“Through subterfuge and concealment, many of today’s Church leaders and faithful Christians have camouflaged the Christianity of Adolf Hitler”
—EvilBible.com
Evilbible.com and Charlotte conclude this section thusly:
“Only in the steady and constant application of force lies the very first prerequisite for success. This persistence, however, can always and only arise from a definite spiritual conviction. Any violence which does not spring from a firm, spiritual base, will be wavering and uncertain.” –Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf
Charlotte’s interpretation,
Here Hitler is admitting that his war against the Jews were so successful because of his strong Christian Spirituality.
Note that Hitler refers to “spiritual conviction” and “spiritual base” but it is Charlotte who decides that this means “Christian Spirituality”; actually, “strong” Christian Spirituality.
In the chapter which Charlotte quoted (Volume One – A Reckoning – Chapter V: The World War) Hitler does not define what he means by “spirituality” and or to which “spirituality” he is referring. I would imagine that 1) it did not matter since the point it to juxtapose one, any, “spirituality” against another and 2) we know what this “spirituality” was by the greater context of Nazi history which would define it as a Christian facade which encased an anti-Christian purpose along with Aryan mythology, Norse mythology, the occult in general, Hinduism and Buddhism (see From Zeitgeist to Poltergeist, Part 8 of 13 for evidence of this fact). This may be the generic “spiritual nature of the people” to which Hitler had earlier referred.
Let us consider the context of the quote:
One question came to the fore, however: can spiritual ideas be exterminated by the sword? Can ‘philosophies’ be combated by the use of brute force?…Conceptions and ideas, as well as movements with a definite spiritual foundation…only be broken with technical instruments of power if these physical weapons are at the same time the support of a new kindling thought, idea, or philosophy.
The application of force alone, without the impetus of a basic spiritual idea as a starting point, can never lead to the destruction of an idea and its dissemination, except in the form of a complete extermination of even the very last exponent of the idea and the destruction of the last tradition…
every persecution which occurs without a spiritual basis seems morally unjustified and whips up precisely the more valuable parts of a people in protest, which results in an adoption of the spiritual content of the unjustly persecuted movement…the complete annihilation of the new doctrine can be carried out only through a process of extermination so great and constantly increasing that in the end all the truly valuable blood is drawn out of the people or state in question…
nearly all attempts to exterminate a doctrine and its organizational expression, by force without spiritual foundation, are doomed to failure…as soon as force wavers and alternates with forbearance, not only will the doctrine to be repressed recover again and again, but it will also be in a position to draw new benefit from every persecution, since, after such a wave of pressure has ebbed away, indignation over the suffering induced leads new supporters to the old doctrine, while the old ones will cling to it with greater defiance and deeper hatred than before, and even schismatic heretics, once the danger has subsided, will attempt to return to their old viewpoint.
Only in the steady and constant application of force lies the very first prerequisite for success. This persistence, however, can always and only arise from a definite spiritual conviction. Any violence which does not spring from a firm, spiritual base, will be wavering and uncertain…The fight against a spiritual power with methods of violence remains defensive, however, until the sword becomes the support, the herald and disseminator, of a new spiritual doctrine…
Any attempt to combat a philosophy with methods of violence will fail in the end, unless the fight takes the form of attack for a new spiritual attitude. Only in the struggle between two philosophies can the weapon of brutal force, persistently and ruthlessly applied lead to a decision for the side it supports. This remained the reason for the failure of the struggle against Marxism. This was why Bismarck’s Socialist legislation finally failed and had to fail, in spite of everything. Lacking was the platform of a new philosophy for whose rise the fight could have been waged. For only the proverbial wisdom of high government officials will succeed in believing that drivel about so-called ‘state authority’ or ‘law and order’ could form a suitable basis for the spiritual impetus of a life-and-death struggle. Since a real spiritual basis for this struggle was lacking, Bismarck had to entrust the execution of his Socialist legislation to the judgment and desires of that institution which itself was a product of Marxist thinking. By entrusting the fate of his war on the Marxists to the well-wishing of bourgeois democracy, the Iron Chancellor set the wolf to mind the sheep.
All this was only the necessary consequence of the absence of a basic new anti-Marxist philosophy endowed with a stormy will to conquer.
Note that, overall, Hitler likens a generic “spirituality” with generic “thought, idea, or philosophy.” This is why I do not believe that he was referring to any one particular “spirituality” since this the purpose of this spirituality/thought/idea/philosophy is only to have something upon which to engage in conceptual battles for power.
The last section in evilbible.com’s ode to Charlotte consists of only one quotation and no interpretation.
Quotes from Other Nazis about Hitler and Religion:
“Around 1937, when Hitler heard that at the instigation of the party and the SS vast numbers of his followers had left the church because it was obstinately opposing his plans, he nevertheless ordered his chief associates, above all Goering and Gobbels, to remain members of the church. He too would remain a member of the Catholic Church, he said, although he had no real attachment to it. And in fact he remained in the church until his suicide.” (Inside the Third Reich by Albert Speer page 95-96)
Since Charlotte did not elucidate we can only image what the point may have been. The point of the quotation is quite obvious and makes a point against that which evilbible.com and Charlotte sought to evidence; clearly Hitler and other Nazis remained in churches for the sake of politics, for the appearance, “he had no real attachment to it.”
Thus, what have we learned? What gnosis did Charlotte reveal? What is the point of posting this on evilbible.com?
The premise of the webpage was that Hitler was a Christian. What we learned is that he was raised somewhat “religiously” at least jumping through ritualistic hoops. Hitler’s attention turned towards war in general. Also, his motivations were national and racial.
What we really do learn a lot about is evilbible.com’s and Charlotte’s modus operandi. We encountered illogic. We were made privy to partial and self-serving quotations. We encountered an argument from authority. We uncovered unscholarly lack of historical knowledge. We found clashed between inference and implications. We exampled a basic lack of determining context (even when the very next sentence refuted the supposed point of the previous). And, perhaps most importantly: the entire page was premised upon an argument from outrage as evilbible.com and Charlotte provide no standard whatsoever whereby to condemn Christianity, the Bible, Hitler, Nazism, the Holocaust or anything at all.
What if Hitler really was a Christian? What would that mean? Firstly, his worldview, words and actions do not allow for the conclusion that he was a Christian but: let us grant this impossible conclusion. It would mean that he was a very bad example of a Christian. It would mean that his worldview, words and actions did not possess even the slightest hint of a knowledge of true traditional/biblical Christianity. It would mean that his worldview, words and actions alert us to the fact that he did not possess Christian spiritual maturity so as to act in a manner in keeping with loving one’s neighbors (a teaching, by the way, that Jesus exampled to the Jews via reference to the Samaritans who were of different nationality, “race,” and religion—see Luke 10:25-37).
But what would it say of Christianity itself if Hitler was a Christian. Here we must parse the response in order to take into account two considerations 1) What would it say of traditional/biblical Christianity? 2) What would it say of Christianity as religion, a movement, a clerical hierarchy, etc.
1) In such a case; Hitler’s actions would be compared to the statements in the New Testaments, Jesus’ actions, the actions of the actually followers of Jesus in the New Testament (the Christians, the apostles and disciples) and perhaps even the early church. If Hitler’s worldview, words and actions correspond to these then he could be said to have been a Christian, to have acted in accord of Christian doctrine and thus, Christianity could be blamed for the Holocaust.
2) In such a case; we are dealing with “Christianity” as whatever anyone wants to label as “Christianity” which is no “Christianity” at all. We are indeed, dealing with, as we have seen within this parsed essay, the façade of “Christianity” which thinly veils political ambitions, bids for clerical power, racism, the gaining of territory, etc. If the individual defined “Christianity” then “Christianity” is anything and thus nothing. And yes, defining “Christianity” or who is a “Christian” can lead to deep theological waters but the basic are just that and are not subjective.
Moishe Rosen notes,
The phrase “2,000 years of history leading up to the Holocaust” is more than a reference to past prejudice and persecution. It is an indictment against Christianity that misinterprets Christ’s message and intent. Anyone who gives credence to such an accusation bestows upon Hitler the power to change theology.[1]
Consider the words of Jesus:
You shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles? Even so every good tree brings forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree brings forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruits, nor can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit…
Not everyone who says to Me, Lord! Lord! shall enter the kingdom of Heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in Heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, Lord! Lord! Did we not prophesy in Your name, and through Your name throw out demons, and through Your name do many wonderful works? And then I will say to them I never knew you! Depart from Me, those working lawlessness! (Matthew 7:16-23).
Did Hitler produce good fruit? No. Therefore we cannot know him to be a Christian.
“But, but, but Hitler said that he was a Christian and, and, and the belt buckles…”
He could claim whatever he wanted. He could have prophesied. He could have exorcized demons. He could have performed many wonderful works. He could have done it all in the very name of Jesus. Yet, this would still not mean that he was a Christian. Consider that the next time you besmirch Jesus, God, the Bible and Christianity because someone did something in the name of Jesus—from the Crusades to the bouffant haired televangelists.
Note that Jesus states that the deciding factor will be that “I never knew you!” Was Jesus not divine? Did Jesus not possess omniscience? How then does He claim to not have known them?
My friends; this is why Christians state that Christianity is not a “religion” but a “relation” a “relationship”; those doing such things were not in relationship with Jesus. He did not know them on the close and personal basis of a relationship—they never developed a relationship with Jesus but merely used Jesus.
Christianity is no mere claim, no mere proclamation, no mere “religious” ritual system, no merely self-declared profession—it is a development of a relationship with Jesus. I have found no indication that Hitler ever did any such thing.
Let us end by noting that on this view Hitler died and faced a judgment, justice was served and the evil perpetrated by him will someday be redeemed.
If I was an atheist I would not be as worried about Hitler, Nazism and the Holocaust as I would be about the fact that I cannot even condemn Hitler, Nazism and the Holocaust by appealing to anything beyond my personal preferences.
On the materialist view that the cessation of brain function ends a person’s consciousness; Hitler lived, in a manner of speaking for the sake of argument, a wonderful and enviable life. He had thousands of adoring adherents. He, for some time, enjoyed unchallengeable power. He conquered that which he coveted. And when he, when he himself, found his world crumbling around him he chose to take his own life. Thereafter—nothing.
No judgment. No justice. No anything. Nothing but the sort of perfect peace of annihilation. His victims, their families, friends and world continue suffering and he rests.
Atheism makes evil even worse by not doing anything about it, by guaranteeing that it is unredeemable, and by making evil exist for the benefit of the evildoer who gets to enjoy their evil deeds and then gets away with it. They may end up incarcerated by the judicious systems of this world for some time but ultimately there is an absolute lack of accountability.
The fact of evil and suffering in the world is one of the very best reasons for rejecting atheism.
[1] Compiled by Eliyah Gould, Rich Robinson and Ruth Rosen, The Y’shua Challenge – Answers for Those Who Say Jews Can’t Believe in Jesus (San Francisco, CA: Purple Pomegranate Productions), p. 21, citing Moishe Rosen, “Am Yisrael Chai,” Issue, 9:4 (1993), p.2