Hitler and Christianity

 

Discussions of Kant usually focus on his main philosophical ideas – empiricism, rationalism, ethics, epistemology and whatnot. These ideas place him in the front rank of modern Western philosophers (though far below the ancients, in my opinion). If we look at Kant from a different angle, however, another picture emerges.

Concerning his militarism, people who run across such statements of Kant as the following will assume he was opposed to war, a reasonable man, the epitome of the finest tendencies of rationalism: “the barbarous expedient of war”; “reason, as the highest legislative moral power, absolutely condemns war as a test of rights and sets up peace as an immediate duty”; “war, the source of all evils and moral corruption,” and so on.[1]

It is necessary, though, to read the fine print. In so doing, we learn that war promotes “that close association of social classes within the commonwealth which promotes the well-being of all” [102]. War stimulates social cohesion which helps towards a greater degree of freedom [102]. Thus, “so long as human culture remains at its present stage, war is therefore an indispensable means of advancing it further” [102-03].  Peace will only be possible “when culture has reached its full development – and only God knows when that will be” [103].

So, war is bad, and someday we will progress beyond it, but for the present it is necessary and even beneficial. This explains Kant’s sympathy for the French revolution. True, much blood was shed in wars and massacres, but that was necessary for the progress of mankind.  This idea of war as necessary and beneficial, as “natural” and part of nature’s plan was to become over the next fifty years and more one of the cornerstones of German militarism.

Kant was also a racist, and in his Physical Geography expressed his philosophical belief in the superiority of the white race. [2] Moreover, he presented a concept that was later to become an important justification of totalitarianism – the idea that there was more real democracy and representation of the will of the people in the rule of an enlightened despot like Frederick the Great, than there was under a parliamentary system like that of Great Britain, which (in Kant’s view) was only a swindle [81-82].

Thus, Kant could enthusiastically explain that “our age is the age of enlightenment, the century of Frederick” [9]. The Poles were less enthusiastic about Prussian warlords furthering the progress of humanity with their enlightened wars and conquests. By “uniting the collective will of the people in his own” [8], the monarch derives real authority. The people don’t need democracy because their ruler represents them faithfully.

Significantly, Kant thought progress would come “from the top downwards” [84]. The state and its enlightened leadership would guide the common people on mankind’s upward progressive path. This would require a comprehensive system of national education “designed on the considered plan and intention of the highest authority in the state” [84-85].

Concerning Kant’s anti-Semitism, there is a very interesting book called German Idealism and the Jew: The Inner Anti-Semitism of Philosophy and German Jewish Responses by Prof. Michael Mack. This book shows, convincingly I believe, how Kant helped to introduce a new kind of anti-Semitism into German Kultur. Kant was not concerned about the Jews being under God’s wrath for the crucifixion of Christ. He had no interest in such unreasonable ideas. He objected to Jews because their rigid adherence to unchanging divine laws alienated them from the progress of humanity, and isolated them from natural human feelings.

Kant also missed clear references in the Old Testament to the afterlife (Daniel 12:2-3; Psalm 23:6; Psalm 16:11; Isaiah 65: 17-18). Out of this misunderstanding, he reasoned that Jews were only materialists, interested in serving God just for the sake of material gain and earthly benefits (Genesis 28:20-21). These misguided ideas became standard themes of more radical anti-Semites who, later in the 19th century, added yet other ideas (including racial purity and hostility to Jewish-inspired Christianity) to portray Jews as an unhealthy and even dangerous cultural influence. The following quote from Mein Kampf reflects Kant’s enlightenment anti-Semitism (expressed of course by many others as well): 

Due to his own original special nature, the Jew cannot possess a religious institution, if for no other reason because he lacks idealism in any form, and hence belief in a hereafter is absolutely foreign to him . . . Indeed, the Talmud is not a book to prepare a man for the hereafter, but only for a practical and profitable life in this world (Vol. I Chapter 11, “Nation and Race”).[3] 

Kant is an excellent example of the truth of that saying of Christ’s, “That which is highly esteemed with men is an abomination with God.” In the eyes of men, Kant was a brilliant philosopher, but from the biblical point of view his philosophy is folly, delusion, and a complete waste of time. If I were stranded on a desert island with nothing to read but the complete works of Kant, I would sit next to that pile of books wishing I had something to read.

It would take too long to elaborate on the many errors, misconceptions, and outright falsehoods that vitiate Kant’s philosophy and render it null and void. His beliefs that the highest cause was inaccessible to us [80]; that man was nothing but “a mere trifle” relative to “the omnipotence of nature” [80]; that mankind was on an upward course of moral progress and improvement [78-79]; that human reason was the highest source of knowledge and that human instinct was a reliable guide, and even a ‘voice of God” [80]; that God “will make up for our own lack of righteousness so long as our attitude is sincere” [114]; that it is “absurd” to claim “theoretical knowledge of the transcendental” [114] – these and other errors reveal a system of thought totally opposed to biblical Christianity.

Kant’s “categorical imperative,” his attempt to provide a foundation for human ethics on human reason alone, was a complete failure. For example, someone could reason: “Jews are a menace to mankind. If everyone did as I am doing and killed Jews, the world would be a better place. Therefore, killing Jews is ethical.”

Kant’s pontifications on human knowledge and perception lacked a solid foundation. If we are nothing but matter and our knowledge and perceptions are thus nothing more than chemistry and biology, or if we have immortal souls created by God and can perceive and reason as we do because we are made in the image of God, in either case Kant’s epistemological guesswork was very wide of the mark, superfluous, and irrelevant.

Someone who spent one year diligently studying Kant in the pursuit of wisdom would at the end of that year be farther from his goal than he was when he started. At best, a brief examination of Kant can be useful in understanding the many evils of modern thought – especially in Germany, which was deeply infected by Kant’s poisonous and foolish ideas.[4]

---

[1] Immanuel Kant, An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment? (London 2009), pp. 111, 26, and 76 respectively. Future quotes will not be footnoted but will give the page number in the body of text.

[2] For a quote as well as more information see “Kant and racism,” Philosophical Misadventures: The Thin Ice of Reason; http://www.philosophicalmisadventures.com/?p=20

[3] http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv1ch11.html; accessed Sept. 2010. Collections of sayings about the Jews were published so anti-Semites could get ideas from various thinkers without having to bother with a lot of tedious and extraneous philosophical ideas.

[4] A useful analysis of some problems with Kant’s thought as well as of his relevance to current philosophical trends is found in Stephen R.C. Hicks’ Explaining Postmodernism: Scepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault (Phoenix AZ, 2004).

In the 1920s, a new social and political movement emerged in Germany. Its members were passionately devoted to their cause, and sought with unwavering zeal to impose their vision on the whole of society. In a short time they succeeded in gaining political power and implementing their “philosophy,” first on Germany, then on much of Europe. In so doing they achieved only destruction and misery.

Some people in America are fearful lest a phenomenon like Naziism will repeat itself here. They anxiously scan the horizon, looking for the next party of fanatic extremists to appear. They are especially concerned about the “religious right” (as opposed to the “anti-religious left”) because they mistakenly think Hitler came from there. Their paranoid fears of people like Jerry Falwell proved, not surprisingly, to be totally misguided.

I agree that we need to try and learn from the past. I agree that we need to be on the lookout for extremist movements that will destroy our democracy and bring catastrophe on our nation. I also agree that there is a real, present and growing danger, one that needs to be mightily opposed. Since my identification of that group will arouse disbelief in some and contempt or anger in others, I beg for a careful consideration of my reasoning. The group that I identify as a new Nazi-like movement that will, if successful, destroy (or help to destroy) American democracy is the homosexual rights movement.

Recognizing that there are other more easily identifiable threats – uncontrolled illegal immigration; Islamic extremism; Red China; the U.S. governments financial policies and its ever-expanding power – let us examine some significant similarities  between the homosexual rights activists and the Nazis. 

1. Both relied / rely on a Darwinian understanding of human origins to justify their beliefs.

To the Nazis, people were animals in a pitiless struggle for survival that rendered traditional ethics meaningless. To the gay rights activists, people are animals in a pursuit of gratification for which traditional ethics are meaningless. They are driven not to extremes of violence, but to extremes of indulging sexual appetites without reason or restraint. Like the Nazis, they point to animal behavior as justification for human behavior. If animals do it, then is “natural,” so we can do it too – and why not, if, as Darwin taught, we are only animals?

2. Both relied / rely on legal chicanery to frustrate the will of the majority and impose their views on others.

The Nazis never won a majority in a national election, but benefited from sympathetic courts in their years of struggle, and won the chancellorship by behind the scenes wheeling and dealing. Similarly, the gay rights activists know they stand no chance whatever of achieving their far-reaching goals by democratic means, so they seek to dishonestly force their will on the majority by trickery and legal manipulations. Like the Nazis, they have contempt for democracy and resent the very existence of people who contradict them.

3. Both groups accused / accuse others of doing what they did / do themselves.

The Nazis accused the Jews of being cruel, evil, aspiring to domination, stirring up wars, and destroying society, when it was the Nazis themselves who were guilty of those very things (needless to say, the Jews were innocent of such bizarre and fantastic accusations). Similarly, the gay rights people depict those who reject their agenda as being motivated by hate, fear, and ignorance, and of trying to deny people their rights, when in fact it is the opposite. It is the gays with their bitter and angry denunciations who are motivated by hatred, fear, and ignorance. I mean, hatred of normal people, hatred of ethics, and hatred of decency and morality; fear of truth, and of any light that would expose their false and miserable condition; and ignorance of healthy, normal, and decent living. And, they want to deny rights to people who do not want to conform to and cannot agree to the homosexual lifestyle. 

4. Both groups relied / rely on hysterical accusations, propaganda, and even violence to silence and demonize the opposition.

Nazi violence and intimidation (even before Hitler came to power in 1933) do not need to be documented – and it is now well-known that those who oppose the homosexual agenda too publicly are vulnerable to both verbal assault, damage to property, and disruption of meetings. Gay violence is still in its beginning phases, and we can confidently expect it to increase. “Tolerance” is for them only a weapon they use to disarm the opposition – not something they extend to those who are different from them

5. Both groups aspired / aspire to total domination.

Hitler aimed at complete control over everyone, and would tolerate no opposition. “Today Germany and tomorrow the world” was his goal and he worked tirelessly to achieve it. Similarly, the gay rights activists aspire to a complete and total domination of society, in which dissent, criticism, or unwillingness to conform will not be allowed. Their goal is a queer society and even “a queer planet,”[1] in which all gender barriers and traditional understandings of masculinity and femininity, home, marriage, and family, will be eliminated.

6. Both movements were / are socially destructive.

Just as a nation built on contempt for traditional ethics and relying only on  force, power, lies, and violence brought ruin and misery in the end, so also a society based on contempt for traditional ethics and seeking only the uncontrolled gratification of sexual lusts will fall apart, as ours has already begun to do.

7. Both Hitler and the homosexual activists (with their sisters and natural allies the radical feminists) recognized / recognize the importance of indoctrinating the children with their values.

Hence the public schools became / become a means not of educating children, but of indoctrinating and transforming them. The rights and wished of the parents were / are disregarded, and children became / become wards of the state, raised up in a false value system that is inimical to human happiness and societal health.

8. Both movements engaged / engage in bizarre theorizing that is totally void of any connection with reality.

“Heteronormativity . . . institutionalization of the patriarchy . . . the state is male, in that objectivity is its norm . . . androcentric bias . . . the liberation of all by abolishing existing social institutions”[2] – such stuff has as much intellectual validity as the pontifications of Nazi race theorists.

9. Both movements sought / seek to radically transform the human race, and introduce new values in a manner unheard of in all of human history.

A society in which all gender distinctions are eliminated holds as much promise and hope for humanity as a society in which the blond, blue-eyed Aryans are the masters.

10. Both movements played / play the victim card to win sympathy, disarm the opposition, and justify their own extremism.

Hitler liked to harp on the injustices Germany suffered as a result of the Versailles Treaty, and the “gays” like to present themselves as the victims of “oppression.” In fact, they can do whatever they like, and people in other parts of the world who really are oppressed would be delighted if they had all the freedoms now enjoyed by the homosexuals. The “oppression” that really bothers them is the awareness that many people see their activities as morally wrong. This disturbs their guilty consciences. In their hearts they know they are not healthy and not normal. Their solution to this problem is to stifle all reminders of opposing points of view.

11. Both movements pursued / are pursuing their false philosophies to the farthest possible extremes.

We are all familiar with the bizarre extent to which the Nazis lived out their perverted delusions – and the same tendency is now increasingly evident by those who do not know what masculinity and femininity are, and in fact hate and fear such distinctions. Women having their breasts cut off? Sex change operations? Unisex bathrooms? Gay bathhouses, where extremes of sexual experience are proclaimed as a legitimate “culture” or “lifestyle”? Demands that everyone be required to submit to the gay agenda? Glorification of even the sexual abuse of children as essential to freedom? All of this is only the beginning of a mad rush to chaos and destruction that will only end in the nation’s ruin (if other threats don’t get us first).

12. Both ideologies were / are hostile to traditional Christianity.

Once in power, Hitler used every available means to keep expressions of Christian belief out of society and confined to the sanctuaries. No expressions of belief that contradicted his sick ideology were allowed. The homosexuals have the same agenda. They know perfectly well that the teachings of the bible hinder their progress and they are now seeking to stifle the free expression of beliefs contrary to their own personal values. They don’t even know what “democracy” means – unless it be Chairman Mao’s “internal democracy,” democracy for those within the party only.

13. In spite of the fact that both Naziism and the gay rights movement were / are contrary to many plain biblical teachings, both found / are finding Christians, including pastors, “theologians,” and ecclesiastical dignitaries to support them.

There were “Christians” who claimed that National Socialism was compatible with their faith (after they had scrapped all of the Old Testament and almost all of the New); and in an identical fashion there are those today who argue that homosexuality is compatible with Christianity. There are now gay churches and gay pastors, just as there were Germanic churches and Germanic pastors who believed that it was their duty to follow Hitler faithfully.

None of these 13 points are invalidated by the response that “The Nazis persecuted gays!” The Nazis persecuted Communists as well, yet the many profound similarities between Hitler and Stalin, Naziism and Communism, have been commonly noted. Parenthetically, until Ernst Roehm became a political threat, Hitler had no trouble cooperating with him, in spite of the Roehm’s well-known and open homosexuality.

Much more could be said on these subjects. How have we reached a point where what was shameful a mere fifty years ago is now rapidly moving toward cultural dominance? What should our response be, if we are Christians who believe in the bible and want to base our lives upon it? As this entry is already quite long, perhaps I can address those questions separately at another time.

---

[1] David Horowitz, The Politics of Bad Faith: The Radical Assault on America’s Future (New York 1998), p. 157. Chapter 5 (“A Radical Holocaust”) is a masterful essay that should be read by anyone who has an interest in this topic (Horowitz’ perspective is very different from mine, and he does not make the Nazi-gay connection).

[2] Ibid., various pages.