possible must not be denied in a world in which hundreds and hundreds of thousands of men voluntarily impose celibacy upon themselves. namely: to see to it that the blood is preserved pure.Appendix 1: "My Theory of Eugenics" In the folkish State the folkish view of life has finally to succeed in bringing about that nobler era when men see their care no longer in the better breeding of dogs. so that by the preservation of the best human material a possibility is given for a more noble development of these human beings. It has to care for its preservation in purity. It has to put the race into the center of life in general. horses and cats.

indifference with which today the social presumptions of a family with many children is treated.Appendix I: Hitler's Essay. to keep healthy children from the nation. nay criminal. to renounce this. and in its place it has to consider itself the guardian of this precious blessing of a people. it has to care that the fertility of the healthy woman is not limited by the financial mismanagement of a State regime which makes children a curse for the parents. It has to do away with that foul. that in the face of this it gives proof of a nobility of the highest mind and of most admirable humaneness if the innocently sick. By education it has to teach the individual that it is not a disgrace but only a regrettable misfortune to be sick and weakly. Some day it will appear as a greater deed than the most victorious wars of our present bourgeois era. Thereby the State has to appear as the guardian of a thousand years' future. Here the folkish State has to achieve the most enormous work of education. but the one highest honor. On the other hand. on the other hand this has to be looked upon as objectionable. It has to put the most modern medical means at the service of this knowledge. but that it is a crime and therefore at the same time a disgrace to dishonor this misfortune by one's egoism by burdening it again upon an innocent being. by renouncing his own child. gives his love and tenderness to an unknown. that there is only one disgrace: to be sick and to bring children into the world despite one s own deficiencies. whose health promises that one day he will become a vigorous member of a 256 . "My Theory of Eugenics" take care that only the healthy beget children. It has to declare unfit for propagation everybody who is visibly ill and has inherited a disease and it has to carry this out in practice. Further. in the face of which the wish and the egoism of the individual appears as nothing and has to submit. poor young descendant of his nationality. Its care belongs more to the child than to the adult He who is not physically and mentally healthy and worthy must not perpetuate his misery in the body of his child.

decline. have to serve this purpose. the nourishment of its children and the preservation of the purity of the blood. will have eliminated the germs of our present physical. as long as the higher part of this crossing still exists in some racially pure unity. For once a people and a State have set out in this way. but would also contribute to a restoration that appears hardly believable today. the result will be a race which. The prevention of the procreative faculty and possibility on the part of physically degenerated and mentally sick people. *** One can establish the following valid conclusion: Every race-crossing leads necessarily sooner or later to the decline of the mixed product. Without considering understanding or non-understanding.Appendix I: Hitler's Essay. Every thought and every idea. *** What we have to fight for is the security of the existence and the increase of our race and our people. would not only free mankind of immeasurable misfortune. approval or disapproval. so that finally the entire nationality may share the blessing of a highbred racial treasure. the freedom and independence of the fatherland in order to enable our people to mature for the fulfillment of the mission which the Creator of the universe has allotted also to them. at least at first. every doctrine and all knowledge. With this work of education the State has to render the purely spiritual supplement of its practical activity. The danger for the mixed product is abolished 257 . and with it of the spiritual. it has to act in this sense. for only six hundred years. then one will direct one's eyes at increasing the racially most valuable nucleus of the people and its very fertility. If thus the conscious methodical promotion of the fertility of the most healthy bearers of the nationality is realized. "My Theory of Eugenics" powerful community.

Nevertheless. moreover. the devine will. Who destroys His work thereby declares war on the creation of the Lord. 258 . let it be pondered. "My Theory of Eugenics" only in the moment of the bastardization of the last higher. how racial decay drags down. as long as there still exists a basic stock of racially pure elements and no further bastardization takes place. which hundreds of thousands of our people overlook as though blind. at least in our great cities. their being.Appendix I: Hitler's Essay. In this is rooted a slow yet natural process of regeneration which gradually eliminates racial poisonings. promoted systematically by the Jews today. but strive to destroy one another. to see to it that God's will is not simply talked about outwardly. racially pure element. this blood-poisoning that can be removed from our body national only after centuries or nevermore. but whether Aryan humanity maintains itself or dies out. is. indeed often annuls. where southern Italy already is today. and their faculties. but that God s will is also fulfilled and God s labor not ravished. Both. so that our force as a culture-bearing people is visibly more and more in retreat and we run the great danger of ending up. This infection of our blood. What is important for the earth's future is not whether Protestants vanquish Catholics or Catholics vanquish Protestants. blonde girls and thus destroy something that can never again be replaced in this world. Precisely he who is folkishly oriented has the most sacred duty. further. today the two denominations do not fight against the despoiler of this humanity. Systematically these black parasites of the nations ravish our innocent young. the final Aryan values of our German nation. yes. *** Let the desolation which Jewish hybridization daily visits on our nation be clearly seen. Because God's will once gave men their form. each within his own denomination. both Christian denominations regard with indifference this desecration and annihilation of a noble and unique race to whom the earth was given by the grace of God.

Appendix I: Hitler's Essay. waits in ambush for the unsuspecting girl whom he defiles with his blood and thus robs her from her people. And those who are stupid begin to believe him. Yet the bastards take to the Jewish side. It will forever only be the master of bastards in this world. With the aid of all means he tries to ruin the racial foundations of the people to be enslaved. *** He poisons the blood of others. but he guards his own. The Jew does not marry a Christian woman. Especially a part of the higher nobility degrades itself completely. "My Theory of Eugenics" *** For hours the black-haired Jew boy. For a view of life is intolerant and cannot be content 259 . can never be enslaved by the Jew. Yet. by the bastardization which would necessarily set in. he speaks now more and more of the equality of all men. always with the same concealed thought and the clear goal of destroying. conscious of its blood. Exactly as he himself systematically demoralizes women and girls. without consideration of race or color. in order to disguise his activity and to put his victims to sleep. but always the Christian a Jewess. to throw it down from its cultural and political height and in turn to rise personally to the position of master. It was and is the Jews who bring the negro to the Rhine. he is not scared from pulling down the barriers of blood and race for others on a large scale. Thus he systematically tries to lower the racial level by a permanent poisoning of the individual. and for this reason he systematically carries out this kind of 'disarmament' of the spiritually leading class of his racial adversaries. the white race which they hate. He knows this only too well. For a racially pure people. diabolic joy in his face.

Only then can a new condition be created by construction.Appendix I: Hitler's Essay. that indeed this kind of intolerance and fanaticism incorporates the very Jewish nature. views of life never. Now one may very well raise the objection that with such phenomena in world history one has mostly to do with those of specifically Jewish ways of thinking. Exactly the same applies to religions. but is pure and genuine throughout. views of life proclaim their infallibility. Political parties count with opponents. This may be right a thousand times. it was compelled to proceed to destroying the heathen altars. is fought for with the same strongest will.' but it demands dictatorially that it be acknowledged exclusively and completely and that the entire public life be completely readjusted according to its own views. will be broken only by a new idea that is driven forward by a similar spirit. Only out of this fanatical intolerance could an apodictic creed form itself. 260 . "My Theory of Eugenics" with the role of a 'party among others. Political parties are inclined towards compromises. and terror by terror. but he will not be able to deny the fact that since then the world has been threatened and dominated by this compulsion. Christianity also could not content itself with building up its own altar. A view of life. The individual may state with pain today that with the appearance of Christianity the first spiritual terror has been brought into the much freer old world. filled with infernal intolerance. but they must try to find out how one can abolish given facts. and that compulsion is broken only by compulsion. Therefore it cannot tolerate the simultaneous existence of a representation of the fonner condition. and this intolerance is even its absolute presupposition. The men who want to redeem our German people from its present condition must not torture their heads with thinking about how splendid it would be if this or that did not exist. and one may well regret this fact deeply and state its appearance in the history of mankind with only too justified annoyance as something that had been unknown to history thus far—yet this does not change the fact that this condition does exist today.

Appendix I: Hitler's Essay. But the very narrowness of their programs robs them of the heroism that a view of life demands. nearly always they harbor a minor impulse towards a view of life. It requires all the force of a young missionary idea once again to inspire our nation to break out of the snare of this international snake and internally to check the tainting of our blood. in a mighty struggle. and thereby recognize it as a whole? With what right shall we then 261 . they renounce the fight for a view of life and instead by so-called 'positive cooperation' they try to conquer as quickly as possible a place at the food trough of existing institutions and to remain there as long as possible. until another force opposes him and. Thereby he continues to move farther on his fatal course. How shall our own nation be freed from the chains of this poisonous embrace if we hand ourselves over to it? How reveal bolshevism to the individual German worker as an accursed crime against humanity if we ally ourselves with the organizations of this spawn of hell. And the Jew guards this better than any other people of the earth. once more pitches the stormer of the heavens back to Lucifer. is their only endeavor. But if one pursues this goal. "My Theory of Eugenics" Political parties too have originally always the intention of coming to sole despotic domination. however. The conciliating measures of their intention leads to them the petty and weak minds with whom one cannot make crusades. then it is insanity to ally oneself with a power which has as its rulers the mortal enemy of our own future. comes from the abandonment of their purity of blood. By this. however. Thus in most cases they soon get stuck in their own pitiable pettiness. their own death of old age. so that the nation's forces can thereby be devoted to the securing of our nationality. This. The impotence of nations. then. which may make it possible to prevent a repetition of the final catastrophe until the end of time. Germany is today the next great battle aim of bolshevism.

"My Theory of Eugenics" condemn members of the broad masses for their sympathy for a view of life if the very leaders of the State choose the representatives of this view of life as allies? The struggle against Jewish bolshevization of the world requires a clear attitude towards Soviet Russia. The Jewish religious doctrine is primarily a direction for preserving the purity of the blood of Judaism 262 . stolen. But what would have been more useful and at the same time more harmless than the 'purloining' of the appearance of being a religious community? For here. Indeed. but rather for a practical and bearable life in this world. only their progress made them probably look very early for a means which could divert disagreeable attention from their person. too. the Talmud is then not a book for the preparation for the life to come. *** The Jews were always a people with definite racial qualities and never a religion. *** We must not forget that the international Jew. everything is purloined. not an ally.Appendix I: Hitler's Essay. or rather. You cannot drive out the Devil with Beelzebub. sees in Germany. but a State marked for the same destiny. But in the Aryan conception one cannot conceive of a religion which lacks the conviction of the continuation of life after death in some form. But resulting from his own original nature the Jew cannot possess a religious institution for the very reason that he lacks all idealism in any form and that he also does not recognize any belief in the hereafter. *** In Russian bolshevism we must see Jewry's twentieth-century effort to take world dominion unto itself. who today rules Russia absolutely.

but rather extremely modest economic ones. When he speaks French. the drivel of the Jews themselves about this is. About the moral value of the Jewish religious instructions there exist today and there have existed at all times rather exhaustive studies (on the non-Jewish side. and when he turns out German poetry. for instance. but for hiding them. especially in the great cities. For him it is never a means of expressing his thoughts. But here. that the Jew is not a race but simply a religion. that means. with non-Jews. further lies are then built up in necessary consequence.Appendix I: Hitler's Essay. To them also belongs the language spoken at the time by the Jew. Syphilis began to spread more and more. he thinks Jewish. But for this. as his nature was two thousand years ago to the Sublime Founder of the new doctrine. while our present party Christianity disgraces itself by begging for Jewish votes in the elections and later tries to conduct political wirepulling with atheistic Jewish parties. and his spirit is as alien to true Christianity. who even then as always saw in religion only a means for his business existence. of course. the latter made no secret of His disposition towards the Jewish people. he only gives an outlet to the nature of his people. cut to the purpose) which make this kind of 'religion' appear even odious from Aryan viewpoints. but even more in connection with the rest of the world. and this against their own nation. Christ was crucified. Upon this first and greatest lie. His life is really only of this world. Of course. too. "My Theory of Eugenics" as well as for the regulation of the Jews' intercourse with one another. *** Parallel with the political and moral infection of the people went a no less terrible poisoning of the health of the national body. and when necessary He even took to the whip in order to drive out of the Lord's temple this adversary of all humanity. But the best stamp is given by the product of this 'religious' education. the problems involved are not at all ethical. the Jew himself. of course. while tuberculosis was 263 .

In no other city of western Europe could the relationship between Jewry and prostitution. with the possible exception of the seaports of Southern France. for the moral devastation which this depravity brings with it are sufficient to destroy a people slowly but surely. one had to take quite different steps than was actually the case. or rather forced them to see them. If one wanted to fight it seriously. An icy shudder ran down my spine when seeing 264 . yet it would still be of deepest danger for the people. The invention of a remedy of a questionable character as well as the commercial exploitation of the latter are able to help but little with this plague. for instead of vigorous children of natural feeling. be studied better than in Vienna. lies primarily in our prostitution of love. Although in both cases the consequences for the nation were terrible. Towards syphilis especially one can describe the attitude of the national and State authority only with the words. one could no longer bring oneself to take decisive measures. *** [When I lived in Vienna.] the life in the street gave some really evil demonstrations. Also here only the fight against the causes should be considered and not the abolition of the symptoms. "My Theory of Eugenics" steadily reaping its harvest of death almost throughout the entire country.Appendix I: Hitler's Essay. The cause. however. with every step one could witness things which were unknown to the greater part of the German nation until the war gave the soldiers on the Easter Front an opportunity to see similar things. Even if the result of this were not this terrible disease. only the miserable specimens of financial expedience come forth. When walking at night through the streets and alleys of the Leopoldsstadt. The Judaization of our spiritual life and the mammonization [sic] of our mating impulse sooner or later befouls our entire new generation. complete capitulation. and even now the white slave traffic.

even terrible fact: some do not see anything at all. This put an end to a long internal struggle. The most obvious results of this mass contagion can be found on the one hand in the lunatic asylums. "My Theory of Eugenics" for the first time the Jew as a cool. unfortunately. and. *** The fact that the population of our big cities is prostituted more and more in its love life. The scales dropped from my eyes when I found the Jew as the leader of Social Democracy. cannot just be abolished by denying it. in the presence of every sinner caught in the act. a third group see very well the terrible consequences which this disease is 265 . But then my indignation flared up. Now there are different ways to reconcile oneself with this disagreeable. I suddenly bumped against him in a place where I had never suspected. As I learned to look for the Jew in every field of our cultural and artistic life. it is there. no. above all. in our—children. in the diseases of the children the vices of the parents are revealed. Now I did not evade the discussion of the Jewish question any longer.Appendix I: Hitler's Essay. I sought it out. and on the other. or rather they do not want to see anything: this is of course by far the most simple and cheapest 'attitude'. others wrap themselves in a saintly cloak of prudishness that is as ridiculous as it is also mendacious. they only talk of this entire domain as if it were a great sin. and calculating manager of this shocking vice. and that just through this it falls victim to syphilis in more and wider circles. These especially are the sad certificates of misery of the irresistibly advancing tainting of our sexual life. they express their deeply felt inner indignation in order then to close their eyes in pious disgust towards this vicious disease and to ask God (if possible after their own death) to rain fire and brimstone upon this Sodom and Gomorrah in order once again to make an elevating example of this disgraceful mankind. the outcome of the scum of the big city. shameless.

What today calls itself a gymnasium is an insult to the Greek example. This is the very first preliminary condition for a solution of this question. convinced that they can do nothing against this danger. one looks at the great masses of the people. it belongs to those of whom it is said. bring with it. and that race which does not pass the test will die and make room for races healthier or at least tougher and of greater resistance. this principle receives absolute 266 . by a fundamental change of social conditions. For. in our present-day education a balance between intellectual instruction and physical training has to take place. In the second place. But this is valid only for the sins against blood and race. Above all. one can approach a real fight against prostitution only if. the question is then all the more which nation first and by itself is able to master this plague. anyhow. and which nations cannot help perishing. with a few exceptions. Especially when. "My Theory of Eugenics" bound to. This also is only a touchstone for the value of a race.Appendix I: Hitler's Essay. but nevertheless they only shrug their shoulders. With our education one has entirely forgotten that in the long run a healthy mind is able to dwell only in a healthy body. since this question primarily concerns the coming generation. *** However. with terrible correctness. education and training have to eliminate quite a series of evils about which one hardly cares at all today. That is what matters in the end. that the sins of the fathers are visited upon the tenth generation. however. earlier marriage than can take place now is made generally possible. The sin against the blood and the degradation of the race are the hereditary sin of this world and the end of a mankind surrendering to them. and will. so that one has to let things go as they are going. Therefore.

even sick beings. They are the exceptions which—as everywhere—prove the rule. and only as the last thing. His activity will in no case be rewarded with great success. has to direct its entire education primarily not at pumping in mere knowledge. "My Theory of Eugenics" validity. One simply went on sinning against the body. The folkish State. but at the breeding of absolutely healthy bodies. is no objection. 267 . and one thought that in the one-sided training of the 'mind' one possessed a safe guaranty for the greatness of the nation.Appendix I: Hitler's Essay. care and development of the racially best elements. connected with education for joyfully assuming responsibility. Just as in general the presumption for spiritual achievements lies in the racial quality of the given human material. scientific schooling. or it will be so weakened in its will power that it will be unable to follow the soaring flight of such an eagle. The fact that geniuses are sometimes physically badly formed. but that it has to educate the young offspring towards becoming a valuable member in view of later propagation. vigorous spirit will be found only in a healthy and powerful body. through this realization. for. The degraded rabble will either not understand him at all. *** If as the State's first task in the service and for the welfare of its nationality we recognize the preservation. But here again first of all the development of the character. thus also the individual's education has to focus upon and to promote first of all physical health. especially the promotion of will power and determination. within the masses. a healthy. Of secondary importance is the training of the mental abilities. In pre-war Germany there was a time when one no longer cared for this truth. But if the mass of a people consists of physical degenerates. then out of this swamp a really great spirit will arise only very rarely. it is natural that this care has to extend not only to the time of birth of the young member of people and race.

Our entire public life today resembles a hothouse of sexual conceptions and stimulants. therefore. He has no right to loaf about idly in these years. One has only to look at the menus of our movie houses. 268 . "My Theory of Eugenics" *** Thus the entire education has to be directed towards employing the free time of the boy for the useful training of his body. with it. That this is bound to lead to serious damage to youth is probably clear to everyone who has not lost the ability to imagine himself in the place of a youth's soul. and theaters. In shop windows and on billboards one works with the basest means in order to attract the attention of the masses. Parallel with the training of the body. This sensual sultry atmosphere leads to ideas and stimulations at a time when the boy ought not yet to have an understanding for such things. the fight against the poisoning of the soul has to set in. that even in the circles of this age syphilis begins to seek its victims? And is it not a misery to see how so many physically weak.and fifteen-year-old youths. Who will wonder. of the race. events sometimes penetrate to the public which permit a horrible insight into the inner life of our fourteen. above all for youth. There is no liberty to sin at the expense of posterity and. he who wants to attack prostitution must primarily help to abolish the mental presupposition for it. and one can hardly deny that this is not the right kind of food. but after his daily work he has to steel and harden his young body so that life will not find him too soft some day. and not the exclusive infiltration of socalled wisdom.Appendix I: Hitler's Essay. To get this underway and also to carry it out. It has also to do away with the conception that the treatment of the body were the concern of each individual. vaudevilles. From the courtrooms. The result of this education can be studied in a not very enjoyable way with the youth of today. to make streets and movie theaters insecure. to guide and to lead is the task of the education of youth. young men receive their initiation into marriage by a whore of the big cities? No. and also mentally corrupt.

For here. if necessary. If we do not lift our youth out of the morass of its present surroundings. Only after the execution of these measures can the medical fight against this disease itself be carried on with some prospects of success. of course. "My Theory of Eugenics" He has to clear away the filth of the moral contamination of the 'culture' of our big cities. will be let loose. The right of personal freedom steps back in the face of the duty of the preservation of the race. here. billposters and window displays must be cleaned of the symptoms of a rotting world and put into the service of a moral idea of State and culture. movies. literature. The determination to proceed in this direction will also put up a dam against the further spreading of venereal diseases. Theater. it will be submerged in it. In all these things the goal and the way have to be determined by the care for the preservation of our people's health in body and soul. lets hundreds of others perish. a barbaric 269 . but in the future it will lead to an increasing improvement of health on the whole. Public life has to be freed from the suffocating perfume of our modern eroticism. for the latter lies in the coming generation. in order not to hurt one individual. However. He who does not want to see these things supports them and becomes thus a fellow culprit in the slow prostitution of our future. and this ruthlessly and without hesitating despite all clamor and lamentations which then. It will spare undeserved suffering to millions of unfortunates. It is a half measure to allow incurably ill people the permanent p ossib ility of contaminating the other healthy ones.Appendix I: Hitler's Essay. The demand that for defective people the propagation of an equally defective offspring be made impossible is a demand of clearest reason and in its planful execution it means the most humane act of mankind. exactly as also of all unmanly prudish insincerity. art. This cleaning-up of our culture must extend to nearly all domains. too. one will have to proceed to the pitiless isolation of incurably diseased people. the press. but also here one will have to come to the most serious and most incisive decisions. the question involved cannot be that of half measures. But this corresponds entirely to a humaneness which.

For the illness of the body is here only the result of an illness of moral. social.Appendix I: Hitler's Essay. "My Theory of Eugenics" measure for one who was unfortunate enough to be stricken with it. is not fought out. Alone the loss of the purity of the blood destroys the inner happiness forever. The goal of female education has invariably to be the future mother. and racial instincts. *** All great cultures of the past perished only because the originally creative race died off through blood-poisoning. If this fight. it eternally lowers man. The temporary pain of a century may and will redeem millenniums from suffering. the intellectual values. by reason of inertia or also cowardice. without deliberately insulting the All Highest. prostitution. as their consecutive symptoms. colossal for the reason that it does not involve the solution of a single question in itself. Then one would be able to find only a few images of God. but rather the abolition of quite a series of evils which. Here too the main stress should be put on physical training. *** 270 . but a blessing for the contemporaries and for posterity. and never again can its consequences be removed from body and mind. give the cause for this disease. *** Analogous with the education of the boy. then one should look upon the nations five hundred years from now. and only after this on the promotion of spiritual and last of all. the folkish State can also direct the education of the girl from the same viewpoints. The fight against syphilis and its pacemaker. is one of the most colossal tasks of mankind.

) and favored by the mass of the helping means in the form of people of inferior kind now at their disposal. sin against the will of eternal Providence. The presumption for this does not lie in blending the superior with the inferior. That means: the young one will probably be on a higher level than the racially lower parent. and their ruin by the hand of a stronger nation is consequently not an injustice that is done to them. but only the restoration of right. Aryan tribes (often in a really ridiculously small number of their own people) subjugate foreign peoples. "My Theory of Eugenics" Peoples which bastardize themselves. etc. but not as high as the higher one. they develop the mental and organizatory abilities slumbering in them. in the course of a few millenniums or even centuries. however. the conquerors deviate from the purity of their blood which they maintained originally. it will succumb later on in the fight against the higher level. that he may not sacrifice his own greatness. stimulated by the special living conditions of the new territory (fertility. they begin to mix with the subjected inhabitants and thus they end their own existence. or permit themselves to be bastardized. But such a mating contradicts Nature's will to breed life as a whole towards a higher level. The stronger has to rule and he is not to amalgamate with the weaker one. Consequently. they create cultures which originally completely bear the inner features of their character. 271 . Finally. climatic conditions.Appendix I: Hitler's Essay. adapted to the special qualities of the soil as well as of the subjected people. Often. for the fall of man in Paradise has always been followed by expulsion from it. Any crossing between two beings of not quite the same high standard produces a medium between the standards of the parents. but rather in a complete victory of the former. and now.

In this way cultures and realms collapse in order to make room for new formations. which has perhaps taken hundreds of thousands of years. is the sole cause of the dying-off of old cultures. but by the loss of that force of resistance which is contained only in the pure blood. "My Theory of Eugenics The undermining of the existence of human culture by destroying its supporters appears. but then petrifaction sets in. as the most execrable crime. and finally oblivion. *** The Aryan gave up the purity of his blood and therefore he also lost his place in the Paradise which he had created for himself. however.Appendix I: Hitler's Essay. with the lowering of the racial level caused by it. he gradually lost his cultural ability more and more. however. The blood-mixing. far less she desires the mixing of a higher race with a lower one. would tumble at 272 . All world historical events. till at last not only mentally but also physically he began to resemble more the subjected and aborigines than his ancestors. He became submerged in the race-mixture. He who dares to lay hand upon the highest image of the Lord sins against the benevolent Creator of this miracle and helps in the expulsion from Paradise. for the people do not perish by lost wars. in a folkish view of life. he may still live on the existing cultural goods. All that is not race in this world is trash. as in this case her entire work of higher breeding. *** Just as little as Nature desires a mating between weaker individuals and stronger ones. are only the expression of the races' instinct of self-preservation in its good or in its evil meaning. For some time.

They must always recall the weak and those who become irresolute back to the fulfillment of their duty. who. is always the following: (a) Lowering of the standard of the higher race. of our nation: Dietrich Eckart 273 . is also regarded as a sin.Appendix I: Hitler's Essay. (b) Physical and mental regression. To bring about such a development means nothing less than sinning against the will of the Eternal Creator. dedicated his life to the awakening of his. the beginning of a slowly but steadily progressive lingering illness. *** In most cases hybrids and their progeny are denied the ordinary powers of resistance to disease or the natural means of defense against outer attack. And I want also to reckon among them that man. then. At the end of this second volume I want to bring before the eyes of our adherents and of the crusaders for our doctrine those eighteen heroes to whom I dedicated the first volume of my work. to a duty which they themselves fulfilled with the best faith and despite all consequences. the result was the end of the culture-bearer. and with it. as those heroes who most consciously sacrificed themselves for all of us. in brief. It shows with terrible clarity that with any mixing of the blood of the Aryan with lower races. *** The result of any crossing. as one of the best. by words and by thoughts and finally by deeds. "My Theory of Eugenics" one blow. Historical experience offers countless proofs of this. This action.

are degenerates who must be sternly punished. such as 1 Peter 1:1-2 and 2:9. In order to achieve this. Prior to Christ. by miscegenation or race-mixing with them. But the war between the People of God (that is to say. the Bible was right. abortions of God's Children—that is. In John 8:44. all public media must likewise be morally cleansed: Homosexuals. pornographers. of Aryan children—violate God's will. which is. during which God's People—the Aryans— will rule the Earth. as is shown by Revelation 20:1 -6. God laid down the law prohibiting the race-mixing of God's People with inferior peoples. As is made clear in many of the epistles in the New Testament. God's People today are the purebloodcd Christians. God created Man perfect in His own image in the Garden of Eden. are Satan's people. as John 8:44 makes clear. But the Jews. the Jews were God's People. Luke 19:27. in Genesis 3. and restore Paradise for one thousand years. the Thousand-Year Reich. "The Bible— Monumental History of Mankind" (as I have referred to it in my private notes) has made clear our task. and thus led to the expulsion of Adam and Eve from Paradise. God has indicated the final solution for our times. in accord with John 8:44. the Aryans. poisoning our children so that they become Satan's people. who are purified by Christ's blood. [Hitler ordered that the detailed circumstances of all 274 . and our goal. Darwin was wrong.] It is also essential to clamp down against abortion. and other passages. Mankind did not evolve. the pureblooded Christians) and the people of Satan (who of course are the Jews) continues. In Deuteronomy 7:1-3 and elsewhere. and other sinners. descended from Satan. but at some point in time Satan poisoned their blood and turned them into his people.Appendix I: Hitler's Essay. However. Now the people of Satan are spreading Satan's blood-poisoning to the People of God. Matthew 27:25. Original sin brought about the Fall of Man. this solution will actually last for only a thousand years: exterminating Satan's people will eliminate the blood-poisoning from Satan. [Hitler rounded them all up. "My Theory of Eugenics" A Summary of Hitler s Theory for the Holocaust The Bible is the Monumental History of Mankind—not myth. carrying out God's will in Paradise restored. Adam and Eve were God's People. Revelation 20:2 tells us that Satan is the original snake. Satan in the form of the snake. Matthew 23:33 tells us that Jews are really snakes and descended from snakes. This explains why Christ said in John 8:44 that the Jews are Satan's children. tempted Eve. the reason why the Jews killed Christ. as expressed in Genesis 1:28.

As for Moses who brought us out of Egypt. I shall finish.] An instruction in morality that lacks a religious foundation is built on air." p. 113: "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than that a great man is 'discovered' in an election. 'Israel. we do not know what has happened to him. this is our god." ("Up above" refers to the press. 'Come make us gods. who led us out of Egypt. so make us a god to lead us. 286: "For the greater a man's works for the future are.' Aaron said to them. then he may perhaps. is Jesus Christ. and the literary impact upon him of his early religious trainers: p." Matthew 19:24. But if.") Exodus 32:1-4: "When the people saw that Moses was so long in coming down from the mountain. and the work that He began. "the Jews. Mark 10:25."] Atheists are only to be despised. nevertheless. 165: "The sentiments of the people were only and always the outflow of that which was poured into public opinion from above. and so produced a golden calf. melted them into a mold. and your daughters are wearing." p. in the course of centuries one man succeeds in this. in his later years. Luke 18:25: "It is harder for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of God than for a camel to go through the eye of a needle. and supposedly therefore. 'Take off the gold earrings which your wives. for they are on the spiritual level of an animal. [Hitler specifically imposed Christianity as the foundation of morality. be 275 . My greatest hero. 148: "One really cannot serve two masters. and the more difficult also is the fight and the more rare the success. your sons. "My Theory of Eugenics" 'miscarriages' be promptly reported to the government for investigation and possible prosecution. the following are just a few of the additional references in Mein Kampf that reflect from a literary standpoint Hitler's immersion in the Bible.' So all the people took off their gold earrings and brought them to Aaron. He took the earrings. and the family as the basis of racial and political life for all Aryans.Appendix I: Hitler's Essay. and bring them to me. the less is the present able to understand them. All character training must be derived from faith. he was strong on "family values. NOTE Besides the examples that have been previously cited. they gathered around Aaron and said. But up above one worshiped this 'ally' like the golden calf. and personal model.'" p. The people said." Matthew 6:24: "No one can serve two masters. who will go before us.

to keep myself from being disqualified after having called others to the contest. but only one of them wins the prize. the laurel wreath of the present only just touches the temples of the dying hero. But these great ones are only the marathon runners of history.Appendix I: Hitler's Essay. except in their own country and in their own family. as explained herein in Part II. what Paul was really referring to was Christianity itself. that is why I am like a boxer who does not waste his punches. this meant heaven." p. but we do it for one that will last forever. As his new benevolence has a genuine foundation. in such a way as to win the prize.] That is why I run straight for the finish line. 431: "[The Jew] begins his change as 'benefactor' of mankind. do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing. then. Run. Every athlete in training submits to strict discipline." 276 ." John 4:44: "A prophet is without honor in his own country. I harden my body with blows and bring it under complete control. [To Hitler. 402: "The prophet rarely has any honor in his own country. "My Theory of Eugenics" surrounded by a faint glimmer of the coming glory. in order to share in its blessing [which to Hitler could have meant either healthfulness or else an aferlife in heaven]." Matthew 13:57: "Prophets are not without honor. in order to be crowned with a wreath that will not last." Matthew 6:3: "When you give to the needy. is referring here to his invention of the 'Christian' faith:) "All this I do for the gospel's sake. he cannot very well keep to the old words of the Bible that the left hand must not know what the right hand gives." 1 Corinthians 9:23-7: (Paul. Surely you know that many runners take part in a race." p.

Hitler's obsession to exterminate "the people of the devil" was derived from his belief that the anti-Semitic lies in the New Testament are the infallible Word of God. If one takes church membership as the criterion for being religious. If fundamentalism produces bigotry. and this belief persists today. let's review the evidence: In his 1996 The Authoritarian Specter. devoted to the goal of the ultimate extermination of Jews as "spawn of Satan. then as Gorsuch and Aleshire (1974) observed in their influential 277 . this being the very same fundamentalism from which Hitler himself derived his motivation for the Holocaust. as in Hitler's. the "Monumental History of Mankind.2-A: Is bigotry associated with fundamentalist religion? If it is. then the beliefs that generate genocides remain widespread amongst the masses and are credited as acceptable amongst the rest of society. then the Holocaust could happen again. in our own time. because fundamentalism continues. social psychologist Bob Altemeyer introduced his own "Findings on Religiousness and Prejudice" (p. and that also like Hitler these individuals were brought up to belive that the Bible is the infallible Word of God." First. It then should be no surprise to find that organizations exist. Adolf Hitler was not the last fundamentalist. 149) by observing: "An appreciable research literature has accumulated on the connection between religiousness and prejudice. even today. and one finding dominates all." and that these groups agree as well with a remarkable number of other aspects of Hitler's program. perhaps undiminished from Hitler's time. and Christian fundamentalism in particular is booming.

In 1973." And the separate studies that have been done of the relatinoship between conservatism and bigotry. because such research has not been done: Despite the common sales-claim by virtually all religions that they promote "love. who are accepted as being others of "God's People. he found exactly the same relationship—the more-seriously that Scripture was taken (i. the non-fundamentalist ones.Appendix: 2-A review. Wilson (ed.). researchers reported in Glenn D." this might be in a large percentage of instances a love only for others of the given faith. conservatism. using different sets of measures for fundamentalism. all of the connections between religious fundamentalism and [prejudice] become essentially zero. are non-bigoted. however. Church members are more prejudiced than those who have never joined a church." This would produce bigotry. especially perhaps because the victims were Muslims 278 . "So if you want to know who the non-prejudiced Christians are. however.'" Altemeyer then reported his own recent studies in which he attempted to identify which religious groups. the more-fundamentalist one was). so that it makes no difference what happens to them (and for example some Americans viewed Bosnians and Kosovars this way in 1999 opposing America's involvement against their genocide. have found them. exactly the same relationships. His first study was on Christians. it is only a theory. If you partial out the effect of mutual relationships with Right-Wing Authoritarianism scores. for a start. Those outsiders might be viewed either of two ways: either as being simply not entites or objects of moral concern at all. not a proven explanation. 137). As he put it: "Fundamentalism correlated with prejudice because fundamentalists tended to be right-wing authoritarians. In separate studies of Jews. if any. and prejudice.e. Actually. All the studies found the same relationship. Here is a theory that might possibly explain it. the more-bigoted the person. The Psychology of Conservatism (p. "Is this true just of Christianity?" He undertook additional researches to find out. 'the results are clear and consistent." and not people who are not "God's People. I think you can say. and Muslims. which was statistically significant when tested. No research has been done to determine why this is the case." This raised in his mind the question. too. Altemeyer wasn't the first person to have come up with such findings. Hindus. Altemeyer's studies turned up one other rather startling (to many people) finding: his measure for fundamentalism correlated almost to an identity with his measure for political conservatism (which he calls "right-wing authoritarinism"). and concluded. to correlate exceptionally strongly. in general.

Hitler's attitude toward Jews would certainly have qualified as being of the second category. a religion will also want to hold some appeal for the poor. that the poor are condemned in Proverbs 10:3-4. Yet. however." or not "God's people. and therefore even more not one of "God's People. and 30:9. Lutzer (published. either passively or actively. (This might be part of the reason why conservatives oppose government-expenditures for the poor." the 1995 Hitler's Cross by fundamentalist Christian Erwin W. One of the remarkably consistent findings of Altemeyer and other social psychologists (such as in the 1973 Wilson volume we just cited) has been that fundamentalists tend to be bigoted against all minorities. will be viewed religiously in a rather schizophrenic way. referring to the king or Fuhrer as "God's servant" who "carries out God's punishment on those who do evil" but who is "working for your own good if you don't do evil. It is fascinating that sometimes this mechanism of fundamentalism is exhibited even regarding a schizophrenic attitude toward the victims of the Holocaust—targets that are on any rational grounds so bizarre objects of blame as to be ludicrous to serve as such. the reason is the same as for bigotry against the poor: Every minority-group member is vulnerable by virtue of the fact. since so many prospective converts will be poor people. too. such as homosexuals." and the second "active bigotry. Similarly." The first of these two options might be called "passive bigotry. as well as in Isaiah 1:19." In this framework." weak people tend to be viewed as being not "like God. 14:14&234. for example. God is powerful. by 279 . Similarly. It is in line with this view. or else as being outright damned "people of Satan. and in Luke 8:18 and 19:26. meaning wealthier and more-powerful ones. I3:I8&2I.Appendix: 2-A and the perpetrators Christians)." or "the Almighty. the means of achieving that appeal will sometimes be to look upon poor people in a condescending way.) Of course. in keeping with Paul in Romans 13:1-4. appropriately. some other targets of a religion's bigotry. 23:21. a minority-group member tends to be weak. This framework would tend to identify as targets of either kind of bigotry individuals who fail to possess the traits that the given faith identifies as being also traits of the faith's God. in Matthew 4:25 and 5:6. and even the trait of being "the All-Powerful. as "charity" cases." not Godlike. Since most faiths attribute power to their God." and thus are discriminated-against. for which more-"Godlike" people. there are fewer people to come to his aid if targeted by bigots. the Christian churches have historically wanted to kill Jews and also to convert them. will earn points with God by making voluntary contributions to their care.

rather than just a contributing factor. was less than what the Jews who perished in Hitler's Holocaust experienced. despite the logic of this explanation for fundamentalist bigotry.") Lutzer is unperturbed that. it is not the Nazis. (To the extent that he does make reference to the "terrible events" of the Holocaust. that which was involved in Europe's Thirty Years War.' He would have no power at all." Typical for a fundamentalist. so Hitler was raised up so that God's power might again be made known. the Holocaust against Jews and other "imperfects" who were not "God's people. No matter how mild a form of Mohammedanism that was—and it tended to be not at all of the fundamentalist variety—Moslems often turned out to be Yugoslavia's "Jews. Torture and death were the goal— not a by-product—of the war. which was a real twosided war everywhere it was waged—an authentic power-struggle between the old Catholic and the new Protestant temporal potentates. In this sense. "Just as Pharoah was raised up by God that the power of the Almightly would be displayed. and Croat Roman. Hitler agreed. there are differing degrees of bigotry. Like Jews in Germany early in the 20th Century. History provides numerous examples of both kinds of conflicts. Lutzer's focus is not at all on the victims at the bottom. 38) that. In the Thirty Years War. specifically cites (p. Moslems were targeted for death. 50) Romans 13:1 to conclude that. "a ministry of Moody Bible Institute"). but rather the Holocaust-victims. the explanation is at present a theory that requires empirical research in order to be scientifically established. Catholics. 51 ] "under the power of Satan. bigotry was vastly a more-pervasive cause." wasn't merely a Christian phenomenon. bigotry was merely a contributing factor to the massive bloodshed. unless it were granted from above. and held himself accountable only to God.Appendix: 2-A Moody Press." Yet. for example. it was the cause. God rules!" (Of course. but a religious one. "who do evil. merely because of whom their parents happened to be: Moslems. he attributes them to Hitler's being [p. Nonetheless. The former Yugoslavia certainly exhibits strong elements of genocide. not to the people he ruled. and not at all for what they do. and intermarried with both Serb Orthodox.) And Lutzer also says (p. but on God at the top. Moslems in the former Yugoslavia had adopted to a large extent the culture of the Christian majority. But in the Holocaust. What is no mere theory is that religion is bigot-genic. There was no real power-struggle as a contributing factor. Yet. in which people are slaughtered for no other reason than who they are. "Certainly Hitler could not have ruled except that it was 'given to him by God." For some reason (which of course is no subject of 280 . in accord with Romans 13:4.

it is only one of a number of major threats to society. not every religious-based conflict is. terrorism. Northern Ireland. Posse Comitatus. Phineas Priesthood. and mayhem. to some extent. and many others. Take the contemporary North American case as an example: bigotries of all kinds are extremely concentrated in those organizations known as "extreme right-wing. So. As great a problem as bigotry is—and it is the biggest of society's problems—there are others as well. Asians. homosexuals. exhibit this phenomenon also." all of these groups hold that position as well. just as Hitler did in Mein Kampf and elsewhere. even though religious fundamentalism is the greatest of all social threats. Just as not every cancer is equally advanced. riot. where there is more of a mix of religious-based bigotry on the one hand. but also because the previous. Just as Hitler frequently charged that "the Jews" foist integration with Blacks upon Whites so as to dilute and weaken "the Aryan race. so too are each of these groups. And there also exist countries. and Jews. Aryan Nations. but it is not in all instances the sole cause. They all have been shown in empirical studies to correlate strongly with religious fundamentalism. 281 . homophobia. and economics and powerpolitics on the other. Such groups hate a wide variety of victims. Suharto. You might have noticed that we have not discussed specifically the kind of bigotry that's known as "racism. including Blacks.Appendix: 2-A the present book). too. had discriminated against his own majority by providing special favors to invite Chinese Christians into Indonesian business-opportunities. whose "Moral Majority" helped bring Ronald Reagan to the White House in the United States. But their theologies make distinctions amongst these hated groups. The ethnic Chinese Christian minority in Indonesia is not attacked by Moslem-majority mobs only because of the difference in ethnic groups. mass murder. Unlike the fundamentalist Reverend Jerry Falwell." the contemporary emobodiments of Altemeyer's "right-wing authoritarians"—such groups as the Imperial Klans of America. Israel. White Aryan Resistance. The Order. And just as Hitler was a Christian fundamentalist. and who thus is heavily invested in passing as mainstream. and many other countries. pitting a religious majority to the death against a religious minority. are misogyny. Thus. a difference between two groups of people based on religious belief ended up metastacizing into a "racial" war.) Religious sentiment is the great font of genocide. such as Indonesia." That's because racism is just another form of bigotry. essentially king. (He did this so as to have scapegoats just in case things got tough. India. and World Church of the Creator.

S." and "Curse of Canaan. on its 20-acre Idaho compound. slave-South. these groups are unapologetic about their continued support for legally imposed racial segregation—at least for so long as the enslavement of "inferior races" remains illegal. And their literal reading of it as "God's Word" generates in them all the bigotry against all minorities. and are equally honest about their beliefs that "the Aryans" or White Christians are "the People of God". (A return to the Southern Confederacy of the U. "Their bible is The Turner Diaries" or else "Their bible is Mein Kampf. who apologised for his having opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that ended state-imposed racial segregation in the United States. anti-Semitism—the particular form of bigotry that motivated Hitler to perpetrate the Holocaust—is even more-rooted in religion than are other forms of bigotry. Aryan Nations. not on anti-Black or other forms of bigotry. as well as to the clergymen who founded these organizations. Christianity is consitutionally anti-Semitic. anti-Semitic by virtue of what it accepts as being the Word of God." "Killers for God. and which you already know from having read Hitler here) of these groups." Also like Hitler. and their literal reading produces virtually the same interpretation of it as did Hitler's. However." Typical of these organizations. especially the documents titled: "Aryan Nations" (which closes with a good bibliography). they are deeply committed to "The Bible—Monumental History of Mankind." Unlike the common distortions about these groups encountered in the regular media. appeals to some. and that it is essential to exterminate all Jews and to enslave Blacks and other "inferior races. Unlike the Reverend Falwell. they claim a eugenic motivation for all this. holds regular Bible classes for all of its paramilitaries. "Christian Identity." these other Christian fundamentalist organizations are unapologetic about their dcmonization of "the people of Satan" (as they all refer to Jews). The reason is that Christianity happens to be built specifically on anti-Semitism. pretending that for these people." the reality is that." All of these groups claim that the Bible is the literal Word of God. This is why Charles Y. for example.Appendix: 2-A and so apologised after having blurted out at the beginning of 1999 that "the Anti-Christ is a Jew.) An excellent introduction to the theologies (which are so much alike. for each and every one of the groups. These groups take the Bible very seriously. Like Hitler. their bible is the Bible. is to be found on the website of the Bethune Insitute. for example. And all of these groups agree with Mein Kampf and with The Turner Diaries about what the Bible means. 282 . that Jews are "spawn of Satan". They pledge an allegiance saying "We are one Aryan Nation under God.

"anti-Semitism and anti-Negro prejudice are highly related. But none of these controls produced any reduction in the relationships reported in this study. No variable available in the data which seemed a plausible source of 283 . Here is how Stark et al. Wayward Shepherds was aimed at determining whether this generalization that had been found amongst the laity in Christian Beliefs and Anti-Semitism.Appendix: 2-A Glock and Rodney Stark. even though as Stark et al noted in the summary in their 1971 Wayward Shepherds: Prejudice and the Protestant Clergy (p. summarized their final conclusion (pp. In other words. found (pp. if they accepted traditional Christian teachings. a larger proportion of their anti-Semitism is rooted in these religious factors. although the clergy are less likely than the laity to be anti-Semitic. Indeed. 84-5): The process leading from Christian doctrines to antiSemitism applies to the clergy as well as the laity. were just as likely to be religiously hostile and anti-Semitic as were their opposite numbers. upper-class origins and favored the Democratic party. the present findings raise the even broader question of what can realistically be expected of the clergy as guides on ethical and moral problems in general." and other studies reported and referenced by Bob Altemeyer have shown that all forms of bigotry rise along with religious belief. Young ministers who had urban. 9). pertained also amongst clergy. more politically conservative clergy from rural and southern and blue-collar origins were more doctrinally conservative and more anti-Semitic. northern. anti-Semitism among Christian fundamentalists is even stronger than is bigotry in general among fundamentalists in general. in their 1966 Christian Beliefs and Anti-Semitism. 170-1) that there was not a very strong relationship between Christian antiSemitism and Christian bigotry against Blacks. Indeed. This raises serious questions about what can be expected of the churches in overcoming the problem of anti-Semitism. it did. They continued by exploring whether other variables than religious fundamentalism (which they measured by their "Index of Orthodoxy") might possible actually explain the anti-Semitism: The older.

The Reverend Otten states that "The 'fact' of the Holocaust is being used by some to deny that Christianity is the only true religion and that Jesus Christ rose from the dead. like children's fairy tales. the Vrij Historisch Onderzoek. They spoke and wrote on the basis of solid evidence. etc. we must provisionally conclude that the relationships reflect a set of causal connections. Both such beliefs are. Historical Revisionism and Christians Today. or that if it did. such as the writings of Martin Luther. At the intellectual end of such sentiments are found well financed organizations such as Radio Islam (which. such organizations are bigoted far beyond merely Jews. For example. in the latter scholarly publication (n. despite its name. Some have told us to take out more insurance. common amongst members of extreme-conservative. and the Institute for Historical Review and its Journal of Historical Review. not some vast conspiracy. fundamentalist Christian. Trilateralists. Imperial Klans of America. which he characterizes as "a Christian Lutheran paper. White Aryan Resistance. But equally clearly. World Church of the Creator. [But] God is still in control of this world. "We have upheld the inerrancy of God's directly revealed word in the Bible. international bankers. and have published hundreds of articles by prominent scientists which demonstrate that the theory of evolution is a hoax. and others. groups such as the Phineas Priesthood. of The Christian News.Appendix: 2-A spuriousness was found to be one. not mere myth and fantasy. v. and the czarist hoax "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion"). in fact." saying." He opens by asserting. were alleged to be speaking." He cites from the Gospels. 284 . 9. "We have been warned. "the early Christians were champions of the truth. and to be speaking the Truth. Peter. In consequence. Posse Comitatus. Jews hold for them a special place in their demonology. whether the Communists. John." He emphasizes that "The Holocaust is not some innocent hoax." Clearly. cites primarily Christianoriginated sources and materials. It is therefore natural that one should find a strong tendency amongst fundamentalist Christians to believe either that the Holocaust itself did not happen. then "the Jews" must have deserved it. even by some theologians who recognizes that the Holocaust is a hoax. In other words: Christian belief causes anti-Semitism. "Christianity. Illuminati. #3) appeared a forty-page article. which entertain and have no evil consequences." by Herman Otten.. Jews. Truth and Fantasy: The Holocaust. and Aryan Nations.d." He concludes by proclaiming-"A Mighty Fortress Is Our God!" saying. where Jesus. to remain silent because of the danger involved.

this seems only naturally to be the way things ought to be. speculative. such as in Romans 9-11. but even the perpetrators.Appendix: 2-A And finally the reason for this is understood: because of Saint Paul. yes. might have communicated to Adolf in confidence. if one wishes to now more about the 285 . Furthermore. out of rage and resentment against her husband for his battering of both herself and her adored son Adolf. Unfortunately for the lives that have already been destoryed by that myth—not only Hitler's victims and many others that went before. Others. Perhaps she was herself fundamentalist in her beliefs. on the basis of a racist appeal to the original "God's People"). and will probably always remain. is it not at least quite possible that it was Hitler's own mother who. from which the present work is adapted. Of course. to make Jews who accepted Paulianity feel welcomed." I do not present this hypothesis in the main text because the hypothesis is. some people do not mind that at all: perhaps because they were themselves nursed on such values along with their mother's milk. But regardless where one stands on this. In addition. however. the allegation that Hitler's father's battering of them might have been a result of the man's being "part Jewish"? She might even have suggested to her son that thus "the devil made him do it. since I do consider this the likeliest mode of transmission to Adolf Hitler of the belief that his father was probably "part Jewish. On the other hand. stand duly warned. and that the fundamentalist myth—"The Bible— Monumental History of Mankind"—is a myth. (I shall here devote a paragraph to an intriguing speculation concerning a possible means by which such fundamentalism might have been enhanced in Adolf Hitler's personal case: as we have noted in the text.) The relationship between religiostiy and bigotry is a subject of little empirical research. not only from Waite's documentation. even Hitler himself—this truth has come too late to do them any good. presents a theory to explain this empirically observed relationship. 1998] present strong reason to suspect that Adolf's father was often violent against both his wife and son—essentially a batterer of both. the New Testament is a textbook of anti-Semitism (notwithstanding Paul's own double-tongued efforts. The Conservatives' Hoax. and of virtually no theory. purported either as fact or as likelihood. This author's book. it is clear. one ought at least to know that the lies that are in the New Testament are indeed just that. but rather unanimously from everyone who has explored Hitler's childhood. Waite's books [1977." I feel it appropriate here in this Appendix to give expression to this important possibility. Hitler's mother was an extremely devout Catholic. that Adolf was extremely devoted to his mother. A brief summary of that theory can be given here. Therefore.

who are "bad. behavior recedes into second place (if even that)." Unless your children affirmatively renounce their parents' faith." Thus. on membership or not. We have here already gone pretty far into the ideology of bigotry. for example. the "people" will persist. it is known as "bigotry. are "us". This is part of the religion's mythology. How likely is it that prejudice against ideas will not 286 . on the other hand. upon status. Religion. religious belief degenerates ultimately into "us" versus "them". One of the basic lies in religious mythology is that the God made the "us" in "His" image. Status takes over." Belief is morebasic to religious evaluation than is behavior. Thus." who are in some sense "in God's image. members versus outsiders. Over time. This "people" is not fundamentally defined according to behavior. "a people" emerges on the basis of this transmission of a faith intergenerationally. Status-based evaluation is commonly called "prejudice". no one who rejects the beliefs of a given faith is one of the "us" of that faith." or else. as modelled upon God. directed against people rather than ideas. however." Others. in other words." then "we" will tend to be inclined to accept also your children as "us" rather than as "them. too. what bigotry is: a type of prejudice. rather than the other way around. sometimes. A natural feature of status is a strong tendency to be intergenerational: if "we" accept "you" as "one of us. it is clear. Those who believe in the given faith. Adolf Hitler's "Jesus" was an "Aryan. Religion. and especially over centuries. and/or behave in accord with them. Thus. is faith: belief immovable by any reason for doubt. is prejudice in the realm of ideas. the truth is that the God is modelled upon the people. and maybe also who follow it in their behavior. who do not accept its beliefs. Religion claims to be the basis for morality. God is made in Man's. which is precisely what declaring bigotry a sin would do. it is based. at root. why bigotry is not among the seven "cardinal" or "deadly" sins of Christianity: religion does not generally shoot itself in the foot. that book is suggested as the source. they are "good." There is also a tendency of religions to define "us" as "God's people. upon behavior. A religious ant's god would be an ant." Man is not made in God's image. as an "ethnic group. Consider. Even if that faith dies out. a Mayan's God is in a Mayan's image. at root. the morality of every religion is based. for example.Appendix: 2-A subject. these are the outsiders." It is to be contrasted with evaluations that are based. are "them". Little more has to be added. but always one of the "them. in other words. they are defined via a faith-based affiliation. they are generally treated as belonging to it. For example.

he says that. David E. by "blood. both sides in this ecclesiastical debate were agreed that God wanted the Indians dead. it did until The Enlightenment. The exterminees simply were not "God's People." To Hitler. so long as they were "of infidel origin. 276." Many anti-Black racists claim that "Blacks are just animals. piling the lobsters into water-tanks in masses. not humans. this history—on p. What is the "justification" for such routinely performed atrocities? God is in Man's image." No one can say that in these matters religion was not providing moral guidance. "this is the sort of things that gives professors a bad name"—traces the origins of this racism. or 287 .Appendix: 2-A produce prejudice against people—bigotry? Indeed. or a veal-calf's. Stannard describes the eager participation by the Church in the mutually contradictory capaigns to convert and to kill the natives. and essentially. Stannard's "American Holocaust" is itself a good example of fundamentalist-perpetrated genocide." In fact. Stannard's 1992 masterpiece documenting that approximately 100 million native Americans living in the Western Hemisphere at the time of Columbus (1492) were exterminated in Mankind's least systematic but vastest-of-all genocides. this belief in "blood" or the genetic basis of moral status. 219) that. even though Christian fundamentalism in our own modem times does not encompass virtually all of Christendom. then removing them one-by-one into bags. The most-evil of all the barbarisms that is still unquestioningly accepted is the normal way that homo sapiens treat lobsters: tying their limbs together. taking them home. 208) "an ominous decision" by Church officials in 1366 approving the enslavement even of Christians. "whether God was punishing the Indians for their sins or the Spanish for their cruelties." Stannards's corrective to the long scholarly tradition of distorting." not "God's People." These are prejudiced ideas. This same bigoted attitude was exhibited also in American Holocaust: The Conquest of the New World. back at least as far as (p. which is to say. not in a lobster's (or a pig's. a Jew was not a "person. and then boiling him or her alive so that "its" torture ends in a several-seconds-long explosion of the most excruciating agony it is possible to impose upon a creature. animals are frequent subjects of bigotry. and sums up by observing (p. lying about. throughout the Conquest of the New World. one form of bigotry is a prejudiced idea of who constitutes a "person. On this theoretical ground. we can understand the religious roots of the most-widely-accepted forms of bigotry. the problem is that it was doing just that." or not pureblooded Christians. For example. Therefore. through which Stanndard penetrates to the very identical root-cause: the view that the exterminees were constitutionally by nature.

But if this is so. intermingled with sobbing and crying. women and children into the large room inside the crematorium. Similarly. a rattle. Religious beliefs are at the root." featured in the New York Times on 16 June 2000. possibly "scientific" as they claim when it comes to the epistemology they apply to certain professional matters. animals are selected as human models on the belief 288 . the screams stopped. Only now and then there was a moan. for the shouts were drowned by knocking and banging against the door. culture.Appendix: 2-A etc. For example. telling of how at the gas-chamber entrance. Shouting and wielding their truncheons. there are striking analogies between. 61. as were numbered clothes hooks. 33-4. considers to be morally acceptable such things as factory farms." "Scientists" demean themselves when they pretend various supposedly non-religious beliefs as "justifications" for what they do to animals." while the reality after the undressing-rooms was: Two of the SS men took up positions on either side of the entrance door. which treat billions of animals in ways similar to the way Nazis treated concentration-camp victims. After some time the noise grew weaker. which condemns such "sins" as homosexuality. A few SS men were leaving the building and the last one locked the entrance door from the outside. "Slogans like Cleanliness brings freedom or One louse may kill you were intended to hoodwink. Some Things Never Die. but religious in regards to the epistemology they apply to ethical questions: the animals they experiement upon are not "like God. pp. For example. and the account by Filip Muller in his 1979 Eyewitness Auschwitz. such "scientists" are split personalities.). religious. then does it not indicate that many professional scientists are not at all scientific in their attitudes towards other species than their own? What about a "scientist" who experiments upon animals for some real or imagined or speculative potential human benefit? The rationales that such people give for what they do are fundamentally religious. what was described in "At a Slaughterhouse. I was unable to make out individual words. or the sound of muffled knocking against the door. screaming and shouting for help could be heard from behind the door. the remaining SS men chased the naked men. Before long the increasing sound of coughing. like beaters at a hunt. But soon even that ceased. on the one hand. the mainstream.

. they see no basic contradiction between science and religion. and faith that is founded on authority on the other. Poussaint was responding in a New York Times Op-Ed commentary (26 August 1999) to the bigoted killings and assaults by the Christiasn fundamentalist Buford Furrow Jr. racism in this country is normative— a cultural problem rather than an indication of personal pathology.. perhaps the last thing it is." not much more than that. calling racism a mental illness might appear to absolve racists of their moral responsibility. If Mr. Furrow 289 . or hopelessness. it is "a specialty.." Animals are physically enough like ourselves for us to believe that what hurts or helps them will hurt or help us. "They Hate. the Association said." He opened his argument by noting as follows the history of his proposal's rejection by the American Psychiatric Association: After multiple racist killings in the civil rights era. The Association's officials rejected the recommendation.. a group of black psychiatrists sought to have racial bigotry classified as a mental disorder. no less: Harvard's Dr. between systematic skepticism with denial of authority on the one hand. To the extent that they are scientists at all.. part scientific and part religious. But this position is ill-founded. or a doctor. Alvin F. but "they have no soul. "Animals don't really feel pain as we know it. For such people. Professional scientists are encouraged to view science as being essentially a professional discipline. like being a lawyer. terror. . Are They Insane? Extreme racism is a classificablc mental illness. they live Scripture uncontrollably.Appendix: 2-A that they are so similar to humans that the experimental results will have bearing on what would have happened to humans." Such "scientists" haven't really gotten Scripture out of their lives. A good example of this non-self-examining blindness on the part of many "scientists" occurred recently in which the non-self-examination/ understanding were exhibited by a professional psychiatrist. that is to say. yet these "scientists" turn right around and say such stupid things as. arguing that since so many Americans are racist. as if they actually felt these human emotions. They Kill. these people are epistcmological split personalities. . is an epistcmological commitment—a commitment. and we shouldn't anthropomorphize what seem to be their feelings of fear. Consequently. In addition. regarding the criteria adjudicating truth-falsity. by proposing.

is mentally deranged. but so too are many kind and non-bigoted people. for example. the very same selfrighteousness that Altemeyer and other social psychologists have found to be pervasive among fundamentalists and to be associated with the very same racist sentiments that Dr. self-righteousness." In this case. thus. (Furrow. referring to "the Jews" as the children of Satan. Also like Hitler. like a religious person. Dr. just as did Adolf Hitler. black people are not in God's image and are therefore inferior if not downright evil. the Truthfulness of John 8:44. Poussaint. such as homophobia or anti-Semitism. takes as beyond question (which no empirical assertion ever is to a real scientist) the falsity of Mr. Furrow was taught from his earliest childhood that the Bible is the Word of God. anti-"racist" Blacks might self-righteously claim not to be "racist" even if they are intensely bigoted. non-racial. the Association made a correct decision: an evil that is part of the culture cannot be appropriately dealth with as if it weren't. worse than "mere" hypocrisy: to misrepresent in this way is to participate actively in that very evil itself." until that ruse collapsed under the weight of contrary evidence. that it does not. Dr. then he should say so. Furrow's beliefs. Like many bigoted Blacks. Hitler also used to be referred to as "crazy.) What would the psychiatrist wish to tell Mr. Poussaint claims to oppose. Furrow's beliefs false. he believes that Jesus was an "Aryan" and that since all Aryans are white. for the core of that evil is an unrealistic. even a reality-denying. like an individual who believes in authority.Appendix: 2-A believes that non-whites and Jews are responsible for the world's troubles and must be eliminated. (Indeed. Poussaint. to do so is hypocritical. in fact. however. by contrast. Poussaint casts bigotry in the narrow form of "racism. Furrow does. but to call it "delusional" is itself delusional: It is to pretend that the falsehoods that such individuals as Buford Furrow and Adolf Hitler believe reside in their interpretations of Scripture. forms of bigotry. his mental ills did not cause his bigotry. despite the self-delusions of Dr. Leonard Dinnerstein's 1994 Anti-Semitism in America indicates in its tenth chapter that studies show that Blacks in 290 . then he cannot call Mr. much less "delusional. like Mr. Poussaint may disagree with that interpretation of Scripture. "Scientists" such as Dr. then that alone meets criteria for delusional disorder. It is. But Mr. if he believes. Furrow about John 8:44—that it's a lie and that the Bible isn't really infallible? If Dr. Poussaint believes that the Bible lies." perhaps to facilitate their own holding to other. rather than in the Scripture itself. he accepts.

" and that this is what makes it bad? After all. how could it even be otherwise than that evil is either "unnatural" or "abnormal. Furthermore. "Virgin Mary had one Son. To such a self-righteous thinker. the cruel Jews had Him hung". A psychiatric approach to the problem is itself an evasive device. prison physicians in Washington and Oregon who subjected their patients to intensive direct radiation. Lifton introduced him (p.'" Less-well-known examples are detailed in Eileen Welsome's magnificent tour de force of investigative reporting.S. where their own slave-ancestors absorbed their slavesmasters' attitudes.' and Mengele identified himself as a Catholic on all his official forms.) Why would such a psychiatrist even desire to understand bigotry—much less try to overcome it. because these Blacks retain the bigotry and fundamentalist Christianity of the former-slave South. Blacks unfortunately culturally remain slaves of their ancestors' Confederate masters. describing America's version of "Nazi doctors." Here is how Robert J. whose Mein Kampf is full of such thinking: there is now something not only physically. Such false naturalism is also not uncommon amongst people who fancy themselves to be scientists by profession. and sang spirituals such as. what is "unnatural" or "abnormal" violates God's law. but who are religious in their beliefs about moral issues." including MIT researchers who fed radioactive oatmeal to residents of a state boys' school. but cultural psychology and cultural anthropology. who at Auschwitz selected which victims would go straight to the gas-chambers and which would first be experimented upon for the benefit of Aryans. much as it did for Hitler. Understanding bigotry requires not psychiatry. her 1999 The Plutonium Files: America s Secret Medical Experiments in the Cold War. "God's People. wrong with the "diseased" person. all in violation of the Hippocratic oath and the Nuremberg code. to this extent. a great many of today's U. but also morally. in this evasive device. rather than using the more favored Nazi category of 'believer in God. and other doctors injecting plutonium into patients.Appendix: 2-A the U. and not only mentally. They are epistemologically schizophrenic.S. Josef Mengele. As Welsome noted 291 . 339) in his 1986 The Nazi Doctors: "The family [from which he came] is described as 'strict Catholic. tend to be even more anti-Semitic than Whites. One might as well try to use podiatry to analyze works of art. and without informing their patients of what was being done to them and why. A good example was Dr. either as a "mental disease" or in any other way? Perhaps such a psychiatric approach should be viewed as not so much an attempt to understand bigotry as one to avoid understanding it. religion and bigotry. sickness itself takes on a moral caste.

now that we know that bigots usually are fundamentalists. 1950's. actually constitute yet further evidence to accept the sincerity of Hitler's many fundamentalist assertions." obviously not. Ms. which is judgment based on status rather than behavior. as Hitler would say.. is a potential criminal. and 1960's were decades when doctors were treated like gods and patients like children." However. "poor patients often were selected because they were easily intimidated" and were of a social class inferior to that of the physicians. as follows: It is in the nature of Scripture as the basis for values. or God's species. and most such individuals include themselves in some such fictitious category. . 214). Welsome continues tellingly. that the values of the era in which the Scripture was written become thereby "locked in" for believers in subsequent eras. In fact. Welsome (p.'" God's People were these patriotic scientists themselves. We have thus far mentioned the "God's People" concept as the basis for bigotry. these "children" were not treated with love: as Ms. based on more than 50. 'We wrapped ourselves in the flag.000 research-participants. 232) quotes from a speech by Dr. and the true characterization that all such individuals share is: bigot. . "many American doctors believed the Nuremberg Code was written for barbarians. or God's gender. .. Studies in the United States have shown that. Indeed. But those 40% can do lots of damage in the name of "science. and only 5% of leading scientists do. Columbia University's William Silverman recalled. 40% of scientists do. the founder of the Fernald State School for the "feeble-minded" in Massachusetts: "The feebleminded arc a parasitic.. This has already been exemplified with 292 . . "God's People"— and Hitler had company. those findings.Appendix: 2-A (p. predatory class. or etc. Every feeble-minded person .. not for them. Even poor mothers-tobe were fed radioactive substances vastly above limits known to cause cancer. beliefs of that type are false. painful lives as a result. some of the children lived brief. Welsome notes of them.. The findings by Altemeyer and others support this conclusion. or God's class. William Fernald. Other favorite victimes were the retarded: in describing the cultural background of these expericments. whereas 90% of the general public believe in God. "The 1940's. and also the evolution of this into prejudice. we should expect it to be unlikely that Hitler was anything else. There is also a third aspect to bigotry (picking up again from the theory presented in The Conservatives' Hoax)." Though many individuals believe that there really is such a thing as God's people. or God's gender-orientation.

cursing or even demonizing entire peoples. not to mention slavery (e. or watered-down. racism (e.g. which locked in the values of anti-Semitism (e. 293 . therefore would stand a high likelihood of having also been a fundamentalist. misognyny (e. As has previously been pointed out.g.Appendix: 2-A respect to the Bible..g. in "The Bible—Monumental History of Mankind"—used to be known merely as religious belief itself.. which provides yet further confirmation to the finding in this book that he was so—and now we understand theoretically why he was so. and we today characterize it as only a variant of religious belief because the advent of science during the Renaissance has had such a corrosive effect upon religion as to have caused to exist some weaker forms of it. which we see all around us today as liberal. or even genocide. Romans 1:27&32). 20:16-7). it makes sense to expect on empirical grounds. But as we live during and observe this long historical process. scientific lesson of history.." to slavery. what is today called "fundamentalism"—the belief. who was an exceptionally bigoted person. and. religion.g.. the reality and not merely the myth of religion itself ought to become generally recognized.. to be exceptionally bigoted as a group. and genocide (e. Luke 19:27). is that religious hatreds are the most intense that exist. 1 Timothy 2:11-15). Dent. and it is this: The most conclusive.g.. and also the most important. Ephesians 6:5) and others of those barbarous eras that Mankind is struggling to get beyond. And again. This historical "lock-in" effect of fundamentalism provides further understanding of the reason why fundamentalists have been found in numerous empirical studies of the prevalence of bigotry. that one would find that Hitler. as Hitler put it. Hitler provides a confirmatory example of this. Deut. if not of all fields of social investigation.g. homophobia (e. or "races. yet again. 7:1-3).

which is what communism was. but by its criteria for determining 294 . for communists." In my THE CONSERVATIVES' HOAX: Their Urge for Dictatorship. or Truth—it doesn't exist. ultimate Truth is to be found in that Scripture. but by how it believes. and both were also religious. how it believes is faith—acceptance of that Scripture as inerrant. 1 deal at length with that question. A religion need not have a supernatural god. The opposite of religion is science: Every scripture is to be evaluated according to experience. and no truth is ultimate. What it believes is that Scripture.2-B: Is atheism the solution to bigotry? Stalin was very bigoted. in an allegedly inerrant Scripture. Atheism is no solution to the problem of bigotry. and what is not. and Their War Against America's Founding Fathers. it is distinguished from religion not by its scriptures. a natural one can do the job just the same. and since the answer is longer than this entire book. experience is to be evaluated according to that Scripture. atheism was itself part of their secular religion. Science is systematic skepticism. People are very confused about what is. as follows: A religion is not defined by what it believes. only a smattering of the points related to it can be addressed here. and so was Karl Marx. rather than that Scripture being evaluated according to experience. Because the Scripture is accepted as inerrant. both were atheists. no scripture is inerrant. it is belief based on faith. a "religion.

it was in response to my having responded to his previous letter. one must be particularly considerate of their rights—far more considerate than of the rights of a member of the majority. put it. which he derived from 295 . if you will. I had written Rabbi Maccoby back saying that. is a certainty that God does not exist. and I therefore enclosed the opening chapters of this book. it is like Judaism: they are a minority almost everywhere. that you are an atheist (regardless whether you actually happen to be one). but on how its truthfulness is evaluated. than a "Christian" who doubts the truthfulness of the Bible is an authentic Christian. but retained his faith in antisemitism. and as such. I was going to treat him as an open-minded Person. Early in Chapter 10. Rabbi Maccoby's letter of response stated that he now accepted that until 1937 Hitler had been a believing Christian. or what it is about. as a fundamentalist Christian. "Blessed are they who have not seen. depends not on what that statement is. asserting that "Hitler was an atheist. Any "communist" who questioned the truthfulness of Marx's writings.Appendix: 2-B what is true and what is false." Any such person is not a scientist: regardless what such an individual might believe in. therefore is religious or scientific. a person who would probably be very much afraid of you. that it is only with great care that one should ever say anything against atheism. Whether any given statement. or else very likely is. and might even hate you—merely on account of your atheism? After this book was written. Rabbi Maccoby wrote me again. as that is generally understood. these statements are false. Imagine. not a Christian believer. The statements of Karl Marx were Scripture to communists. I quoted a letter to me from Rabbi Hyam Maccoby. All religions may disagree on any particular but one: As John 20:29. and they are bigoted against atheists. and having believed. . Atheism. after which "Hitler lost his faith in Christianity. yet still believe. ." As I observed there. was no real communist—no more. By no means do I wish here to criticize atheists. he or she is religious.. He was actually anti-Christian. There is so much bigotry against atheists. in which he had said that he did not wish to see my material documenting that Hitler had perpetrated the Holocaust on account of his having been raised. nonetheless. say. who suffers therefore far less bigotry. No scientist can assert such a thing with certainty. any more than he or she can assert as a certainty that a God exists that possesses a specific set of attributes. How would you reasonably take such a statement? Would you believe that this religious Jew is. if any at all.

Rabbi Maccoby's point was supposed to be that Hitler was a "postChristian. calling Hitler an "atheist" is no real way to deal with the Holocaust.e. for example. private advantage. atheists). but about "the Jews. . and Nietzsche. often turn right around and pour similar abuse upon a minority different from their own (in this case. Anti-Semitism. . smaller. Voltaire. to a large extent. Marx. I. in his 1843 tract. poured forth the results of his own early Christian training (his family raised him as a Christian). A World Without Jews (strikingly like Hitler's promised "Jew-free" world). . What is the object of the Jew's worship? Usery.Appendix: 2-B his earlier Christian faith. emancipation from usery and money— that is. "It is characteristic of atheists to retain prejudices . . Marx wrote: What is the Jew's foundation in our world? Material necessity." has a tone remarkably like many of Hitler's statements. by accusing "the Jews" of every standard Christian anti-Semitic sterotype. Very well. "It is characteristic of atheists to retain prejudices belonging to their previous faith." and that "post-Christian antisemitism is even worse than the Christian antisemitism of the Middle Ages. His statement." I find it simply stupefying that people who belong to groups that have suffered bigotry from the majority-faith. in the final 296 . using words that could have come straight out of Mein Kampf. from real Judaism—would constitute the emancipation of our time. What is his god? Money. any more than Hitler's calling Jews Germany's curse was any real way to deal with Germany's problems. But of course. besides Hitler who had done that. Not only does the Rabbi's assertion denigrate the earlier. Karl Marx. antiSemitic genocides. then. it blames atheism for what is actually Christian anti-Semitism. Jewish emancipation means. ." He cited." The Rabbi went on to say.. which was very bad but had certain limits and restraints"—which the Nazis' supposedly atheistic or "postChrisitian" anti-Semitism obviously does not. Thus we recognize in Judaism generally an antisocial element which has reached its present strength through a historical development in which the Jews eagerly collaborated. but. not about atheists.: Some atheists are anti-Semitic because they come from a Christian culture. whose horrors were documented in the 1976 Grosser and Halperin history.

without which there would be no post-Christian antisemitism. In the chaos of the Rabbi's mind. These myths are very dangerous. was raised as a Christian. he wrote. in Marx's later. But let's not make it yet another religious scapegoat. an opponent was a "Jewish Nigger." In 1879. To Rabbi Maccoby. On the other hand.Appendix: 2-B analysis. we agree? The concern of this book is the values with which people are raised. either. "The Jews of Poland are the smeariest of all races. mature." Why not call it what it was: medieval. works. the emancipation of humanity from Judaism." In an 1861 letter." This was even a racist anti-Semitism that motivated Marx. he was to characterize "the bourgeoisie. In the Neue Rheinische Zeitung of 29 April 1849. portraying "the Jew" in precisely the same way that. Shortly before his death. he formulated a plan to make the Soviet Union "free of Jews" by rounding them all up and shipping them off to Siberia." All that Marx did was to universalize "the Jew" to the "the bourgeois. and his lifelong hatred of Jews was well known. a certain place was "full of Jews and fleas. he converted to communism at the end of five years of theological studies for the priesthood." In 1862. Only his death put a stop to the carrying-out of this plan. where concentration-camps were being constructed precisely for that purpose. Nevertheless. I agree that the chief historical cause of antisemitism is Christianity. They are not raised with professorial dissertations about atheist angst. Atheism is no solution." Stalin." So. it was "post-Christian. It goes on and on. Jews were "a race of lepers. even if the nonsense from atheists does not generally cause the genocides in this world. And Christian in its origins. this was "atheism". 297 . neither does it do anything to stop them. he closed his letter: "Your mistake is in thinking that Christian antisemitism and post-Christian antisemitism are identical. They are raised with ancient myths. too.

fundamentalist Christian. The fact is: Hitler was evil. but not on account of his having no system of values. This is profoundly different than the psychopath. typically the "Word of God. of any persuasion. values based on lies. or perhaps he was motivated by greed. and who acts only for 298 . must frequent places of public worship." on the basis of which one has formed one's gut sensibilities about right and wrong. Hitler skillfully exploited the fact that many liberals were inclined to misconstrue him on this very basis. to the contrary. In fact. he had a very strong—even fanatical— system of values: Hitler was a thoroughly committed. to make a public display of his/her religiosity. he did not. he cared about no one but himself—his own power. the person who has no values. true-believing. so as to advance his own ends by misleading his opponents about his true intentions. It is a fundamental miscomprehension of the way the world works. good and bad. Fundamentalism is deeper than that: it consists in a character or personality that has been shaped by a conviction that there is some inerrant Scripture. "Hitler was evil. as was shown in the extended footnote at the end of Chapter 4. This does not mean that as an adult he regularly went to church. The present book has shown that Hitler was evil not because he had no values. there is no requirement that a fundamentalist. and not merely evaluatively—evil values.2-C: Naziism and psychopathy Many people believe. therefore. Part of Hitler's cunning (as is demonstrated in that footnote) relied upon this common delusional vision of him amongst liberals: that he was able to exploit that stupidity of theirs. but rather because he had—in fact." This is the theory of Hitler as "The Psychopathic God"—the monster who had no conscience.

But the psychopaths tend to be leaders. It is also. Two people who encounter each other with different value-systems can thus very possibly misinterpret each other as holding no values at all. in fact. "To get ahead in life. of a psychopath. "One of the most useful skills a person should develop is how to look someone straight in the eye and lie convincingly. ed. Which is worse: to hold no values. According to this view. Hitler certainly was not. were authentic psychopaths. the theory of Hitler as The Psychopathic God. and so make a resolution of the conflict needlessly difficult. it is sometimes necessary to step on others"." and "Winning isn't the first thing. and various related scales and responses (to such things as. 30. The naive view of morality is that a person either has it or doesn't.Appendix: 2-C his/her own benefit. The "SD" or Social Dominance scale.. and that of a person who has no conscience—i. It establishes conflict on the basis of misunderstanding. Zanna. Hitler was evil because he had no morality. in some important respects. it's the only thing")—all measures of psychopathy—were found to have almost as strong a correlation with a respondent's political conservatism as does religious fundamentalism. is not entirely wrong. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Perhaps Saddam Hussein. When Hitler said that "Might makes right. it might even appear to lack conscience (if that individual is similarly morally naive).e. It is the "blissful ignorance" that permits one to avoid having to come to terms with the culture and the associated value-system of another person. The fundamental attribute of the religious God. Pol Pot. while the fundamentalists tend to be followers. which is worse? However. false. even though Hitler was a believing Christian fundamentalist. as Waite called him. but." he therefore was merely drawing the logical inference of his Christian training—and not just from Romans 13:1-5. This viewpoint permits those who accept it to avoid any need to understand Hitler's world-view. There is a similarity between the ethic of a conservative. Psychopaths also worship power. different types of morality are not recognized. that was an intensely evil world. Hitler was a psychopath. some common criminals hold no values. after all. in the eyes of the person who is thus being dismissed. It is self-righteous. and/or Joseph Stalin. Bob Altemeyer has found confirmation of this and reported it in (1998) M. is the AllPowerful.. v. but at the most basic philosophical level. Hitler cared intensely about creating "a better world". measuring responses to such beliefs as. or to hold wrong values? Hitler held wrong values. and both categories of conservatives were highly bigoted (as shown by various personality299 .

It likewise provides new insight into how it happens that individuals such as not only Hitler. who in his earlier book.) Consistent with this view that psychopaths tend to emerge as leaders of conservative organizations. Altemeyer's paper provides valuable insights into the way a political movement like Naziism emerges and organizes itself. The mechanisms by which that happens are further elucidated in Robert Michels' early-20th-Century masterpiece. Political Parties. with the proceeds going to the officials both of government itself and of the large corporations. It's interesting that Michels' book. but also Stalin. "there will then exist a dictatorship in the hands of those leaders who have been sufficiently astute and sufficiently powerful to grasp the scepter of dominion in the name of socialism. Loot and Rewards. which is the best book ever written on the operation of bureaucracies. emerge as dominant in unrestrained conservative regimes. (Of course. portrayed Naziism as a vast system of state-sponsored looting and enslavement of minorities and of others lacking in power. The great failing of Michels' book was its ignorance of the constitutional balance-ofpower concept. But he captured well the conservatism of communists. 348 of the 1962 Paul translation of the 1911 original). The 1997 Pool places special 300 . predicted that. Milosevich. power. Kim II Sung. Jimmy Swaggart. to the "Elmer Gantry" phenomenon of Jim and Tammy Baker.. Pol Pot. 1933-1945. if Marxists were ever to succeed in actually taking over a country. He foresaw how and why Marx's "dictatorship of the proletariat" would be a dictatorship over the proletariat. which had focussed on the financing of Hitler from 1919 to 1933. had argued that during that earlier period. the American examples were less-harmful than the others because the broader political context in America is democratic. James Pool. Tudjman. and extending the argument into the economic sphere in which large corporations seek to use the arm of the state to grasp even greater wealth. on the right. written before the Bolshevik Revolution. the financing of Naziism was predominantly an upper-class affair. This represented an implicit turn-around for Pool. in his 1997 Hitler and His Secret Partners: Contributions. and to wrest it from the hands of the expiring bourgeois society" (p. from Stalin and Pol Pot on the left. etc. The observations by Altemeyer concerning the evident tendency of people scoring high on the "SD" scale to emerge as leaders amongst groups of individuals who score high on the "RWA" scale—in other words. Karadzic.Appendix: 2-C measures). for psychopaths to lead conservative organizations and social movements—lend further support to Michels' understanding of communism and of other religiousbased political movements. According to the 1997 Pool. and privilege. Naziism was financed primarily by the middle classes. and Henry Lyons.

In addition. but also their art. which shows that they were not satisfied to steal merely the slave-labor and the gold tooth-fillings from their victims. such as I. which examines big-corporate Nazi support not only within Germany but also from the U. On the other hand.S. An excellent presentation of the psychopathic-Nazi thesis as it pertains to the pseudo-neutral adjoining country of Switzerland. which he feels bought them a share in the "loot and rewards" during the years following. of course. my country is more than the sum of its government authorities. Charles Higham's 1983 Trading with the Enemy offers yet-more detail regarding the post-1933 portion of that thesis. is extended into the personal consumption behavior of the Nazi and pro-Nazi elite. is Antony C.G. and. on the first page of the preface to his multi-volume collection of Hitler's speeches and proclamations. that the large German corporations supported Hitler only because they were forced to. being paid back to those oligarchs subsequent to 1933. Henry Ashby Turner (who in 1999 was hired by General Motors to produce evidence exonerating GM of claims from GM's former slaves at German GM plants) argued in his 1985 German Big Business and The Rise of Hitler. there is a vast literature that makes this case with respect to specific companies. but as Nazi sympathizers. Sutton's 1976 Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler. Max Domarus noted of the audience-reaction to Hitler's rhetoric: "The enthusiasm his speeches prompted was not confined only to easily-aroused mass audiences but also infected— perhaps more strongly—individuals belonging to Germany's leading circles." This interpretation of Naziism at the top leadership levels being psychopathic." Right up front. The picture that emerges from both these works is of Hitler's debt to the Rockefeller-Morgan group and their corporate allies that had been built up prior to Hitler's assuming power in 1933. and bankers. and closes with. the Gold. Daimler-Benz in The Third Reich (1998) by Neil Gregor. loot and rewards" hypothesis both before and after 1933. and The Dead.Appendix: 2-C emphasis upon a three-million-mark contribution by major industrialists to the Nazis at a crucial moment in late February 1933. A more-comprehensive presentation of the "contributions. in Hector Feliciano's 1997 The Lost Museum: The Nazi Conspiracy to Steal the World's Greatest Works of Art. is Jean Ziegler's 1998 The Swiss. Farben. ruling class. "Fortunately. which exposes the wartime Swiss elite as not only money-launderers for the Nazis. and that the leading members of the longstanding German cartels had supported laissez-faire economic policies and opposed 301 . more recently. The 1997 Pool now appears to concur at least with the post-1933 part of that scenario.

and voting records. while there is no basis for accepting Turner's blanket assertions that the leaders of finance and industry in Nazi Germany were not really anti-Semitic. According to his book. it is odd that Turner chastises other researchers for methodological "sins" (such as an alleged over-reliance on secondary sources) far less grave than those he himself practises. were so loath to see such oligopolistic privileges on their own parts increased by the Nazis. might never be able to be definitively settled. And they totally blocked out Kater's finding that the lowest of the three was the only one that was under-represented in the Party in proportion to its share of the general German population. includes amongst its conclusions the following: "One of the more startling findings of this study has been the consistency of elite overrepresentation in the Nazi Party from 1919 to 1945.Appendix: 2-C the governmental economic meddling that the Nazis favored. Two other sources of relevant data. Also among its large predominance of sweeping undocumented assertions (many of which are diametrically opposite to the well documented findings and conclusions of reliable sources. these oligopolists. Kater's pro-elitist reviewers appear to have preferred distorting his data and findings: they focussed single-mindedly on his finding that most Nazis were "Lower Middle Class"." This fits in with the hypothesis of psychopathic leadership of conservative organizations. Kater's 1983 The Nazi Party: A Social Profile. it is certain that some were not. However. and that the highest of the three was by far the most 302 . the greater the degree of elite overrepresenation. they ignored that Kater had used only three class-categories. that they only reluctantly came to cooperate with the Nazis. However. since the Nazis unfortunately destroyed most of their financial records as the Allied powers came marching in at war's-end. and the guilty verdicts "beyond a reasonable doubt" in the 1953 USGPO Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals. and that the denomination "Lower Middle Class" referred to the middle of these. the actual role played by German finance and industry in Hitler's rise and in his government. In any event. long-accustomed to government-protection of their privileged powers even under previous governments. Michael H. this situation was more evident in the cadres: the higher the cadre. Under Control Council #10) are some that do have at least shreds of fact to back them up." and. so long as we assume (which much evidence supports) that the Nazi Party appealed to the self-interest of elites. such as Franz Neumann's 1944 Behemoth: The Structure and Practice of National Socialism. For example. appear to be providing clearer answers: Nazi-Party membership. "While the elite [group] was consistently overrrepresented in the rank and file of the party. however.

"Academic Professionals" and "Students. Would they wish to be themselves at the end of this particular searchbeam in the spotlight of truth? As John Adams' 32nd letter to John Taylor had observed: "There is no necessary connection between knowledge and virtue. after all. the two with by far the highest degree of overrepresentation in the Nazi Party. however. is that of all occupational groups. chairman of the Central Council of German Jews. in his own time (as in ours) was also served by scholars with such an exceptional zeal. Simple intelligence has no association with morality. There is a big difference. scholars have erected every rampart. it can be stated with a high degree of confidence that Hitler's Nazi Party appealed most to the German elites. why the actual evidence itself has counted for remarkably little in those quarters: they hold the searchlights. one that emphasizes German power and identity. How fitting it is. their exploratory searchlights have focussed upon the middle and especially the lower classes as the prime suspects for the Nazi rise? Perhaps the scholars' researches would hit more paydirt if only those searchbeams were pointed upwards toward a higher altitude. of psychopaths predominating amongst conservative elites. warns Ignatz Bubis. Richard F. One of the things that I find most striking of all from Kater's tables in the back of his book. as he called them. Lee reported in the June 1998 issue of Moment." (Nor." Scholarship certainly does not. was it a historical fluke: As Martin A. particularly among university students and intellectuals who have espoused a more nationalist line since the end of the Cold War. and battlement they could around the vast conservative palace. it seems. "Anti-Semitism has also become more pronounced in western Germany. Finally. Perhaps that's one reason. as regards the actual voting records. and this is concordant with the socialpsychology findings we referred to at the outset. prove the very same upper-class tilt amongst Nazi voters that Kater documents amongst the Party's membership. Consequently. then. maybe even 180° upward upon themselves. were professors and university students—or. however. The evidence. 303 . And isn't it then also fitting that when social "scientists" have searched to find the social locus of Hitler's support. does. Hamilton's 1982 Who Voted for Hitler? and his article in the March 1984 issue of Central European History.") As we discuss in these appendices. Science.Appendix: 2-C overrepresented within the Party. that King Hitler. is abundant that academia has established itself as society's institutional paradigm of authoritarianism. moat.

but why—the source of this hate—was never really addressed. he said nothing that distinguished it from the anti-Semitism of many other countries. since his book presented nothing substantial— and nothing at all that was new—on the crucial question of "Why?" Goldhagen subsequently had to defend his amorphous "theory" against such charges as that he had attributed German anti-Semitism to bad German genes (his actual belief. Others may not have processed it quite the way Hitler did. its conceptual shallowness made a bad joke of its author's claims that he was here "explaining" the Holocaust: his "explanation" was that "the Germans" hated "the Jews" so much as to want to kill them in the most torturous way. Furthermore. Daniel Goldhagen's Hitler s Willing Executioners. of course. and needless academic debates as a result. yet his tome failed to discuss how and why). which invited misinterpretation of it from critics. But there was more to it than this. To the extent that he dealt with the history of German anti-Semitism (which was very little). is that the defect had lain in German culture. and that he had held the German people collectively guilty of the Holocaust (a view he 304 .2-D: Why did the German people support Hitler? Well. That 1996 book was a mess. And his sweeping attack against "the Germans" (using the phrase hundreds of times interchangeably with "the perpetrators") was appalling. made a good case that one reason the German public loved Hitler is that they hated Jews. Furthermore. Hitler was not the only German or Austrian to have been weaned on the Bible. but the anti-Semitism was widespread. he later explained. flawed though it was.

And to leave the best for last. However. clarity of thought is a career-disability. Theologians under Hitler (1985). thesis. Als die Zeugen schweigen (1993). Christian Beliefs and Anti-Semitism (1966).J.D. such as: Paul E. Halperin. and. Charles Y. For that. The Rise of Political Anti-Semitism in Germany and Austria (1964). Guenter Lewy. since they combine sociological. 456). The Open Society and Its Enemies (1943). Grosser and E. From Luther to Hitler (1941). even though Goldhagen failed at his claimed goal of adding to our understanding of the source of this widespread German anti-Semitism. Goldhagen did indeed pile sufficiently high and deep his documentation of the pervasiveness of anti-Semitism in Germany both prior to and during Hitler's reign." but which was nonetheless a reasonable interpretation of his book. For the latter. Pulzer. I suggest some books that don't relate specifically to the German case. Richard Gutteridge. Anti-Semitism (1976). see William M. This was an important achievement. For scholars. Glock and R. which come the closest to definitive status. and including so much else besides—is 305 . For the philosophical roots of fascism and of Naziism. Ericksen. McGovern. but rather to anti-Semitism in a broader sense. so that no one will ever again be able simply to assume that the Holocaust was due merely to some bad German apples. see Peter G. none of these works penetrates deep. and philosophical. but there are some that provide good coverage on certain aspects of the problem. see Robert P. and Norman Cohn. religious. notwithstanding its brief perfunctory denial on his p. and especially Horst von Maltitz. The Catholic Church and Nazi Germany (1964). the most comprehensive analysis ever done of anti-Semitism— exceeding even the Grosser and Halperin effort shecrly as a work of history. Thus.G. aspects. and Peter Viereck. The Evolution of Hitler s Germany (1973). The German Evangelical Church and the Jews (1976). Best on Plato is: Karl Popper. Warrant for Genocide (1966). For the role that German religious leaders played in fomenting antiSemitism. For integrated historical views of the question. Stark. so much of the public discussion of the work has really come down to "What was Goldhagen trying to say?" Perhaps that's because it originated as his Ph. Yet despite these flaws. as many writers previously had one. there is unfortunately no single definitive book.Appendix: 2-D now explains to be "conceptually and morally indefensible. Wolfgang Gerlach. political. The Maltitz book is probably the best yet done on either Hitler or the Holocaust. Metapolitics from The Romantics to Hitler (1941).

can be boiled down into a metaphor: The German people were the chemicals. rather than. My own theory. or in some other equally anti-Semitic country? Germany's anti-Semitism. The far more important question is: Why is anti-Semitism so widespread? For example. family teachers. the Gentian people were used by Hitler for his ends. Yet the fact remains that it was. In the desperateness of a defeated Germany during the Great Depression. 419) to deny its very existence. Our Appendix 2-E: "The majoritarian arrogance of Gentian mass-culture. is to be found in the first chapter of Eugene Davidson's The Making of Adolf Hitler (1977). why did it originate there. why did America's own President.R. Goldhagen had overstated how widespread anti-Semitism was in Germany and failed to recognize how prevalent it was in the U. the Fuhrer. the question remains: Why did the Holocaust occur specifically in Germany. in Russia.S. magazines. However. as Richard Breitman showed in his 1999 Official Secrets. the Nazi Party would never have won power. and the Versailles Treaty was the experiment. did as well—and without that belief. however. above all. after all. Hitler represented the only "truths" that remained standingTragically as it turned out. But they were lies so big that not only the public believed them. and books. far more than they used Hitler for theirs.. say. newspapers. would constitute the definitive one that. and the best account of how inundated the boy Hitler was with these influences coming from friends. Certainly.D. despite everything that Goldhagen says. which makes the case that Hitler as a child in Austria absorbed an Austrian anti-Semitism that was even more pervasive and intense than that prevailing in Germany itself. other than (on p. A work that would answer it. Hitler was the catalyst. clergy. a German problem.Appendix: 2-D William Nicholls." probes some of the specifically German reasons why it was so. this pervasive cultural anti-Semitism surrounded Hitler himself from his very earliest days. ultimately to Germany's gas-chambers? And. 306 . The Holocaust was more than a German problem. F. Of course. as 1 had mentioned before. was far from unique. these "truths" were the biggest lies of all. such a massive historical event will inevitably exceed in its complexity any such bromide as a metaphor. Goldhagen ignores this question. Louis in early summer 1939. The Holocaust was the result. Still. and England. and send them back. and the rest of the Nazi leadership. does not exist. Christian Antisemitism (1993). and that conviction. turn away the shipload of Jewish refugees from Naziism. aboard the ship St.

is immaterial to this.Appendix: 2-D The single greatest distortion of the many in Goldhagen's book appears on page 447. is a stunning falsehood from a scholar at a prestigious university. Rather than Hitler's having followed the German people once he became their leader." including (even if unintentionally on his part and more out of incompetence than from bigotry) against ones who were opposed to it. Thus does an avowedly Jewish scholar join hands with today's anti-Semites. the falsehoods are no less reprehensible. the license he perhaps arrogates to members of his own faith as retribution against "the German people" is also wrong. The fact that Dr." rather than from Hitler himself (and not even from the Nazi leadership). prior to his personal crisis of 1919. Hitler was far from having been merely a democratic leader passively executing this predominant anti-Semitism. "The symbiosis between Hitler's passionately held and pursued aim of extinguishing Jewish power by whatever means and the German people's racial eliminationist view of Jews together produced the conditions and the drive to undertake the eliminationist policies of the 1930s and 1940s. he led them.) Such falsehoods might be comparable in their religious." interchangeable with "the perpetrators. Goldhagen's clearly intended (and equally unsupported) implication that the originating source of the Holocaust came from "the German people. Goldhagen was correct that Germany (just like some other nations that he ignores) was terribly anti-Semitic during and prior to the Holocaust. Furthermore. In fact." Is Goldhagen here accepting the commonly made Nazi charge that "the Jews" actually did have "too much power" in Germany? Goldhagen's view of Hitler also seems surprisingly similar to that of the Holocaust-denying. Goldhagen happens to belong to the faith-group. that were the targets of Naziism. Goldhagen even goes so far as to play into outright Nazi views when he claims that Hitler's aim was "extinguishing Jewish power by whatever means. where he says. and certainly prior to his having moved to Vienna in 1907. Hitler-apologist historian. (Goldhagen docs cover himself by acknowledging that there were exceptions." but merely "extinguishing Jewish power by whatever means" (presumably including eliminating the "race")." Goldhagen's unsupported assertion here (another example of a scholar slipping in a major assumption under the table) that "Hitler's passionately held and pursued aim" was not itself "racial eliminationist. constitutes virtually a group-libel against "the German people. collective-guilt. David Irving. However. nature to those of the actual authors of the New Testament that produced the Holocaust. who has promoted this line in order to exculpate Hitler from the genocide. it is likely that Hitler's own anti-Semitism was just as passive as that of others of the German and Austrian masses. and 307 . Jews.

after the period of the 1920's when he had been addressing instead an audience and constituency of merely the Nazi Party. Behind all of Goldhagen's footnoted scholarship. and especially Hitler's own leadership as Fuhrer. with Bankier proves not to have been the case. there really does stand such a moronic thesis as that the "explanation" for the murder was murderous hatred. Kershaw observes that Hitler moderated his anti-Semitic rhetoric as soon as he started dealing with the general public. he never really comes to terms with it. 308 . the world already knew that the people who murdered Jews during the Holocaust hated Jews murderously.Appendix: 2-D Goldhagen clearly does not recognize this elementary fact. despite Goldhagen's assumption to the contrary. and is a canard. He shows the difficulties that Hitler had to overcome in order to bring the public with him on his anti-Semitic policies. perhaps because Bankier brings Hitler back to center-stage and Goldhagen is committed to viewing German cooperation with the Holocaust as having been essentially spontaneous. What the world wants to know is why! It must also be recognized that. a critically important factor in the German public's support of Hitler and of the Nazis' anti-Semitic policies was the leadership itself. and one must never imagine (as Goldhagen implies) that the support that the German people provided for his policies was spontaneous or would have occurred if the leadership had been less-effective than it was. Ian Kershaw's 1987 The Hitler Myth further documents this in its 9th chapter." really explains nothing. Or. But such are the boxes one finds oneself in when trying to defend an indefensible thesis: namely that the Holocaust was an essentially spontaneous mass movement. Furthermore Goldhagen's construction that Hitler's aim was not "eliminationist" against Jews. if it does. but only for "extinguishing Jewish power. or "grass-roots" in ways that it was not. While Goldhagen deals cursorily with Bankier's evidence." really does place Goldhagen in Nazi company. that "the Germans" murderously hated "the Jews. Hitler was an extraordinarily effective leader. which tracks Hitler's anti-Semitic rhetoric in his speeches from the time of his entry to the Nazi Party in 1919 all the way up to the very end in 1945. documents this. then one would have a satisfactory "explanation" of any murder simply by making the case that the murderer murderously hated the victim—and without having to explain why he hated the victim. But presumably. in his 1992 The Germans and the Final Solution: Public Opinion under Naziism. Goldhagen's "explanation" for the Holocaust. David Bankier.

Although it is an irresolvably speculative question whether Paul would have supported Hitler's Final Solution. And it virtually ignored (or at least said very little. ironically." to say that "The Germans hated the Jews" (which. or would—like some of his clerics—have opposed it as going too far. Perhaps the biggest flaw in Goldhagen's Hitler's Willing Executioners was that. simple-minded as it is. Some scholars might think that it is enough. It was Paul's hand that was reaching down past two millennia to open each of those poison-gas canisters at Auschwitz and the other death-factories. and nothing new. was the whole of Goldhagen's "explanation" of the Holocaust). and how the German people came to follow his leadership to do it. the Holocaust) and one that is entirely in past history. Goldhagen played it safe. than that they used Hitler to achieve theirs. But in no sense is that sufficient: Even if we accept that Goldhagen was not really asserting an essentially racist anti-German reason for this anti-Semitism. it avoided controversy—or at least the controversy that could have been constructive. and encompasses how Hitler came to lead his nation to do it. even after the passage of 2000 years. the German people were used by Hitler as means of winning his personal salvation. His argument attacked "the Germans" of the Third Reich—a very narrow target (even if it conceivably did include a great many people who had nothing to do with. Indeed. The present work has attempted to address this question. the Holocaust was even to be Hitler's personal admission-ticket to heaven. about) Christianity itself—a huge and even today very powerful target. the question remains: How did this happen? Goldhagen offered no answer. These are the reasons why it is more-accurate to say that the German people were used by Hitler for his ends. Our answer is both cultural-psychological and cultural-anthropological. Hitler's agenda was inspired by Saint Paul himself. But even Hitler was. or even opposed.Appendix: 2-D Kershaw's 1989 The Nazi Dictatorship documents the phenomenon as pertaining even within the Nazi Party itself. so that by 1942 it could fairly be said to have been unanimous that the mere expulsion of all Jews from Germany was no longer considered even a realistic option. or even "too much. used by Paul for his ends. but rather an authentically cultural one. Goldhagen said nothing at all about Saint Paul's hand reaching down through history to extinguish all these lives. Goldhagen merely pretended to 309 . by explaining in its 5th chapter the process by which Hitler skillfully developed within his own leadership-ranks an everhardening position in favor of exterminating the Jewish people.

Appendix: 2-D answer the latter question through documenting that "The Germans hated the Jews"; but he didn't even pretend an answer to the former one. Our answer, to both questions at once, is complex, blending serendipity into the regularities of nature (such as that cradle-talk is vastly more-important than college-talk; or that the personality-forming influences are those the person experiences in his/her very earliest years), to explain how it came to be that Hitler was so obsessed to lead, and how it came to be that the German people were so receptive to follow, in the Holocaust: Christianity itself was the common ingredient in both, but Hitler combined as well great leadership-skills, and an obsession intensified by his fear of his own "contaminated blood." And a cultural understanding—which Goldhagen claimed but utterly lacked—also clarifies, for example, the way in which Genesis 17:14 worked culturally to the disadvantage of Jews in this regard. Indeed, the answer is so complex that it seems inconceivable that anyone prior to the Holocaust could have anticipated or averted the horrendous outcome. We can only hope that, in retrospect now, Man will learn from history, so as to avoid its repeat. Goldhagen's work is itself a fair representation of the obfuscations that have helped to prevent such learning from history. In his zeal to blur together "the Germans" and "the perpetrators" as a single class, he has implicitly accepted not only key components of the neo-Nazi view regarding Hitler's goals and intentions concerning especially "extinguishing Jewish power," but also its collectivist attributions of guilt (i.e., as an attribute of "the Germans"), and even its assumption that "the Germans" did not include "the Jews" who were citizens of Germany. Implicitly, Goldhagen accepts the Nazi view of who really was a German. Where he seems to disagree with the Nazis is that, in his view, it is not "the Jews" that were evil demons as Nazis claimed, but rather it was "the Germans" who were the guilt-bearers. As a consequence of his having cast the Holocaust in this light, Goldhagen boxed himself into a corner regarding today's "the Germans." Even Goldhagen seems to have recognized that it would be inappropriate to include all of today's Germans as "the perpetrators." However, the precise way that he would make this distinction was not clear. As a consequence, some readers have quite reasonably criticized Goldhagen for having assumed that the "eliminationist antisemitism" of which he spoke ended magically at the moment when Germany lost the War. Certainly Goldhagen left undiscussed the supposed cultural process by means of 310

Appendix: 2-D which his own attributed motivational cause of the Holocaust, "eliminationist antisemitism," terminated. Not only did Goldhagen have nothing new to say about how this supposed "cause" was born, but he had nothing at all to say about how it supposedly died—if it ever did. Books such as Goldhagen's, that deflect from or cover up such realities, are making common cause with the Nazis, even if the intention is otherwise. Such books block rather than promote understanding of the Holocaust. Just one of the multitude of assertions in the Goldhagen work that promote such miscomprehension is (p. 8) "The Holocaust defines not only the history of Jews during the middle of the twentieth century but also the history of Germans." This accepts unquestioningly the Nazi idea that German's Jews were not Germans. Correct would have been to say that the Holocaust defined both Jewish and Christian history. Such works belong in the category of "docudrama," myth, or other forms of half-truth, in which facts are embellished with fictions, to produce accounts that thereby become far more persuasive to the gullible than they would otherwise be. Of course, Scriptures such as the Bible are also like that. The Holocaust itself should produce a sufficient example of the dangers of such works, to inform the scholarly community of the urgent necessity to weed them out, and to expose ruthlessly any new ones that come along. However, in order to do that, scholars would have to be scientists; the epistemological foundation of the scholarly professions would have to be transformed. It must be up to the broader society outside the academy to demand the transformation—scholars will not do it unless they are required to, and only the society-at-large can do that, if it will. Scholars think that merely debating and dismissing works like Goldhagen's is enough. But that is not so. Half-truths may pass professional muster with scholars even if in the more-scientific professions they would not. The public must recognize that there is a difference. The public must learn to question scholars and to challenge them and their opinions. If the social "sciences" were really sciences, then conceptually sloppy works loaded with misleading if not false generalizations, many of which are only implied and never stated explicitly, would not be debated; such works would simply be condemned as violating the professional norms. If such works were published at all, this would be with no academic imprimatur of any kind, and only by "fringe" publishers. But that is not the way the present world is; the current use of the word "sciences" in "social sciences" is fraudulent. These fields today should instead be recognized for what they are: intellectual propaganda. Their debates are propaganda311

Appendix: 2-D debates; not debates of science. There is a difference. One of the foremost tactics of propaganda-debates is to destroy opposing viewpoints whenever possible by means of simply "the silent treatment"— ignoring the viewpoints that one wishes to destroy, and thus eliminating such viewpoints from the discourse that "counts." According to "Academic and Public Discourses on the Holocaust: The Goldhagen Debate in Germany," by Ulrich Herbert in the Fall 1999 German Politics and Society, this tactic has been practised against the Goldhagen book itself, on the part not only of German and Christian historians, but of other-nationality and Jewish ones as well. Herbert noted that the book elicited much attention from the general public, but only relatively little (and ultimately almost none at all) from professional historians. The reasons for this that were hypothesized by Herbert made no sense: The scholars were sophisticated; the public-at-large was not; yet even Herbert acknowledged that "the book's effect was to accelerate learning processes in each field." Goldhagen's book was disliked by historians not because of its authentic deficiencies—which were never clearly identified in the scholarly debate the work initially provoked in response to all the public attention it was receiving— but rather because, despite all of the work's real deficiencies, Goldhagen exposed the historians' cover-up of the extent of the pervasiveness of antiSemitism in Third-Reich Germany and the years leading up to it. In other words, the historians' silent treatment of the Goldhagen book was due not to that work's flaws, but to its one authentic virtue. This should not blind the public-at-large to the work's very real bigotry against "the Germans." Seen in this light, one would naturally expect there to be historianpropagandists on "the other side" of the historiographical debate; and such is, indeed, the case. Numerous examples can be cited of historians who are just as bigoted against Jews as Goldhagen is against Germans. Not surprisingly, some of these historians are Gentians. (Not all are: David Irving, for example, is British.) One good example is Germany's Ernst Nolte, who has prominently argued that during the 1930's "the Jews" in Germany were a real threat to "the Germans," because "the Jews" were "Bolshevists," just as the Nazi Party claimed; furthermore, Jewish leader Chaim Weizmann's September 1939 call for world Jewry to fight Naziism after the 1938 Kristallnacht pogrom and other attacks against Jews, made reasonable Hitler's fears of international Jewry and caused the Nazi "internment" of "the Jews"; and moreover, despite these "provocations" by "the Jews," more "Aryans" than Jews were murdered at Auschwitz (which is not something that Nolte even tried to document, it is so absurd). 312

Appendix: 2-D Nolte has been honored by some of Germany's other leading historians, and in June of 2000 he won the Konrad Adenauer Prize for literature, and was lauded especially by Horst Moller, director of the distinguished Institute for Contemporary History in Munich. How edifying it would be to have Dr. Goldhagen debate Dr. Nolte, or perhaps Dr. Moller, on whether "the Jews" or "the Germans" are superior to the other, and what should be done to whichever group is inferior. That, at least would be a propaganda-debate that would not misrepresent itself as science. Well, maybe it would, after all; maybe that's how bad scholarship really is. And thus, the frequently asked question of "Why did the German people support Hitler and perpetrate the Holocaust?" is itself conceptually defective, or wrongly put. It starts from the same false assumption as does Goldhagen: that "the Germans" did it; that the Holocaust was, before it was anything else, a German crime. That misconception directs attention away from reality; not toward it. The Holocaust was, before it was anything else, a Christian act, and a Christian crime. To wrongly ask, "Why did the German people support Hitler and perpetrate the Holocaust?" is to forget— if not to deny outright—that Germany's Jews were Germans. Starting form the same core biblical religious sub-sumptions as those underlying Hitler's own world-view, that manner of posing the question directs attention away from the guilt of religion, as if the primary guilt in the Holocaust were instead a matter of nationality, "nationalism." (See Appendix 2-H for more on that particular religious scapegoat.) Nonetheless, there do happen to have been—and still today to be— some rather distinctively German cultural roots of the Holocaust; and that is the next subject.

313

2-E: The majoritarian arrogance of German mass-culture

While Germany's more-egregious eruptions of overt bigotry— nowadays directed especially against Turks and other "guest workers," some of whom are actually second or third generation German residents who were denied German citizenship on essentially "blood" grounds—are well known; what is lessrecognized is the more subtle deepseated cultural deficiencies that produce such eruptions, and that the victorious allies never challenged to rectify, partly because the Cold War quickly took precedence, and partly because such cultural issues then were simply not understood, so that the basis upon which Naziism had arisen could not be well and fully identified. Suffice it to say here that, politically speaking, what separates German from American mass-culture, is the same thing that separates America's own Christian Right from the American Constitution: that is to say, the view of the Christian Right, and of mainstream German society, that the majority has a right to impose its religious beliefs upon minorities and even to force them to pay via taxes to support the religious displays and practices of the majority; versus the view of America's great Founders, embodied in the Constitution, that no taxpayer-funds must ever go toward any religious purpose. This is by no means to deny the totalitarian drift of America's brand of fundamentalism, for all fundamentalism itself favors totalitarianism (sometimes to do war against another variety of totalitarianism). It is merely to state that other countries exist in which the forces that would restrain such totalitarianism, are even weaker than they are here in the United States. The consequences of this global phenomenon 314

Appendix: 2-E of our times—Joshua Rubenstein of Amnesty International U.S.A. referred to a contemporary German case of it by saying "German justice appeared to be blind in the right eye"—are detailed in Martin A. Lee's 1997 The Beast Reawakens, describing the re-grouping and re-emergence of the Nazi challenge as the Twentieth Century came to a close. By no means is this threat only a German phenomenon. But the majoritarian arrogance does tend to be culturally far more deepset in Germany than in some other countries. Bob Altemeyer's books, such as his 1998 Enemies of Freedom, and 1996 The Authoritarian Specter, describe a "self-righteousness" that is characteristic of conservatives generally; this is simply another term for majoritarian arrogance. An excellent example of the phenomenon is a note that Hitler himself jotted down during his stay in Landsberg prison, 15 June 1924 (Maser, 1973, p. 106): "Whenever freedom is desecrated, the best men meet in prison." When he afterwards became the majoritarian dictator, he could not recognize that he was the one desecrating freedom and placing the best people in prison; as a too-typical German, he could not see himself as being the majoritarian oppressor, only minorities were "the problem." This trait is still too common. Even today, Germans are especially inclined to the majoritarian's selfrighteousness. This is often expressed specifically as a Christian selfrighteousness, because the dominant religious beliefs of the German people remain Christian today, just as was the case during the Third Reich; and therefore most Germans even today have difficulty dealing with their own underlying cultural reality. In the national census of 17 May 1939 as reported to Goebbels on 3 July 1944 by Propaganda Minister Kerrl, the Reich's population was 54% Protestant, 40% Catholic, 3.5% "Believers in God," and 1.5% "Unbelievers"; thus, the citizenry were 94% Christian, and in the post-War era when Naziism is no longer "morally correct" in Germany, the German people feel a strong need to avoid seeing Naziism as having been itself an outgrowth from Christianity. But this self-imposed ignorance has a cost: it makes it impossible for the German nation intellectually to conquer the Holocaust—that is to say, to understand it. And this intellectual failure has dangerous political consequences, of which the small, everyday, examples may be considered as portents of worse possibilities to come. The clearest case-in-point is perhaps the 1995 incident in which the German public, supported by Chancellor Helmut Kohl and most other leading officials, arose in outrage against a Federal Constitutional Court ruling overturning a Bavarian government regulation that required a Christian cross to be installed in every primary-school classroom. As reported in Peter C. Caldwell's superb "The Crucifix and German Constitutional 315

Appendix: 2-E Culture," in Cultural Anthropology, May 1996: The Court declared the regulation null and void, stating in the 'guiding principle' of the decision, 'Installing a cross or crucifix in the instructional room of a state-run, compulsory school that is not a confessional school violates Article 4, Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law.' The Basic Law—the name given to the West German constitution of 1949—states in that article, 'Freedom of faith, of conscience, and freedom of creed, religious or ideological, shall be inviolable.' At the height of the resulting uproar—in which hundreds of thousands of protestletters poured into Bavarian government offices, plus more elsewhere—the Chancellor unfortunately captured the sense of the German public when he call the Court's decision "incomprehensible," and added a recitation of the widespread contemporary German myth pertaining not only to Marxism but more importantly to Naziism, that "after the bitter experiences with the anti-Christian ideologies of this century and their horrible, cynical effects, we feel ourselves especially obliged to pass [Christian] values on to the next generation." I.e., Kohl: To oppose state-sponsored Christianity, is either Nazi or Marxist. As Caldwell's article explains, contemporary Germans hold to a traditional German historical interpretation containing several noteworthy features that Kohl's view reflects: First, "following the disturbances of the Reformation and the Thirty Years' War, the principle was recognized that the ruler of a state had the right to determine the religion of his subjects." In Bavaria, this meant not only Christianity, but quite specifically Catholicism. Since the "ruler" there is now held to be the majority of the Bavarian population, who are Catholic, it is considered quite proper for this majority to impose its religious symbolism upon non-Christians, such as Muslims, Jews, or—in the particular case at hand—anthroposophists, all of whom, it is widely believed in Germany, should have to pay taxes to support such majoritarian religion. Second, there is "the resentment and sense of victimization that marks majority sentiment in Germany." Another portion of traditional German political culture, and which America's own Founding Fathers also struggled constitutionally to overcome in the inherited culture here in the Untied States, is this majoritarian entitlement-sense by virtue of being a majority. It, too, goes back to biblical ages, and is tied in with the "Might 316

This same mentality was shown on 16 February 1999. the majority of the German people during the Nazi era. Furthermore. but today's Germans ominously continue to think of their majority as "exploited" and "taken advantage of by "inferior" minorities—often.7 billion dollar compensation-fund would be established "to remove the basis of the campaign being led against German industry and our country. of course they were all Christians. such as Moslem Turks in their midst. perhaps even a Second Coming. while Naziism might have been in Hitler's own mind a nascent Christian sect with himself representing a new dispensation. saying. Hans Maier. I experienced Storm Troopers removing the cross from our classroom. even as during our own) the Christian. broader German." But specifically in regards to the crucifix-in-the-classrooms issue about which Caldwell wrote. whose daughter did not want to be subjected at her taxpayer-supported public school to "an eighty centimeter tall. but also generally throughout the Bible. in which the majority Christians produced 100% of both the Nazi Party and the Nazi voters. such as when the conservative Bavarian politician. and more-broadly Christian. culture. a 1. For Maier to attempt to portray the lone German anthroposophist. he continued to the very end of his days a practising and believing Roman Catholic. majority.Appendix: 2-E make right" ethic that is represented best perhaps in Romans 13:1-3. Ernst Seler." thus identifying the slave-victims as themselves the victimizers of "our country." Such unregenerate crypto-fascists would like to think—or to have their listeners believe—that Nazis came from some religious minority. to put it mildly. Bavarian. covered with blood. naked. a modern Martin Luther. in fact. the phenomenon exhibited itself in many instances recounted by Caldwell." and so implicitly as the enemy "them" against the German "us." every day within 317 . dead man. and quite specifically (since Christians were. As Caldwell explained the contemporary manifestation of the principle—and a manifestation that is quite different than what one finds in the American case—Germans maintain a long tradition of viewing minorities as exploiting majorities. who then eagerly slaughtered minorities. perhaps Jews? Muslims? Anthroposophists? Scientologists? Marxists? In fact. In order to sustain this widespread German myth. "As a young lad. in response to claims against German corporations by hundreds of thousands of surviving Eastern European former slaves from the Nazi era. when Chancellor Gerhard Schroder announced that. and a thoroughgoing representative of Austrian. and Germans even interpret the Nazis themselves as having been a "minority" who "exploited" the German. by "inferior" religious minorities. not only are the past realities recounted in Goldhagen's Hitlers Willing Executioners ignored. publicly called for mob-resistance to the Court's decision.

but there can be no question that Dr. Then. and then a professor of political science at the University of Chicago. in democracies.Appendix: 2-E her classroom. Christopher Simpson argued that Noelle-Neumann had slanted her poll-results to fit her fascist view. when it voted in 1997 essentially to restore its old state-backed monopoly by forcing competing churches to worship only in private places. is a contemporary example of the Big Lie technique that Hitler did so much to popularize. and in the Summer 1996 Journal of Communication. is it not just possible that Germany's cultural view that minorities oppress majorities rather than the other way around. Russia's own parliament or Duma caved overwhelmingly to that country's previously monopolistic Christian church. supplanting the earlier Christian monopoly. the former Nazi propagandist under Joseph Goebbels. That debate stormed on. as the book was titled. in the August 1991 Commentary. One other recent event lends support to this theory of the deepseated German cultural disease that produced there the Holocaust: the debate over Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann. And thus. which in 1984 published a book of hers arguing that. such rabble-rousing is even more of a danger than here. and in this context it also is of interest that Dr." This myth had served the (then West-) German Government well in its ideological battle against the supposedly irreligious (but actually merely Marxist-religious) Soviet Union. is "the missing ingredient" that completes the explanation of why the Holocaust occurred there rather than in some other Christian nation—that this factor. Russia now is a de jure Christian monopoly. NoelleNeumann is a personal friend of Chancellor Kohl. so as to attempt to solve that historical question? I think so. (But ironically. And this is the sort of thing that most Gentians even today take 318 . Indeed. Noelle-Neumann's theory of "The Spiral of Silence" fits ideally the second of Caldwell's points we just cited regarding the cultural roots of Naziism. to produce the unique event that occurred? Is not such a possibility at least worth exploring by some culturalanthropologist/historian. who rose to become postwar Germany's leading political pollster. in Germany. just as the Communist church had previously been the religious monopoly. minorities oppress majorities by creating such a racket in the media. combined with the Versailles Treaty. Leo Bogart reprinted her old Nazi anti-Semitic diatribes. as if this courageous anthroposophist were a latter-day summoner of the Storm Troopers to take the thing down. another "reason the Court's decision aroused such a critical response lay in the widespread assumptions among conservatives that German democracy was based on Christian values. that the majority is cowed into The Spiral of Silence. combined with the advent of a Hitler. Third.

How fitting it is. did what may have been irreparable damage to that very culture. Hildegard von Bingen. not only by causing some of its brightest luminaries (such as Einstein himself. and could have lost his own life. Franz Schreker. which they claimed to be based upon the greatness of what was—in ways and to an extent that Nazis themselves were too small-minded even to begin to grasp—the loftiest high culture of any in history. the government is in the business of sponsoring its "approved" religions. and partly on account of the unresolved tensions within German society over the Nazi era. and disapproving others. Meister Eckhart. Anselm Kiefer. whose paintings were banned by them). it made life hell for some that nonetheless chose to stay (such as Richard Strauss. To this day.Appendix: 2-E as their model. which represents perhaps the culmination of German high culture since the start of the Renaissance. and others. Paul Hindemith). and that that is the root-source for all forms of totalitarianism. Otto Dix. Franz Schreker. who almost lost his Jewish daughter-in-law. they again have laid the blame on a "foreign" cause (just as the majority of Russians today blame "foreign" religions). who is Anselm Kiefer. from tax-dollars. George Mason. but by killing others (such as the underappreciated but great Austrian-Jewish operatic composer. Somehow. in Germany this has ended up being Marxism via Naziism itself. The difference between America's Christian Coalition and Germany's Christian Democratic Union (or in Bavaria. to emigrate abroad. and clergy of any stateapproved religion. Far from a wall separating church and state there. The ultimate irony of Hitler and of Naziism. for state-support. Christoff Willibald von Gluck. 319 . making it the Athens of the modern era— simply did not have any socio-political visionaries up to the stature of our own Thomas Jefferson. is that their bigoted nationalism. In addition. are paid by the government. James Madison. German high culture still has not recovered. Germany— though it (including Austria) was the home of such high-culture giants as Mathias Grunewald. and the composer. to the Nazis. essentially. moved out of the country. that Kiefer's art. the novelist Thomas Mann. then. and such as Otto Dix. Richard Strauss. statefavors.) Since German conservatives simply cannot face the reality that their own religion had led to Naziism. Christian Social Union) is that this nation has the tradition of the great Founders. driven to a heart-attack in 1933). Anton Bruckner. etcetera. priests in Germany. Gottfried Wilhem von Leibniz. Albert Einstein. and state-monopoly. Michael Praetorius. the greatest German painter since Mathias Grunewald five centuries ago. John Adams. German conservatives—even "religious liberal" ones— refuse to acknowledge that they've all been religions competing.

Did Radovan Karadzic. the majority-population also losses immensely. It is the supreme irony of conservatism. Richard Strauss noted in his diary. Thus. Some day. for the former was an outgrowth from the latter." The last German myth is that the seed for Naziism is what is needed in order to prevent a return of Naziism. Christianity was the source for the Nazis' concept of "the Aryan"—the "People of God. to be unique 320 . in any culture and at any time. and the destroyers. Until that day comes. but to all Mankind. however. Thus. And Christianity was also the source for the Nazis' concept of "the Jew"—the "People of Satan. not the first time that a great German or Austrian artist has found other nations. "It is absolutely clear to me that the German nation will again be restored to glory only through liberation from Christianity.. that the bigotry it imposes upon minorities and the weak." the pureblooded Christians. doing profound damage to all of the society excepting only to the psychopaths that in such societies tend to float to the top as the cream of the social order. not his own. During the Nazi era. Figures like this are not really German or Austrian. they transcend their nationality. upon the death of his great colleague Gustave Mahler. who suffer by far the most. however. the German majority were the enemies. improve the lives of most Serbs in the former Yugoslavia? Hardly. the prerequisite to Germany's finally putting Naziism behind it. And all of them have recognized this. to be more supportive of his work. in one way or another. and to see the ugliness that is in their own mirrors. is putting Christianity behind it. however. they belong to no one nation or culture. to become human in the highest sense. Germans en masse. etc.Appendix: 2-E was first appreciated by American Jews. found Kiefer's 1969-86 visual mediations upon the Holocaust to be too much to take. the German and Austrian people will have to quit being whiners and complainers against the minorities amongst themselves. For decades. Slobodan Milosevic. and he only later grew to be acknowledged by Gentians as the titanic figure he is. How ironic: Hitler—not the Jews—brought it down. can appreciate. of German culture. like all of the truly great. that only a small minority." Strauss did not consider the problem. even though there was nothing in them that was graphic. too piercing to the heart of things. ends up being a boomerang that hits even the majority population. demonstrated not only in Germany but in all nations. and the connections are only at the most primordial level of the archetypal collective subconscious. and not only in our time but in all times. Though a conservative government targets minorities first. the rest of the world will with good reason consider Germans and Austrians potentially a very special threat. This is.

would give as his excuse upon his resignation on 18 January 2000 from his honorary position as Christian Democratic Party Chairman subsequent to revelations that he had accepted millions of dollars of secret illegal campaign contributions from Party financiers. till recently. The next day. and who had lived their entire lives in Germany. It is not one that either the masses or the intelligentsia predominantly share within Germany (or even elsewhere. even today. but rather in its unquestioning acceptance of convention. (How fitting that Kohl. who rejected Christianity specifically. not to the laws and Constitution of a democratic republic. who have far less admiration for German culture— high or low—than do I. loutish buffoons. the disease of German culture has been as drastic as Strauss understood it to be. and who cannot understand a word of the German language. for that matter). and blind obedience to "authority. then." and in his theocratic lights he was probably speaking the truth." which till recently—long after the honors of the Nazi era—defined German citizenship by bloodlines. he realized that it was endemic to all organized religions. i. unlike Nietzche. And this prerequisite repudiation of religion itself." His "duty" as he saw it. That is barbaric." Thus. the supporter of state-imposed Christianity when he was Chancellor. he added." These individuals speak privately of Germans as being crude. would necessarily include a repudiation by the German people of the religious-inspired hereditarian concept of "the blood of the people. find the source of its deficiencies to lie not in its conservatism. and to 321 . Other commentators. I have never given up my honor.. it is not fashionable to go deeper. was to the Party of God. people who had been born in Germany from Turkish parents.) Where.Appendix: 2-E to Christianity.e. think of the German nation as the Nazis did: as "race. can be granted German citizenship merely on the grounds that his ancestors were German. were refused German citizenship. and spoke only the German language. Strauss had a broader understanding and a deeper insight. On may truly say that Gentians are notorious for their blind obedience. as a "racial" matter. and even their children were—while foreigners with "German blood" were granted such citizenship. "In my whole life. have German conservatives no shame? Conservatives wanted to continue a system in which even a person who had never spent a day in Germany and knew nothing of German culture. does such "blind obedience" come from? Amongst the intelligentsia. German conservatives. that arc appalled at anyone who crosses streets between lights or anywhere other than at the "assigned" places. Richard Strauss did not overstate the case. namely streetcorners. that he had only been doing his "duty.

what Hutus did to Tutsis in the 1990's is to Rwandan history. they think that "the time has come to put that behind us"—by forgetting about it. What the Christian German majority did to the Jewish Gentian minority during the 1930's and 40's. And to inquire further into precisely where that very worst comes from. as what Turks did to Armenians in 1915-16 is to Turkish history. Such stains are permanent. for what the great ones in their 322 . Hut there cannot be too many memorials in Germany such as the Topography of Terror Museum and the Holocaust Memorial both now in Berlin. Germans obviously don't. and can reinforce what has made that culture great. Many Germans simply don't want to acknowledge that the Holocaust was an indelible defining event for German culture. Mr. so many Germans—even members of the intelligentsia.S. Chancellor Schoder and his cultural minister finally yielded. and religious "liberals" like Michael Naumann—spoke out against the construction of a Holocaust Memorial in the center of Berlin. Germans become. so as to air-brush the German future. wherever "home" happens to be. like reality-denying conservatives of the Left and Right everywhere. and to treat it all—high as well as low—as just the butt of a bad and tasteless joke. in this view. for example. The reason is that is cuts too close to home. Instead. It is considered acceptable to speak disparagingly. even contemptuously. they can be overcome only to the extent that—and only for so long as—they are acknowledged as the stains that they are. and some even proposed in its stead the reconstruction of Kaiser Wilhelm's palace. little more than a caricature of their very worst. such as Gunter Grass.Appendix: 2-E ask a question like this. It isn't only Germans who are reluctant to see their naked selves glaring back from a mirror. guilty—for what any prior generation did: no more than they deserve praise. is thereafter as permanent a part of defining German history. they cleanse the memory of the German past. They aren't prepared to deal with it as Anselm Kiefer. That is why during the 1998 federal elections. did—by transcending it with a comprehensive German vision that acknowledges the depraved side of the culture so that it can be overcome. as if idealization of the past were the way forward to a progressive Germany. This does not mean that present generations are in any way responsible—much less. Naumann was even excoriating Berlin's declaredly conservative Mayor for his refusal to attend: The Christian Democrat Mayor Eberhard Diepgen said he had "better things to do" than that. of a culture that. is itself a question off-limits. By the time of the 27 January 2000 inaugural ceremony for the Holocaust Memorial. or what Whites did to Blacks up to the 1860's in the United States is to U. at its high end (though decidedly not at its low) has probably been the world's richest and most-fruitful. history.

the inclination of religious liberals. must be repudiated. to stick their heads up and challenge the classroom-crucifixes in the face of the local Christian redneck mobs. A ruling like this is even more abominable in Germany. unfortunately includes Germany's leadership. Germany's intelligentsia has unfortunately been inclined instead to biblically grounded approaches. to seek answers to these problems by mean of asserting intergenerational or any other kind of collective guilt. a Federal Administrative Court in Berlin upheld as constitutional that 1995 Bavarian law requiring that a crucifix be displayed in classrooms unless a parent raises "serious and reasonable" objections.S. not all that different than Jews were during the first years of the Nazi regime. The intelligentsia. and its elites are not leading that way. At the same time. When encountering a reality like these. on 21 April 1999. Austria has yet 323 . and other German minorities. Specifically as regards the German case of this. such as its top jurists. But in order to control the future. bigotry will rule. Austria. the transcendent selfencounter must entail a way of dealing with the characteristic German obsession with obedience. The Bavarian law was virtually a dare to Jews. tendency to look away. or else to put up with this state-imposed Christianity in silence. Richard Strauss was right. Moslems. than it is in less-benighted lands. or any other country with an intensely bigoted culture. however. including the Bible itself. whose fascistic assumptions are not really very different than were those of their counterparts under Hitler. but it has a long way yet to go. and to accept that they are second-class Germans. as well as probing down to its biblical roots Germany's and Austria's anti-Semitic past and anti-foreigner present. though petty. And so too were the founders of the United States. Collective guilt—or honor—is always based on a lie. of course. in Germany as in the "affirmative action" U. and elsewhere. Consequently. The current generation of Germans bear no guilt for what Hitler's generation did—just as today's American Whites bear no guilt for previous generations' enslavement of Blacks— but instead bear a responsibility to face realistically that morally bleak past. rather than to look at.Appendix: 2-E nation's history achieved. probing it all the way down to its roots. not to deny it. one must understand the past. there is a quite understandable. who recognized—as Germany's Administrative Court evidently still does not—that unless there is a solid wall of separation between church and state. Germany may be beginning the de-Nazification process.

his Christian upbringing affected him in the bad ways. brought Hitler himself to power). the Scientologists. or any other of the minorities. Germany ought to give it a try: Any mixture of the state with religion is poison. he was anti-Semitic. Naziism was based on a failure to abolish religion in the state itself." as Goethe also said. This is what Goethe meant. there is no reason to believe that the results would be any better. the Moslems. (Yet Goethe himself was also a part of that majority: specifically. not only in the good. Because the real problem in Germany. but also elsewhere—means that one must be a fool not to live in fear. It is not the Jews. Germans and Austrians were Nazis even before the Nazi party was founded. and it always was. They are—or at least most them are—proud to live in a country like that. In this sense. De-Nazifying Germany is still a work in progress. when you get right down to it. 324 . from where Hitler himself hailed. if the German majority were to convert to another religion. evidently. Richard Strauss was right. are proud to be Germans. Even today. each of which has its majority—and "There is nothing more odious than the majority. and they established the solution. The problem in Germany is the Christians.Appendix: 2-E to begin the process. it still has a long. to be a "non-Aryan" in Germany and Austria . Germans. way to go. and it always was. is the majority. However. when he said that the German as an individual is to be admired. Goethe was speaking here of the root problem of German culture: its majoritarian arrogance. Anything short of a total separation between the two is going to fall short of truly de-Nazifying German and Austrian cultures. this is not surprising when one considers that the biblical image of Satan inspired his greatest play.especially in Bavaria and Austria. and a sure sign there that it is unwarranted. in Hitler's time. but that Germans as a mass are abominable. and amongst German and Austrian conservatives (such as.) It can happen anywhere: The American Founders understood this. the same can be said for a great many other countries. And Goethe knew that this problem exists also in other nations. However. The problem in Germany is not the minorities. so smugness anywhere is a mental/moral disease. long. That is the problem.

and this by no means only after Hitler's seizure of power in 1933 but even more so for decades before. in virtually every discipline." Or. 470-474). Dr. . . I remember many instances in which my elderly music-tutor when I was a child. the German academy. Indeed. far from acting as a barrier to Hitlerism. It was the first to achieve universal adult literacy. "Germany was by far the world's best educated nation. . that. What is often particularly perplexing to them is the (to them) shocking discovery that highly educated intellectuals participate in such stupid evils no less than do the uneducated. sometimes oblique. The educators were the Wegbereiter. . Between 1870 and 1933 its universities were the world's finest. for his views. that his fellow-professors at the Vienna Academy of Music had been every bit as ardent bigots and Nazis as the average Austrian Joe. The apparent "anomaly" was noted also by Paul Johnson in his 1987 A History of The Jews (pp. Hitler never found any difficulty in acquiring intellectual backing. as Horst von Maltitz documented at length in the 17th chapter of his 1973 The Evolution of Hitler s Germany. it was from the German educators that National Socialism received its greatest help. 325 . Kurt Roger. "In the final analysis. the ones who laid the groundwork." For the sickening details. paved the way. has always been a conundrum for individuals of a progressive intellectual bent. . noted always with a sense of fresh amazement. assisted its progress to power.2-F: The great failure of intellectuals and the academy The persistence of bigoted mass-persecutions as a central feature even of what many people like to think of as our "enlightened" modern world. taken as a whole. .

The most obvious explanation for such mass-bigotry amongst supposed intellectual elites has always been "excessive nationalism. (Regarding the case of Heidegger. Their omissions and commissions have thus laid the groundwork for genocidal nationalism. and also Victor Farias' 1989 Heidegger and Naziism. but that still begs the question of the role of religion. religions have focused their moral searchlights on other issues than bigotry." all.) Merely national mythologies can be morally neutral. as an excessive devotion to German culture. the Serb leader of the ethnic cleansing. they have promoted a hereditary aristocracy. But at the very least. Richard Wagner's proto-Naziism has commonly been viewed in this light. they are nationalists.Appendix: 2-F see Max Weinreich's 1946 Hitler's Professors: The Part of Scholarship in Germany's Crimes against The Jewish People. Croatia. essentially as nationalists. as we noted in Appendix 2C. "the Serbian Orthodox Church" was "the institution that gave birth to the modern Serbian nationalist movement" and thus to the ethnic cleansing. another indicted war-criminal—after his war against his own Albanian Muslim population ended in defeat for Christian Serbs.) Of course. indicate that professional scholars constituted the most-pro-Nazi of all occupational categories not just during but prior to Nazi rule in Germany. (Nor. and Germany. and other properties of the Bosnian Serb Orthodox Church" against his being seized for trial by the international war-crimes tribunal in The Hague. To make matters even worse. And the religious culture in which these bigots were raised is far from irrelevant to their subsequent moral views as exclusionists and supremacists. the tables at the back of Michael Kater's 1983 The Nazi Party.S. by John Marks. "frequently finds shelter in the monasteries. and Beryl Lang's 1996 Heidegger's Silence. And there was a fine article in U. A person like 326 . reporting from Belgrade. I recommend the justcited von Maltitz book. it seems. did the Church subsequently regret what it had done: as the same journalist and paper reported on 31 May 1998. because it is no essential part of their function to define "right" and "wrong. As Chris Hedges. Radovan Karadzic. But at least the Church did finally turn against Serbia's own leader. churches. as if Wagner's Christianity were a mere incidental appendage to how he defined his nationalism. interpreting the famous Nazi philosopher Martin Heidegger. Slobodan Milosevic. Dr. "Moral leaders. as well as a number of contemporary bigoted European intellectuals. from Serbia. Hungary. explained in the New York Times of 10 December 1996." That has always been the traditional role of religion." For example. at the same time as they have defined superiority and inferiority by reference to whether one accepts their own beliefs. News & World Report on 10 January 1994. In fact.

cradle-talk is far-more-important than college-talk. in reality. the impact that their early religious training has upon their subsequent. as he preaches the Bible to his classmates with such fervor that they refer to him as "the little pastor. It often flies beneath the intellectual radar of intellectuals who are nonetheless permeated with its influence. supposedly value-free. religion is actually underestimated. in marked contrast with the early life and training of most of the great liberal thinkers such as Locke who started out as a doctor. and the other goes only back to British politician Edmund Burke. in early childhood. Would it pass even minimal standards for sex and violence? What about. while one writer (Auerbach) traces conservatism back to the philosopher Plato. As a cultural influence. started out as theological students." (To this might be added that the passionately committed Nazi Party member. But as William M. Even many intellectuals are. Morton Auerbach (1959) and the other by Ronald Lora (1971). and Hegel. Perhaps an even more-apt metaphor is: A fish doesn't see the sea in which it swims. and rituals of birth. and that pervasive influence from the cradle. should nonetheless feel no qualms whatsoever about the effect of that book taught in Sunday school.Appendix: 2-F Heidegger didn't have to be consciously Christian in order to be shaped by Christianity.) And one should really seek to find the influence of culture at an even younger age. the role that religious values play in conservatism is virtually ignored. McGovern observed in his 1941 book tracing the intellectual roots of Naziism. writings on morality. or Montesquieu who started out as a lawyer. and the church. who "by right" exploit and crush the weak—is encountered as a small boy the son of a long line of Lutheran ministers. Heidegger. "It is interesting to note that three of the foremost apostles of etatism and authoritarianism. But." Even though some of these pre-fascists subsequently repudiated their early religiosity. at root. Carlyle. its impact upon their moral outlook was formative and permanent. of course. Since at least the time of Freud. we have understood that people's beliefs are often the result of influences from childhood that they do not understand. "Moses became angry with the officers. is treated as if it were nothing. How utterly odd it is that parents today. Nietzsche—that elitist prophet/champion of the instinctive supermen of power. at which period yet a fourth progenitor of Naziism. Another good example of the phenomenon is the academic study of conservatism itself. one by M. Dr. marriage. began as a theologian. Even in my favorite two books on the subject. reactive. the 327 . Philosophers themselves are loath to admit. who are rightly concerned about the moral impact that television-shows have on their children. yet have been unable to escape. and death. Fichte.

." which of course means that for Boyarin. but keep for your own pleasure all girls and all virgin women. he avoids totally passages such as 1 Thessalonians 2:15-6. "Jesus said to the Jews. 'If God were your Father. Scripture is frequently treated by them as purely allegorical or figurative. the master is not to be punished. the man is to be punished. As Boyarin continues his explanation of this thesis (p. you would love me. there is no reason to worry about anti-Semitism from a "real" Christian. "There is no authority except from God. they doggedly deny the contemporary impact of Scriptural falsehood.'" What about. . The Bible is." What about. Instead. "to reclaim Paul as an important Jewish thinker. even where it clearly is not. and even the medical reality of the First Century. and all authority that exists is established by God. Consequently. are the very people who—as a general rule—least do. "The Lord will not let good people go hungry. who most should be equipped to understand this.'" What about. He asked them. A good example is the 1994 A Radical Jew: Paul and the Politics of Identity." What about." In order to delude himself and his reader with this notion. Boyarin's book aims. "If a man takes a stick and beats his slave." or. but if the slave survives a day or two. by Daniel Boyarin.. But the culmination of his mythologising about religion comes when he discusses Paul's attitude toward circumcision. Kill every boy. who had returned from the war. of course. and every woman who is not a virgin. the devil. . whether male or female. and the slave dies immediately. submit to your masters with full respect. Divorcing his account entirely from the reality of the furious and even violent conflicts over this issue that we have reviewed in detail. 2). and incitement.. "Slaves. 'Why did you not kill the women? . was not only dangerous but terrifying. and all the other evidence (such as has been included here) that is inconsistent with it. Boyarin cavalierly asserts (pp. Yet intellectuals. is not presented to children as having the authority of moral law. as he put it in his introduction. some of these intellectuals themselves remain religious believers. meaning Christianity. and furthermore. Paul lived and died convinced that he was living out Judaism." Television. It matters. "on my reading of the Pauline corpus. You belong to your father. after all.Appendix: 2-F commanders of battalions and companies. for to acknowledge these things would place their very own culture and personal background and upbringing under a moral cloud. a believing Jew who wants very much to persuade himself that anti-Semitism was not itself given birth by anything that in his view is so glorious and noble as religion—in this particular instance. that cutting part of a man's penis off in an era with neither antibiotics nor anaesthesia. bigotry. but only the wicked. 230-1): 328 .

However. incidentally. 'according to the flesh. By substituting a spiritual interpretation for a physical ritual. trying to keep them there by assuring them. the genealogical moment. by interpreting circumcision as referring to a spiritual and not corporeal reality. not only did he no longer consider himself to be a Jew. How displeasing they are to God!" And even as "the children of the devil. the genealogical Israel.' The practices of the particular Jewish People are not what the Bible speaks of. and Paul never denied. It was Paul's genius to transcend 'Israel in the flesh. the allegorical meaning of those practices. it is equally incontrovertible that by the time that Paul was writing such epistles as Galatians and Romans. Paul was saying. Paul even emphasized this in order to persuade his Gentile followers that he was as much of an authority on Jewish Law as were the Jerusalem elders who insisted upon circumcision (and also in order to reassure his few Jewish followers that he was qualified to lead them too). there is an 'Israel in the spirit. . does such an incompetent job that he fails to cite the best Scriptural evidence supporting his false thesis that Paul considered himself to be a Jew to the end: Romans 3:9-31. but he hated any Jew who would not convert. grounded in the practice of the tribe and marking the male members of that tribe. and persecuted us. Paul made it possible for Judaism to become a world religion.Appendix: 2-F Paul's allegorical reading of the rite of circumcision is an almost perfect emblem of his hermeneutics of otherness. In one stroke. of Judaism as the religion of a particular tribe of people. Paul now was a Christian and a former Jew. representing the genealogical claim for concrete historical memory as constitutive of Israel. the seeds were planted to view "the Jews" racially as "those who killed the Lord ." (Boyarin. but faith. which Paul addresses to the Jews in the Roman Christian community. It is not that the rite was difficult for adult gentiles to perform— that would hardly have stopped devotees in the ancient world—it was rather that it symbolized the genetic. but it is even more so as a marker on the organ of generation. This is so both in the very physicality of the rite. "we 329 .' No one doubts. to the contrary. .' is not the ultimate Israel. that Paul had been born a Jew. and in his own writings and amongst his followers.

that the Ten Commandments were literally intended and interpreted when they first entered Judaism? Surely the question never even presented itself that these laws might be figurative. But Paul in fact never asserted this: he said that the Covenant itself—all of it—was being replaced with an entirely new covenant. some. they turn down a great many works presented to them. is dead. Scripture that was obviously created with the intention to be taken literally. Would Boyarin have it that the Law had been literal but that after Jesus it was figurative? Paul didn't say this either. The Jewish Covenant. for example. When whole fields of scholarship unconsciously live under the Damoclean sword of the mythologising institution of religion. some of which are not such trash.) Furthermore. Can anyone seriously doubt. urged the "elimination" of "the Jews. excellent. which is the way that fundamentalists by virtue of their fundamentalism do customarily use language. He even personalized it in his own case. in other words. Boyarin supportively presents Paul as asserting this view. Paul was emphatic about this supersession." he was expressing himself literally. In Galatians 3:23-5 and Romans 7:6 & 10:4. he holds them to the same covenantal supersessionism that applies to Gentiles: "God is one. For 20thCentury scholars to so much as even just suggest that all the passionate hatreds and outright riots reported in the New 330 . in retrospect. it interprets the requirement (17:14) that males be circumcised. Fantasists at the time took these statements as metaphorical. and will put the Gentiles right on the basis of their faith" [3:30]. that when Adolf Hitler from 1919 on. The evidence is clear: when he said in Galatians 3:10. we cannot realistically assert that the Dark Ages are yet entirely over. Paul makes clear to them that despite the pretty talk. What kind of commentary upon academe is it that university presses routinely publish such delusions as "scholarship"? Is this an indication that university presses are unselective in what they publish? That is certainly not the case. it is intellectually dishonest to treat as "allegorical" or otherwise merely figurative. as being not literally intended). replacing the Ten Commandments and all others. in Galatians 2:19-21. and He will put the Jews right with Himself on the basis of their faith." and from 1922 on. "Those who depend on obeying the Law live under a curse. It is. And yet Boyarin's book is so incredibly fantastical that going back even to Genesis." he meant to damn all unconverted Jews. and accepted as such in its time. by now clear even to most scholars.Appendix: 2-F uphold the Law" [3:31]. which he himself had actually invented so as to win the Roman rulers: salvation by grace alone and by means of faith alone. promised their "annihilation. no doubt. and by addressing them as "we Jews" [3:9] However.

whatever the given individual writer happens to feel constitutes such a "real" ethical commandment—which is probably what the given writer was taught as a child to believe in." What each writer includes as such "real" ethical commandments is. and according to James D. is that the falsehoods it contains become increasingly blatant with the encroachments of science." and not only that "Paul was fully acknowledged by the leaders in Jerusalem. 12] makes it likely that 'certain men from James' were emissaries commissioned by James and Jerusalem"—these were Gentile "Judaizers" who acted on their own." is religious apologetics of the most bizarre kind. it is obvious that each such writer is not interested in what Paul was saying. presumably. This intellectual charade has a place within the confines of the university only to the extent that the latter remains an extension of the church. 2. Nor does Munck so much as mention James 2:10. In other words. Dunn's 1990 Jesus." only religious ceremonies or rituals. instead. and furthermore that "nothing in [Gal. Just why it is that Peter clicked his heels at their command Munck does not address. and representing cravenous capitulation to it.Appendix: 2-F Testament over the issue of the circumcision-requirement concerned in that ancient time merely a failure to communicate regarding the distinction between a literal versus a metaphorical interpretation of "the Word of God. It has no place within the university as a scientific institution. 129-30.202-4. 331 . Paul meant when he referred dismissively to "works" and "the Law. but only trying to find a rationalization for respecting Paul.G. Paul and the Law (pp. The reason Scripture is increasingly interpreted as figurative with the passing of the centuries and millennia. "The Judaizing opponents in Galatians are Gentile Christians. Both writers argue that Paul did not here mean to dismiss the "real" ethical commandments governing "behavior. devotes all of his fourth chapter to arguing that. "Whoever breaks one commandment is guilty of breaking them all". according to Alan Segal's 1990 Paul the Convert (pp. 194-8). Munck refers briefly to that letter (p. in his 1959 Paul and the Salvation of Mankind. And Johannes Munck. For example. Paul was dismissing mere identity-markers of Jews as a "nationalistically restrictive" ethnic group. The tradition of misrepresenting the teaching of Paul extends far beyond merely Boyarin's fictitious "figurative-versus-literal" Paul." and why Munck knows better. and 211-12). Nor does he explain why Paul erroneously reported that these were "men from James. employing the academy itself as a thinly veiled instrument of the religious institution." but Paul's letter is actually intending to communicate to the Galatians "that the leaders in Jerusalem are not at one with the Judaizers" and oppose what they are doing.

Without any authority in the manuscript." which directly contradicts Munck's supposed "interpretation" of Paul.g. academia is like that. to the contrary. rioters. "These expressions do not picture to us a legalistic Jew for whom the ceremonial law is binding. 1 Thessalonians 2:15-6. the general public is misled into believing that the views expressed possesses more than "merely" religious backing. when Acts 21:21 forward describes both Christian and non-Christian Jews in Jerusalem rioting against Paul. not a hint is given that he was. publish. Nor does Munck even attempt to explain why it is that in his theory the circumcised Jews and followers of the Covenant are unconcerned about its being abandoned by Paul's Gentile newcomers. says specifically of "the Jews" (from two lines earlier) that "they even tried to stop us from preaching to the Gentiles the message that would bring them salvation. that person is "outside God's grace. Such is the drivel that scholars write. You are outside God's grace. Paul called obedience to the Law "mere garbage. but Jews (e. in fact. not Jewish. the scholarly angels beam approvingly upon his myths.. but the 332 . and that he asserted such things as Galatians 5:4. They are instead yet more of religion. I propose" changing it so that these are Gentile. by presenting as unquestioned fact the unsupported fiction that Paul represented the pro-Jewish anchor of New Testament writing. the swindle has not just the full force of the clergy. But this does not make such myths "science"—and they are not. 240) that "the text is wrong. Munck baldly asserts (p. "Those of us who try to be put right with God by obeying the Law have cut yourselves off from Christ.Appendix: 2-F 118) saying. ." (No wonder then. and teach. that in Philippians 3:8. Galatians 6:12-3. But because they have the imprimature of prestigious scholarly institutions behind them. and Philippians 3:2-8). Munck's theory is inconsistent with the brute fact that the target of Paul's hatred is not Gentiles as Munck's theory requires.") So when a clergyman steps up to the pulpit on Sunday morning. and also with Paul's using the terms "the circumcised ones" and "the Jews" synonymously. And then scholars like Donald Akenson. Furthermore." which is the exact opposite of what the letter says. Paul identifies these "false apostles" as Jewish Christians. add directly to the public mythology about the religious myths." meaning that no matter how good a Jew a person is. in his 1998 Surpassing Wonder: The Invention of the Bible. . not Gentile ones. pulling early Christianity in the direction of its mother-faith. while only Gentile newcomers are disturbed about that. And finally. in fact. the very opposite of this. Also in 2 Corinthians 11:13-5 & 22-3. . 1 Thessalonians 2:16. No wonder the congregation is effectively hoodwinked. These myths about myths are accepted by scholars as constituting "scholarship"—unfortunately.

Thompson. For example. devoutly Jewish. Paul. in his 1996 The Real Jesus: The misguided Quest for the Historical Jesus and the Truth of the Traditional Gospels (pp. like the fundamentalists he opposes." then scholarship regarding Jesus Himself is nothing less than bizarre. the unwary reader who places faith in the opinions of liberal scholars and/or "radical" clerics. Sadly. followed by the grace of God. the core of the young pre-Christian Paul's hatred of the Jesus-followers was directed against their repudiation of the Law and their replacement of it by salvation by faith-andgrace alone. Christian faith as a living religious response is simply not directed at those historical facts about Jesus. too. and even fundamentalist. but just the following from a well regarded scholar. 114) explains as follows the fury of the young. Bishop Spong. starts from the assumption that Paul's "Christian" gospel of salvation by mere faith-and-grace. opponents. him 333 .Appendix: 2-F massive weight of the university also behind it. Of course. should suffice to demonstrate that scholarship has no bottom limit: Although the Christian creed contains a number of historical assertions about Jesus. that caused him to persecute Jesus-sect followers (as Paul himself testified in Galatians 1:13): "Paul. pre-Christian. will absorb "facts" that are just as much unfounded assumptions as what come from their conservative. replacing the Jewish Covenant salvation via the combination of one's obedience to the Law. was not unlike a fundamentalist watching his or her infallible Bible being replaced by an irresistible call into the insecurity of freedom. There is no point in dwelling on this here. if the scholarly lies about Paul are scientifically "beyond the pale. or at a historical reconstruction of Jesus. 141-2. that is not so. not by the "Christian" Paul himself This liberal bishop accepts just as unquestioningly as do his conservative-religious fundamentalist counterparts the basic honesty of the Scripture upon which he places his faith. The "real Jesus" for Christian faith is the resurrected Jesus. Luke T. And thus. according to this anti-fundamentalist cleric. watching the first Jewish Christians decentralize the Law in favor of grace. John Shelby Spong's 1991 Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism: A Bishop Rethinks the Meaning of Scripture (p. 173-4). Christian faith is directed to a living person." In other words. was created by Jesus. The unwary member of the general public might think that "radical" scholars and anti-fundamentalist clerics will be more-reliable sources of information about such matters than the conservatives and fundamentalists are.

More than that. simultaneously. or is there a difference between the two? 334 . And since Christians understand by the resurrection not simply a resuscitation of Jesus' body but his entry into God's own life (symbolized by his "enthronement at the right hand of God"— Acts 2:34). Christians have always taken the resurrection to be the defining event concerning Jesus. As these quotations from Peter's speech in Acts 2 indicate. To read these compositions in terms simply of the historical information they provide is to miss the important and most explicit insight they offer the reader. he poured out this which you see and hear"—Acts 2:33). how the experience of the powerful transforming power of God that came through the crucified Messiah Jesus created not only a new understanding of who Jesus was but. and the fundamental perspective from which to perceive "the real Jesus. who defines believers' present by his presence. So. indeed." etc." These compositions were produced by members of a religious movement for other members of that movement. and that have the lowest credibility on the basis of a scientific evaluation of the evidence— this is the "real Jesus" for this scholar. Where does church-theology/propaganda let off. specifically religious experiences and convictions generated the compositions. a new understanding of God and God's way with the world. "the 'real Jesus' for Christian faith is the resurrected Jesus. which is manifested in the powerful presence of the Holy Spirit among believers ("having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Sprit. namely. the real Jesus for Christian faith is not simply a figure. and scholarship begin.— precisely the New Testament allegations that are "miraculous" and also the likeliest to have been political and "PR" concoctions.Appendix: 2-F "whom God has made both Lord and Christ" (Acts 2:36).

from Waite's 1977 The Psychopathic God. He is a man who is afraid. Hitler was only taking their word for it— only believing it—to hold the Bible to be the "Monumental History of Mankind. . . to be sure. the creators of "Christianity" based their faith upon a historical foundation. . a furious torrent. . gave an incisive description of Adolf Hitler: 'We are now in a position to understand the anti-Semite.Appendix: 2-F As happens with just about any religion.' 335 . in effect. but of himself. The example of the misrepresentations about Paul is certainly relevant to academia's hiding the true source of anti-Semitism. He is a coward who does not want to admit his cowardice to himself. So too have philosophers. one of which is the writings of the academic historian. who ironically also did an outstanding job as a researcher to document the falsity of his own confused and half-baked theory of why Hitler did it. but what about the academic interpretations of the Holocaust itself: Is religion also given direct cover for the climactic modern fruit of that anti-Semitism? Sadly. At least the scholarship on Paul gets closer to dealing with the actual origins of Christianity. before its predictions can even merit consideration. then their truth/falsity is also historically adjudicated. But perhaps the best demonstration of the phenomenon is the following. . which reflects the intellectual subterfuges of both Waite and the communist/existentialist academic icon. The existence of the Jew merely permits the anti-Semite to stifle his anxieties. If the claims are historical ones. We have already documented this in several places. Robert G. The anti-Semite is a man who wishes to be a pitiless stone. Waite. . its statements about the past must be true. a devastating thunderbolt—anything except a man. They are not. The Bible is often referred to for its predictions. the answer is: Yes. One of the clearest and most perceptive statements of the condition was made by Jean-Paul Sartre who.L. ." If (Mat." then it is only right that historically based belief is historically judged. 364: Psychiatrists and clinical psychologists have contributed to our understanding of anti-Semitism. Not of the Jews. a murderer who represses and censures his tendency to murder without being able to hold it back. . 26:52) "He that lives by the sword shall die by the sword. . Jean-Paul Sartre. p.

whose life was built upon lies just as was that of the communist Sartre or the Nazi Heidegger—only Hitler was unfortunately more-courageous than the scholar typically is—also felt that the person ("the Jew") whose personhood he denied. and whom Benioto Mussolini proudly claimed as his chief intellectual inspiration for his elitist political ideas." Hitler truly missed his calling. predominantly a religious institution. As a result of the retarded state of studies in the humanities and social "sciences. however. as a scientific work." academia is a bastion of backwardness insofar as its faculties in these fields impact the broader society beyond the ivory tower. was not "a human being. of the professional schools). or else have been courageous soldiers (like Hitler) honored in war for their valour and likewise having proven themselves willing to suffer mortal risk in order to achieve their objectives. to be a clergyman." These malefactors. who is known as the Karl Marx of fascism." where "classic" works continue to hold authority and not merely to be studied as historical artifacts. for example. but the better-financed part is of the rightist variety. he should have studied for a doctorate and become a professor in the humanities or social "sciences"." These evil individual are "anything but a man. Most of this conservatism has been of the leftist kind. contemporary economics is built largely upon the anti-equalitarian Pareto optimality of Vilfredo Pareto." but "something else": like Sartre's "anything but a man. Karl Marx's leftist conservatism has had considerably 336 . The problem is that the university is still. is no longer studied for the insights it imparts on its subject. continues to be studied as if it imparted useful insights on politics—a subject upon which it contained no scientific worth in its own time. Plato's Republic. but only have supported it in the background. today. even if it is hardly less scientific than academic political theory in ours. Hitler himself.Appendix: 2-F One of the classic cheap shots against anyone whom the society-at-large considers to be despicable—such as Mideastern terrorists. However. or Adolf Hitler-is to call them "cowardly. It would have been more like his original aspiration. physics. even today. to a certain extent. not a scientific one (with the exception of the faculties in the physical and the biological sciences—and. are "cowards. then. not a scientific but rather a pre-scientific "political science" work. For example. Universities as a social institution originated as an extension of the church during the Middle Ages. he would not have fronted for evil." Ironically. Newton's Principia. this tradition lives on in the scriptural emphasis of studies in the humanities and social "sciences. who may (like many of those Mideastem terrorists) have been suicide-bombers willing to sacrifice their very own lives for their evil principles.

from Hitler's Germany. Conservatives. Amongst Strauss' U. Leo Strauss. most-prominently influenced by the Jewish emigre to the U. Science (here lumped in with its applications—for good or ill—which are technology) is one of their scapegoats for Naziism. incidentally. they preserve the transcendent vision of perfection without seeking to actualize that vision on earth." by the late 337 . not for the first time. disciples were Irving Krystol. as the supposed intellectual source for Naziism and the Holocaust.) Totalitarianism remains deeply rooted amongst the intelligentsia.Appendix: 2-F more influence upon other disciplines." Strauss. (Mussolini. Himmelfarb.S. A typical scholarly presentation of this fraud is to be found in "The Genesis of the 'Final Solution' from the Sprit of Science. if not to the perpetrators of the Utopia. became the intellectual guiding light for the political administration of Ronald Reagan. the Holocaust.S.S. Typical of Strauss' influence is the following from a Wall Street Journal Op-Ed piece by Dr. We have also been obliged to reconsider the Enlightenment.. .. and Gertrude Himmelfarb. In this very century .. himself. Irving's wife and Bill's mother. in turn. usually are reluctant to acknowledge the religious roots of Naziism. indicting "the Enlightenment" and even science itself." and as "Theorist for the Reich. the source of whose own values is religion. then to its innocent victims. . and legions of others who have since emerged as the cream of academic political theory in the U. Bill Krystol. started out as a Marxist. Strauss was himself a disciple of Carl Schmitt. It is because of the heavy religious influence upon scholars that within political "science" there is a strong school of belief. that both science and technology can be put to the most heinous uses. an act of hubris that is almost always fatal. and discovered. which bequeathed to us many splendid achievements but also some dangerous illusions. . who was variously praised by the Nazis as "Crown Jurist of the Third Reich. we experienced one of the most monstrous events in human history. Secular ones seek to create a Utopia on earth. once he came to the U. the fascist Platonist scholar and student of Heidegger. 5 May 1999: The great advantage of religious Utopias over secular ones [is that] religious Utopias are otherworldly.S.

and the conquest of the world by secularized rationality was so overwhelming." Such drivel is accorded respect. it does attribute that to the late 1700's and early 1800's: "Antisemitism first flared up in Prussia . wherein can be encountered such science-scapegoating gems as these: The gap created by the decline of religious influence on everyday life in industrial society was so great. . Perhaps the key person in its development was Martin Heidegger's mistress (despite his anti-Semitism and his being both married and conservative). The whole charade relies upon 338 . German race-thinking was invented in an effort to unite the people against foreign domination. This fraud emerged only gradually as a consensus amongst scholars... While her discussion of the origins of totalitarianism says little about the origins of anti-Semitism.. . the Jewish refugee from Naziism and opponent of democracy—even the opponent of the 1964 Civil Rights Act in the United States—Hannah Arcndt. when the 'Reformers' changed the political structure so that the nobility lost its privileges and the middle classes won their freedom. eds. writers.. 1993. Science therefore sought its salvation in the specious immortality of the racial Volkskorper. only because conservatives will stretch to any limit in order to blame "modernity" for causing the Holocaust. and although nothing is clear in her work.).. that the switch from religion to science as the source of a meaning-generating mythology for everyday life took place almost without resistance. There is a considerable body of opinion pleading for the tolerance and responsibility that spring from an awareness of German history and of the genesis of the 'Final Solution' from the spirit of science.. she certainly did not take seriously Hitler's professed dependence upon "the Almighty". . whose influential 1951 The Origins of Totalitarianism has been interpreted by some as portraying an ideological void at the core of totalitarianism.. the search was on for 'final solutions. she may have been one of the initiators of the now-widespread academic belief that Hitler's own statements cannot be taken seriously as indicating what his motives were. ." Arendt was one of the world's worst. which enormously aided her academic career and prestige. Once the facade of a nontranscendent everyday mythology had been shattered by crisis. .' The 'death of God' in the nineteenth century gave science dominion.. and in any case pays little attention to ideology's role in "The Origins. Detlev Peukert (Reevaluating the Third Reich. Thomas Childers and Jane Caplan.Appendix: 2-F German academic historian.. most unintelligible. in 1807.

also conveniently obliterates. to do war against academic scholarship. "I am doing what the Church has done for 1. in her account. The lectern is often merely a disguised pulpit. In order to do this. in presenting both the Hitler and the Paul parts of our argument. has so crippled Hitler-scholarship. Arendt when he told Bishop Berning on 26 April 1933. which is science. the understanding of the role ideas themselves play in history. nothing more than a standard tactic of religion being applied against the opponent of religion itself. Academia is not part of the solution. assumptions. Hitler was a better historian than Dr. Dr. whose falseness—sometimes to the point of blatancy—is academically held unaccountable. it is part of the problem. Arendt). on all fronts—Paul. Part of this book has been a direct assault upon the lies that scholarship promotes. Evidently. notwithstanding its acceptance by a substantial number of scholars. and so many others—scholarship has been devoted not to tearing down the intellectual prisons of faith. In other words. Obviously. Thus. an important subsidiary goal must be to expose the "scientific" sham of scholarship itself. The revered scholar." the universities front for the churches. works of scholarship that are based upon ridiculously false. And that is why academicians ended up being at the forefront of Hitler's biblically based The German Revolution. but only to show that scholarship itself is a fraud—that in the fields of study that are engaged by this book. 339 .500 years" (or else he was just more honest than Dr. Hitler.D. it is impossible to expose all the frauds of scholarship. it is the solution. This thesis that Hitler's own statements about his motivations must be ignored. not even open to question or requiring to be defended. Scapegoating science is. the long history of antiSemitism prior to the 1700's. that the thesis itself has become part of the assumption-base of the field.Appendix: 2-F ignoring Hitler's own statements about why he did it. and it is no intention to do that here. often entirely unexamined. such as the extermination of 140 Jewish-German ghettos in 1298 A. In the humanities and social "sciences. there are numerous accepted. The cleric's garb is poorly hidden beneath the professor's jacket. Arendt. documented or supported. it has unfortunately been necessary. it's all that they know to do. Volume I. and even greatly honored. and the bigotries based upon it. but instead to buttressing the walls. Science is not the problem.

but as Hitler himself might say. upon whose cover was emblazoned "Jesus At 2000: Novelist Reynolds Price offers a new Gospel based on archaeology and the Bible. Hitler himself might have sketched 340 ." This was set against a picture of Christ's face. as "an Aryan" native. The first falsehood was by implication rather than direct statement: the cover picture itself implied a lie—that Jesus was of European "racial" stock. But the "Christ" portrayed on TIME's cover was no such Arabic Jew. looking upward. Jews prior to that diaspora were simply Arabs who believed in the Jewish. and wearing a crown of thorns. monotheistic. One would never assume such a face to be of an Arab. The Jews had not yet spread throughout Europe in the diaspora and had children or (again to use Hitler's term) "miscegenated" with Europeans. Their facial features would have been indistinguishable from those of other Arabs.2-G: Mass-media peddling of lies Where else do the mass-media that shape public opinion get their own impressions of religion than from the scholars our universities have certificated as authorities upon the subject? To a large extent. the falsehoods that are vouched for by our professors as truths become also the "truths" that the press spread as "facts" about religion. and not as an immigrant or a visitor. God. But that is what Jews such as Jesus were in Jesus' time. presumably towards heaven. the public learn these falsehoods from the general media even without studying directly under the professors who promote those falsehoods. but anyone looking at that picture might easily say that the face portrayed in it has features that would be unremarkable on the streets of any European town or city. This is subtle. And thus. A good example is the 6 December 1999 issue of TIME Magazine.

But it would appear that no such "expert" pointed out this blatant inaccuracy to TIME. 341 ." An accompanying editor's note gave the author's background: "In a riveting exercize in biblical scholarship. of course. knows that there was a lot in between. But instead. have tended to see them as propaganda.000 years and emerges with his own Gospel. professor Price's use of the adjective "reliable" is not only unsupported by him. he just dropped the matter there and proceeded to summarize what these "reliable accounts" tell of Jesus' life and resurrection. just as Price himself does. The article itself. even after his having already asserted of all four of the canonical that "their special claim would seem to be the preservation of reliable accounts of the career.. not as being just an artist's rendering (even one presumed to be accurate within the constraints of the little that is know that can guide such a rendering). "Many modern scholars. and Mark. Thus." That statement is itself untrue. it is false. and then proceeds to build his own account on three of the four Gospels. ." He might have added. Reynolds Price translated the Greek texts of Mark and John. Matthew. in support of his own position. Luke." which coincidentally happen to have been sources that inspired Hitler himself. The reader. It opened: "A great novelist and biblical scholar examines what faith and historical research tell us after 2. starts by acknowledging. Professor Price constructs his own "Gospel. Dr. and without explaining why he omits John. as if there were nothing in between. it is informed. perhaps. death and resurrection of one extraordinary man. "We have little that might be called history concerning" Jesus. Indeed.Appendix: 2-G such a "Christ. Price. his "Gospel" proceeds from The Last Supper and the walk in the garden at Gethsemane directly to Jesus' Resurrection." as his muse guides him. And the cover-picture of Jesus on a mega-magazine such as TIME is not arrived at casually." typically with relevant advanced degrees. of course.." TIME was so solicitous of that anti-Semitic mythology that it dictated their cover. and thus saying nothing of either the trial or crucifixion of Jesus. however." consistent with his having said "Christ was not a Jew. the words of an article are taken as having literal import. did not blatantly feed into the explicit antiSemitism that in Hitler and others had given rise to the Holocaust: unlike a mere picture. pointedly omitting from it the overtly anti-Semitic parts. were adjudged to be unprintable in TIME. that even scholars who view them that way cite them nonetheless as if those accounts were historical rather than mythological. which is the reason why. even in his own acknowledgment. Professor of English at Duke University. by "experts. teaching. where the Gospel accounts. without saying why he does so. he grants.

which have emerged as a response to a perceived crisis. is a book published only a few months later. How." such as produced the 342 . and such as the wine and the wafer at the mass." Her book aims "to explore the implications of this global response to modern culture. With scholars like that. but which has since taken root in other parts of the world. She even opens her Introduction with the assertion that "One of the most startling developments of the late twentieth century has been the emergence within every major religious tradition of a militant piety popularly known as 'fundamentalism. but tactfully. then as now. then the reader is quite aware that the central symbols of Christianity. Price has done his job for Hitler and any future Hitler.'" If this is not an outright falsehood. serving as "experts" for mass-media such as TIME.Appendix. the Word of God. such as the crucifix itself. then. science. "It is a reaction against the scientific and secular culture that first appeared in the West. prior to the Eighteenth Century. consists of "an increasingly skeptical world. through professor Price's piece. and implicitly. all relate directly to the parts that professor Price leaves out. Karen Armstrong's The Battle for God." saying. instructed the reader about this crucial bit of "history"? Implicitly. not the exception. who even needs the churches in order to sow the seeds of some other genocide? A perhaps more subtle example of mass-media peddling of lies supporting the social forces that lead toward genocide. as she makes clear in the Introduction." Her entire book is based upon the false claim that without skepticism. 2-G if the reader happens to be a believing Christian. has TIME. it is a bald distortion: not only was what we today call "fundamentalism"—meaning a literal acceptance of Scripture as inerrant. but it routinely." But the professor is slick enough not to include such things in his account explicitly: he has reaffirmed the lie that the canonical Gospels possess a "special claim" to "the preservation of reliable accounts" of such things as "the death" of Jesus. Dr. "the Jews" did cause the execution of "the Lord." a "global response" that she documents to be highly dangerous at the same time that she lays it at the doorsteps of "modernity. fundamentalism would not exist. or modernity. led to (as Armstrong defines it) "a militant piety." because they are children of Satan. as professor Price makes clear that he is himself. and thus (as Hitler put it) the "Monumental History of Mankind" rather than myth—the norm. which presented religious fundamentalism as "embattled forms of spirituality. "the Jews" did say of this "fact" that "His blood will be upon us and upon our children. only by implication. such as had inspired the Holocaust." which.

"religious" meant. who teaches comparative religion at the Leo Baeck College. whose six-volume set on "fundamentalism" evades even the basic responsibility to define its subject. fully in keeping with the false charges against "science. and people end up thinking that "science" (etc. As she herself acknowledges. All of these devout people were killing in the name of God. thus presents a historically false interpretation of fundamentalism. the Thirty Years War. then." modernity. author of a number of popular books on religion. Martin Marty. the Crusades. on the basis of a fundamentalist understanding of Scripture. but even the ones who don't." "modernity. Some of these conservative scholars overtly accept Scriptural lies such as caused the Holocaust. long before. is that when they lived. Carl Schmitt. practically speaking. virtually everyone who was religious was fundamentalist. since they themselves had already expressed it." etc. this interpretation was itself based on Dr. et al. Leo Strauss. the average person is shocked to learn what the actual roots of the Holocaust were. Scholars. all of whom would likely have found entirely acceptable Professor Armstrong's historically false thesis. Then the popular media pick up on such falsehoods." and "The Enlightenment. fundamentalist. and so many others. The only reason they didn't call themselves "fundamentalists" in their own eras. just so that they can protect "Scripture" and thus religion itself against eyes and minds that might be too inquisitive. promote those lies by covering up their horrendous impact and attributing those horrors—and sometimes (as in professor Armstrong's case) even fundamentalism itself—to "science.Appendix: 2-G Inquisition. 343 . Professor Armstrong. or Gertrude Himmelfarb." by other conservative scholars such as Martin Heidegger.) is guilty of these horrors that were actually caused by its very opposite. it seems. but only because they respect scholars. will go to any lengths to avoid coming to grips with the reality of fundamentalism. in one form or another." Professor Armstrong. which is fundamentalist religion—the acceptance of an "inerrant" Scripture. Consequently. so there would have been no distinction to be drawn by calling oneself by a term such as "fundamentalist. as belief in the inerrancy of Scripture. The popular media have been complicit. extends this scholarly tack to the general public.

it actually militates against prejudices that lead to genocides. have been raised to believe that religion is the source for what is "good" and "noble. Whereas science is often the scapegoat of both Rightist and Leftist conservatives." even though it is the latter that typically constitutes the society's source of the all-important value-system in terms of which the genocide-victims arc considered to be "inferior" and "evil" enough to "deserve" to die. but nationalism itself does tend to be associated with religion." and a predisposition to genocide is not something easily squared with goodness. they fail to follow the respective pathways each back to its source: faith. when interethnic religious differences metastasize so as to 344 . and country" are commonly a threesome—religion. nationalism is by no means guiltless of causing genocide. it's intellectually more convenient to find a scapegoat for the evils of religion itself: the body-politic is one such intellectual scapegoat. "family values. intellectuals usually prefer to attribute genocides to "nationalism" rather than to "religion. But by no means is this to get nationalism "off the hook": unlike science as the scapegoat." and "my country right or wrong. Usually. mother.2-H: The role nationalism plays in genocide As we noted in Appendix 2-F. Why? Perhaps because most intellectuals. "God. yet is not only guiltless. The falsehood lies in this: such Leftist conservatives fail to see deeper to understand the point at which nationalism and religion intersect at genocide-junction. just as most members of the public-at-large. nationalism is a common scapegoat of purely Leftist conservatives who still maintain a respect for religion." tend to go together.

and no longer as based on each respective individual's choices of personal belief. 345 . By contrast. this is one of the reasons they sought to establish a wall of separation between church and state in the United States: they were vastly wise. it has occurred also in many other instances of genocide. in terms of increase in their numbers of adherents. nationalism and religion intersect. Catholicism lost England. would be those that were of greatest benefit to rulers. the most-successful religions." producing the genocidal orgy we call "the Holocaust. the principle is general. America's great Founding Fathers were aware of the danger. usually by legitimating what they were doing. When the Pope refused to do that in England with Henry VIII. Northern Ireland is one of many contemporary flashpoints from that old arrangement." Consequently. the older tradition had been for a nation's ruler to choose what the religion would be for "his people.Appendix: 2-H be perceived as "racial" or "blood" distinctions. A wall of separation between church and state guarantees that no further such seeds will be sown within a country." But this happened not only with the views of Christians toward Jews in Germany. into "Aryan blood. as so clearly happened with Hitler's fusion of German nationhood and Christian faith.

and the broader German society that made him its Leader. In the present application." and replaced them with real science. and most of them include pitifully little information that is even relevant to this question. Hitler himself is. and other trash. intentionalism. In order to change that. This is to be contrasted with the pre-scientific status of the social "sciences" up till now. It has even become intellectually fashionable to claim that it is impossible to understand such things. materialism. physics and biology used to be un-understood. and many people believed that they always would be and that beliefs about such matters could only be based on "faith" alone. as it has never been understood before. they have been in the dark. idealism. and both the Nazi Party that he led. and the social "sciences" up to the present time have never understood how this happens. and that the closest that Man could ever come to understanding 346 . in which an understanding like this was simply impossible. This book represents the first application of a new science—a cultural anthropology that for the first time breaks out of former strictures limiting applicability to any but the simplest and crudest stages of social-cultural development. and that is finally capable of analyzing constructively the full range and complexity of human society. a good example of which is provided by all of the Hitler-biographies that have been published and all of the books that have been done on the Holocaust. also are presented this way. the Holocaust is understood. for none of them explains why the Holocaust happened. with contesting false theories of structuralism. as a cultural phenomenon. we have rejected these "sciences. Similarly.2-I: The future of the social sciences The impersonal forces of history operate both upon and by means of individual human beings. functionalism.

And we go even further to argue that the reason the contemporary social "sciences" are the way they are. The detailed case presenting that analysis. with biblical presuppositions. takes seriously the view that. we add here. Hitler. and history. sometimes more than material factors do. But that era has now ended. just as physics was prior to Galileo. and an agent of Christianity.Appendix: 2-I such things would be the statements about them in the Bible. culture. without an actual science that deals with culture and society these subjects indeed are incomprehensible. and Their War Against America s Founding Fathers. The Holocaust has here been explained not as Marxists or other "cultural materialists" (to use the phrase of the great cultural anthropologist Marvin Harris) attempt to do—purely as a conflict based on economic or other forms of "material" competition—but rather as a clash fundamentally based on conscience. as he did not. and economics) appears in my THE CONSERVATIVES' HOAX: Their Urge for Dictatorship. in his 1970 masterpiece. For example. of culture. whose 1999 Hitler. and biology was prior to Darwin and Mendel— specifically. and authority. As with physics and biology in previous times. political science. for example was both a result of Christianity. values. cultural. as validly attacked in Janos Kornai's 1971 Anti-Equilibrium) are not yet authentic sciences at all. and the new social sciences (including sociology. Within this new framework—within the framework of an authentically scientific understanding of society. We agree with Gouldner that the existing social "sciences" (in which we include. The Coming Crisis of Western Sociology. p. it has nothing whatsoever to do with Talcott Parson's structuralism. and which Lucy Dawidowicz in her 1986 introduction to the 10th-anniversary edition of her classic The War Against the Jews described to be itself the foundation of an entire school of Holocaust-apologetic "historical" writings. containing whatever "truths" about them that God cared to impart to Man. even economics. such as those by Martin Broszat (and. and of history— each individual is both the result and a cause of society. to be inherently fascistic. in order to understand scientifically a social. from which this book is adapted. is that they are dominated by presuppositions stemming from religion. We have shown that ideas matter. 347 . Ian Kershaw. xxiii. "The underlying cause of Nazi race genocide was Soviet class genocide"). cultural anthropology. which was shown by Alvin Gouldner. Yet this has not been the kind of "cultural idealism" (again employing Harris' terminology) that has existed till now and that Harris has quite correctly attacked. Thus. his follower. ideas. at a pre-scientific stage.

culture and history. such as "Did Hitler really believe the distinctively Christian-mythological anti-Semitic things that he claimed to believe. are non-existent for science. Once those taboos are gone. one must understand accurately both the individuals who brought it about. "What biological relationship do humans have to other animal species?" also used to be subject to religious/ philosophical taboos. "Is the earth not the center of the universe?" or. it is not sufficient merely to combine them. Chapter three in the history of science amongst the human species has started. such as.Appendix: 2-I and historical phenomenon such as the Holocaust. Then. Hard though it is to comprehend in our own age. phenomenon reflects simultaneously both fate and free-will. It is necessary. because every social. economy. because the Holocaust was both at once. The Holocaust was its first challenge—to understand it. in the way that a scientist understands a phenomenon and does not merely know it. For a long time. a third field of science starts: the social sciences— society. and historical. religion/philosophy itself no longer is a barrier to the asking of these questions. real answers become possible to questions. and psychology. To know the Holocaust. The Holocaust was not "fated" or structuralist-functionalist. to break out of religion/philosophy. But description can go only 348 . and. "Why did the Holocaust occur?" which have until now been susceptible only to false answers. as the perpetrators did. Both of these religious/philosophical categories of interpretation are false. In order to transcend the religious/philosophical categories. instead. the first field of scientific investigation opened up: physics. Different questions are asked. cultural. polity. This kind of understanding transcends such religious/philosophical pre-scientific "issues" as "fate versus free-will. though determinative for scholarship. culture. or as the victims did. a second scientific field opened: biology. however. such questions as. is a matter of description—nothing more. the taboos against finding the Holocaust to have been a Christian act. since both categories are false. history. if so. where the categories themselves are different. and the society. then how did these anti-Semitic lies find their way into the Bible—not just ''Were they lies?' but 'How did those lies get there?"' In other words." where an answer will be false on either side of the divide. And now. all there was was religion/philosophy. that caused them to be that way. neither was it "free-willed" or intentionalist. into science. Next.

And a part of such control will be Man's ability to leave behind the era of genocides such as have continued to the present day. and wants to go farther. Instead. And in order to understand the Holocaust. As with every human work—indeed. or else an individual phenomenon and Adolf Hitler did it. which is the type of error that has crippled previous investigators from getting even to first base scientifically in regards to understanding the Holocaust. And in order to understand the Holocaust in the deepest sense right down to its very seed and not only to its roots. one must first understand Christianity. it was neither structuralist nor intcntionalist. around him. such as that the Holocaust was either a social phenomenon and the Germans did it. Yet I have done my best to achieve that goal. Christianity itself opposes such accuracy which shatters the myths that sustain the religion. to ask questions in terms of them is to perpetuate the old religious/ philosophical fake "social science. we have had to shatter old religious/philosophical categories and concepts. the present work has aimed toward that end. To do that requires that the phenomenon of genocides be understood. and—unlike everything previously on the subject—not also errors that are of a metascientific kind. Academia has acquiesced. we have explained the Holocaust as a cultural phenomenon: Christianity did it—and we even dug deeper and found out why. to reach understanding. If this expectation and hope turn out to have been well founded." In order to get beyond merely the level of describing the Holocaust— which is the best that the best of the works heretofore on the Holocaust have done—to actually explaining it. science serves technology. In this sense. All these categories are trash. as with anything at all—the present one will be found to have its errors and imperfections. but I believe that unlike everything that has gone before. at that level. Similarly.Appendix: 2-I so far. which is something that a society and a culture that remains today more religious than it is scientific is powerfully disinclined to do. Practical people prize understanding because it enhances control. to transcend mere knowledge of it and reach understanding. including the biological environment. to describe it accurately. it is necessary first to know Christianity. then I would credit the source of that success to my 349 . an authentic social science becomes the vehicle by means of which Mankind is enabled to take control of itself. these flaws will turn out to be purely the inevitable falsehoods that are of a scientific nature. and thereby to transcend what has existed till now: Man's control merely of the physical world. the Holocaust was neither "fated" nor "free-willed". a scientist is not satisfied with that.

Thus. and in general. in science. are overwhelmingly against it. rituals and iconography) shaping or molding Hitler's subsequent adult anti-Semitism. 350 . Christian teachings. "progressive" cultural anthropologists have been at least as protective of the actual roots of Naziism as have been their overtly "conservative" colleagues. so as to increase Mankind's self-control and thus lead to a better world." because it would indicate that much reformist work is doomed. and has especially been applied to determine the likely sources (in particular. extending from human development to education to neurological studies of brain-development to consumer-behavior and brand-loyalty. We have also applied this assumption to the discrediting of previous cultural-idealistic or intentionalist theories of the Holocaust's origins. the more of an impact that influence is likely to have upon shaping subsequent motivation.Appendix: 2-I previous researches as reported in my two earlier books (and especially to the first one. But however anti-scientific the opposition to the early-influence hypothesis has been. and that that smallness is "bad. in this sense." It is ironic that a major impact of such scholars has been to cripple productive scientific inquiries into the actual origins of Naziism. This early-influence assumption has been stated here on several occasions. and which is titled The Mirror's Structure. in an enormous range of different fields. a shockingly high percentage of theory and practise in the social "sciences" is predicated on its negation. early influence. The assumption itself has been empirically validated in a vast number of studies.) Such scientific errors are possible in this work on every level of the scientific investigation. and many other fields. can validly be judged only by science. I shall give here just one example: An assumption of this study has been that the earlier an influence occurs in one's life. any empirical hypothesis or theory inevitably always is) to being empirically overthrown. it seems. Even cultural anthropologists. usually on the basis of the purely normative assumption that the predominance of early influence would mean that the ability to change people's motivations during their adult years is quite small. the assumption itself will always remain subject (just as. Usually. On the other hand. the same scholars who are opposed to empirical findings of the predominance of early influence in shaping motivation are also normatively hostile toward evolutionary psychology (formerly called "sociobiology") to the extent on some occasions of calling that field of research by terms such as "fascistic. not by scholarship. an assumption upon which our analysis here has been based. which laid forth that metascientific foundation. the Bible.

meeny." could contain racism or other forms of bigotry as just "entertainment. miny." who have an inflated idea of the moral importance of learning that's acquired during the adult years." Actually his books do show that Irving holds religion in general." Irving dismissed the question with. the day after the judge in the case rendered his verdict in favor of Lipstadt and labelled Irving as anti-Semitic: Irving denied the accusation. Hegel. was presented in early February 2000 when Holocaust-denying historian David Irving. "I am a Christian through and through. can be expected to be blind to this basic reality. Ultimately. When Lipstadt's attorney asked Irving in court whether this was not teaching his daughter "poison. Kant. catch a nigger by the toe. "I am a Baby Aryan / Not Jewish or Sectarian / I have no plans to marry an / Ape or Rastafarian. Perhaps Mr. such as the Brothers Grimms' story of the evil Jew in the Thornbush. they "understand" it far more than did the adult David Irving himself. Indeed. as inconsequential." He sang it to her with pride as he wheeled his daughter past "half-breed" children. the change will not happen unless the public-at-large— 351 . admitted. or nursery rhymes such as "eenie. mo." and not have any "real" effect. telling the reporter. the danger is amplified even worse. But when the bigotry comes in the form of "holy Scripture. and Christianity in particular. Like so many things. or even the Bible itself. that he had on 17 September 1994 entertained his 9-month-old daughter with the ditty." whose function is supposed to be to provide a moral groundwork for the child. the very young child Adolf Hitler probably learned the mostimportant parts of his adult character in precisely the same sort of pre-rational way. will emerge with authoritarian views. But the rest of us can choose not to be so blinkered. It has traditionally been accepted that children's fairy tales. in his libel suit against historian Deborah Lipstadt for charges she had made against him in her Denying the Holocaust. when she goes to college. Perhaps it is likely that social "scientists. in the highest esteem.Appendix: 2-I A good example of how the rampant societal disregard of the earlyinfluence principle can lead people to march like lemmings to the sea of bigotry. but will she have really learned them then—or perhaps instead when she was in that baby-stroller as her father wheeler her past "halfbreeds"? And from where did her father acquire such sentiments? Maybe an answer to the latter question is hinted at in an article in The Times of London on 12 April 2000. and reads in philosophy-courses Plato. the responsibility to bring about this change toward a more self-aware and thus self-controlling society will have to reside in the general public in a democracy. not in "experts" from the academic world. Irving's daughter. "Do you think nine-month-olds can understand" the words of a song? But in a very real sense.

For example. knowledgeability and judgment. Perhaps the change cannot happen at all unless and until the general public acquires the core scientific outlook. Unless that happens. religion not science will continue to reign over the moral sphere. truthfulness. which is devoid of any respect for authority (esteeming instead the combination of integrity. "But nonetheless. who would be so foolish as to believe that when Galileo said. which combination is institutionally almost incompatible with authority). the earth does move" his accompanying expressions of respect for the Church and academia (which had led the Church in attacking him) reflected anything authentic other than mortal fear? 352 .Appendix: 2-I and this includes the popular media as well—come to demand it.

for I was thus freed to pursue questions that perhaps are out-of-reach for some other investigators. and a scientist by epistemology. was an almost ceaseless stream of stonewalling from leading scholars themselves whenever I approached near to the questions I now found myself pursuing. As might be expected. concerning the relationship between Christianity and the Holocaust. because if it were not for them. it wouldn't have been written. too. I feel myself fortunate. the more tenaciously I pursued them. and for this. and I am duly grateful. My childhood exposures to religion were sparse— mostly by means of Sunday-school classes.ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. AND WHY I WROTE THIS BOOK I wish to thank everyone who has opposed the writing of this book. I have always considered myself a spiritual person. then later on even more so when I was trying to track down the historical roots of the New Testament's anti-Semitism in order to get to the bottom of what was driving Hitler. the thing that really got me "locked on" to this project. but not a religious one in the sense of organized religion. and one thing that tends to characterize investigative journalists is a dogged persistence to get at the truth whenever we encounter stonewalling from our sources. the more that I encountered such resistance to my inquiries. I am an investigative journalist by trade. I was receiving this wall of non-response at first when the subject about which I was exploring was Hitler's own Christian convictions. Thus. not to mention holidays such as Christmas (which I loved more for the pine-scent than anything else) 353 . never to quit it until I had pursued it all the way to the end. This book is the result.

because his long arches were my model for that— especially the first movement of the Ninth Symphony. Therefore. with awe. whenever it is necessary in the interests of fairness to present their objections so that the reader will have an opportunity to consider those opposed viewpoints). I was exploring political and religious questions that turned out to be related to it. then Bruckner shares some credit for that also. inasmuch as I quickly came to recognize that some amazing parallels existed between the world-view of Hitler and that of many figures in our own country's fundamentalist Christian political community. However. I here express my deep appreciation and gratitude. even before I was interested in the Holocaust in its own right. whose exhibition in fact provided the seed for my researches that led to this book—was also an obvious factor spurring me to ask questions on this subject that I had never asked before. Without their discouragement and (on occasion) hostility. of Anton Bruckner. the real and authentic spur to my actually doing this work was the resistance I received from everybody regarding the questions I was raising and the possible answers I was pursuing. I was sensitive to the existence of these parallels because I was already working on a book about political conservatism. if you enjoyed the structure of this work. and my devotion to Bruckner caused me to study German in college just so that I would be able to read a certain Brucknerbiography whose title (which translated into English means Anton Bruckner: The Metaphysical Essence of His Life and Work) fascinated me. the renewed American fascination with the Holocaust itself— due largely to the outstanding Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington. and Bruckner actually had impacts upon it in both respects. Finally. for their having made this book happen.Acknowledgements and an occasional Jewish holy-day as well (it was a Unitarian-Universalist Sunday school and training)—and even these left little impression on me. the symphonies.. and I was therefore interested both in the relationship between politics and religion. It was largely through Bruckner that I became hooked on German and Austrian culture.) The rise of the Religious Right in the United States was another factor that fed into my interest in Hitler. because I never could figure out how it is possible for evil to exist in a world controlled by a God who is both all-powerful and all-good. Actually I never took religion seriously at all until I discovered. 354 . And thus I am grateful to Bruckner as well. To all these scholars (some of whom are mentioned by name in the course of this work. (Incidentally. D. masses. and in that between Naziism itself and conservatism. and Te Deum. Doing a book like this is a combination of science and art.C.

which has made the book's style more congenial.Acknowledgements a work of which I am proud would never have been written. However. to its readers. Purdue and L. 31 July 2000 355 . I hope. Davis for their very helpful and kind editorial feedback. I wish to thank Richard B. Eric Zuesse.J. this acknowledgement will remain anonymous. Finally. since I expect that the vast majority of these individuals would probably not wish to be mentioned here by name.

—has yet been published. not by a page-number reference to only one specific edition as is often. and page or other locator). too. this closed-mindedness will end. done. etc. this Index/References. so as to be locatable in any edition in which they appear. by Hitler). Works with many editions available. can give insights into why the Holocaust happened. Unfortunately." and the other for "sources. So. For example. often make the standard means of location—page-number—useless. Gordon Prange. no complete edition of his speeches—much less of all his writings. not the scholar. Thus. (This probably reflects the closed-mindedness of scholars regarding even the possibility that Hitler's ideas. Editors of different prominent editions of his speeches include Norman H. documentation is not segregated off into a different place by means of footnotes. and therefore textual locators. even though academic presses have routinely issued such complete editions for other personages of far less importance historically. if your local library happens to have only an edition different from the one cited. I think rather thoughtlessly. such as chapter-numbers. but is instead integrated into the running text itself. too. title. Baynes. Perhaps with the present book. speeches of Adolf Hitler are referenced by their respective dates. and (as yet only in German) Barbel Dusik. the reason for this is to serve the reader. as he expressed them verbally and in writing. rather than offer two separate alphabetized lists—one for "index-entries." Again.) Similarly we here integrate the alphabetized lists of references into this Index. date. and the city of publication) is not. rather than to satisfy archaic requirements of scholars. are often used here instead. and unnecessary information (such as the publisher. Max Domarus. Raoul de Roussy de Sales (titled My New Order.INDEX/REFERENCES This book is organized for the convenience and enjoyment of the reader. 356 . where only the information necessary to access the source is shown (author.