Although I was not of course aware of all of the Christian responses that emerged out of the shock of 9-11, those that I did come across seemed inadequate and disappointing.

Some described the atrocity as a “wake-up call” – but what sort of sleep was America in that required a catastrophe to end it? This was not elaborated on. Also, once awakened, what was America supposed to do? Were we “awakened” only so that we might go back to sleep, and resume shopping and our individual pursuits of happiness as usual? Or to attack Iraq and Afghanistan maybe?

Others described 9-11 as a lesson teaching us that we are not guaranteed any length of life, and can be called to leave this world at any time – but that lesson can be learned from a car crash or a heart attack. Was such a spectacular manifestation of horror necessary to teach us this simple truism?

Still others blamed 9-11 on America’s open and flagrant sins, and pointed to abortion, pornography, the ACLU, and immorality of various sorts – but weren’t many innocent people killed in the attacks? And, didn’t Jesus condemn false religious teachers more than he condemned anyone else? Some of the most iniquitous places in America today include church pulpits and seminaries where the truths of God in Christ are trampled underfoot and openly despised. Why didn’t the hijackers crash their planes into a more obviously sinful place, if it was God’s intention to punish America for its most notorious evils?

One well-known church leader prayed that God would give us victory in our struggle for liberty, and “God bless America” was a theme commonly sounded in those dark days – but wasn’t 9-11 a very conspicuous demonstration of the absence of God’s blessing? And is America such a nation today that we can ask God to bless us, as if we deserve it just because we are Americans, no matter what the moral and spiritual state of our nation might be?

Finally, some referred to 9-11 as part of the larger problem of evil: How can a good God create a world with evil in it, and how can he sit on the sidelines when evil is done? This is something we Christians do not claim to fully understand – but still, cannot we say something more relevant to this problem? To what extent are our biblical teachings (if we really believe in the Bible), our Spirit of God (if we have the Spirit), and our mind of Christ (if we have the mind of Christ) able to enlighten us on this problem? Is biblical Christianity relevant to specific issues, or are we confined to general truisms that could apply to many different situations?

Biblically, we can attribute this evil deed to Satan. To the prince of darkness, catastrophes and horrors are things to be desired as good in and of themselves. Secondly, we can describe the perpetrators of 9-11 as servants of Satan. This does not mean they are excusable because “the devil made them do it.” They chose of themselves the path of destruction, and were of themselves suitable agents of the devil’s wiles. They imagined they would earn God’s favor by their wicked deeds, but in fact earned his condemnation, and will have their part in the lake of eternal fire prepared for, among other people, murderers. There will be no paradise for them, only everlasting destruction.

Yet, the question of God still remains. We as Christians do not need to consider the possibilities of God’s impotence, or lack of awareness, or indifference, or full approval. We know that God was not helpless to prevent the tragedy; that the event did not take him by surprise; that he was not remote and uncaring, like the ancient philosophical idea of the unmoved mover. We also know that the terrorist acts were not carried out by men acting in faithful obedience to the teachings of Christ, and hence meeting with God’s approval.

So, where was God? He could easily have frustrated the conspiracy in many ways, had he chosen to do so. That he chose not to do so means that it was his will that Satan be given some power and authority to act. But how can this be!? No, let’s ask a much better question: What right did America have, on September 11, 2001, and in the days preceding, to ask for protection from God? And what right did we have to expect to automatically receive such protection without even asking, as if it were our birthright? Are Americans so special? Is God’s blessing something we deserve because America used to be so religious a long time ago?

If the president of the United States in the preceding years was more concerned with chasing women than he was with national security, was God obligated to intervene? And hasn’t America consistently and systematically sought to remove God from its courts, its government, its entertainment, its news media, and its educational systems? Haven’t practices, entertainments, and attitudes that would have offended unbelievers 50 years ago become the norm among us? Haven’t even many outwardly bible-believing churches fallen asleep, and failed to adequately represent the Christ of scripture and the straight and narrow biblical way of the cross to a lost world?

Instead of the pathetic spectacles of the United States Congress singing “God bless America”; of theologians and spiritual leaders floundering out of their depth; of people trying to understand “Why do they hate us?”, a much more suitable response would have been that found in the book of the prophet Daniel.

Daniel, considering the devastation that had been wrought upon God’s chosen people, their great religious heritage notwithstanding, sought wisdom from God with fasting and deep self abnegation (practices unknown to many Christians today). He then confessed his nation’s sins, and stated “we have sinned . . . we have rebelled . . . we have disobeyed God . . . Therefore hath the Lord watched upon the evil, and brought it upon us . . . we have done wickedly.”

Many times in his prayer he says “we.” He did not point to notorious evil doers, but to the nation as a whole, including its religious people, and of course himself. In the same spirit Christians after 9-11 might have said “We have sinned . . . we have failed to die to self and take up the cross of Christ . . . we have failed to be light and salt . . . we have dozed in front of our TV sets while the culture went down the wrong path . . . we have not been concerned with God’s righteousness, but have been happy with our material comforts. We have been asleep while false teachings swept through the church; while iniquities were institutionalized as the law of the land; while our children were corrupted with the most contemptible and ignorant entertainments and educational programs.”

Some will object that America is not ancient Israel, that God dealt with Israel in a special way, and that is undoubtedly true – but do they want to say that the events of the Old Testament are not relevant to us? That contradicts the New Testament, which directly states that Old Testament events are for our example. Do they want to deny that God governs the nations? Just what sort of a God is it many Christians have nowadays anyway? A God who saves individual souls and deals with specific requests, while he allows the world to go on its way independently, and does not interfere because we humans are the sovereign lords of the earth?

God in the past gave America liberty, prosperity, and security – and he that gave them can also take them away. He is taking them away even now. We have less of those blessings than we had in the past, and without significant change we can expect further diminishing in the future, because America today is not a country that deserves God’s blessings.

 

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.

The Jewish menace to civilization

It is necessary to look at some other ideas about the Jews expressed by Nietzsche in his book. For one thing, he stressed the racial toughness of the Jews: “Psychologically, the Jews are a people gifted with the very strongest vitality . . .” (24). The Jews have “the most profound national instinct, the most powerful national will to live, that has ever appeared on earth.” (27). Hitler had the same idea:

The mightiest counterpart to the Aryan is represented by the Jew. In hardly any people in the world is the instinct of self-preservation developed more strongly than in the so-called ‘chosen.’ Of this, the mere fact of the survival of this race may be considered the best proof. Where is the people which in the last two thousand years has been exposed to so slight changes of inner disposition, character, etc., as the Jewish people? What people, finally, has gone through greater upheavals than this one-and nevertheless issued from the mightiest catastrophes of mankind unchanged? What an infinitely tough will to live and preserve the species speaks from these facts! [Mein Kampf vol. I chapt. 11].

(more…)

Paul and the emergence of Christianity

For Nietzsche, Christianity began with Paul. The rabbi Paul, whose Jewishness is stressed by Nietzsche (25)(23), wanted only power for himself (22). To gain power, he invented a false philosophy so as to bring people under his control. This was identical to the earlier methods and motives of the Jewish priests when they fabricated the Bible (26)(29). Paul’s rewriting of history to suit his own ends was a typically Jewish trick (24). In short, Paul was not only a Jew, he was “the Jew, the eternal Jew par excellence . . .” (58).

Paul then used his new doctrine to mobilize the losers, the failures, the people at the bottom, to bring down the Roman Empire. His motivation was resentment and hatred “against everything noble, joyous and high spirited on earth . . .” (43). Since Nietzsche uses the word “us” in that context, “against us,” it is clear (as if evidence were needed) that Nietzsche considered himself among the spiritually favored few—indeed, elitist contempt for common people is a recurring theme of the book. In other words, Paul and the Christians set out to destroy the Roman empire just because it represented real life. If Nietzsche considered the Christian destruction of Rome as revenge for the crucifixion of Christ, that is not stated in this particular book. (more…)

Hitler Claimed to be a Christian… The Nazi Party Platform Endorsed “Positive” Christianity… The Churches Supported Hitler… Christians Have Always Hated Jews… Germany was a Christian Country… The Nazis were Baptized Christians… Martin Luther Attacked the Jews… Christians are Intolerant... Christian Anti-Semitism Led to the Holocaust…

Many Christians are unaware of how these and other arguments are being used in the culture wars to link Christians to Hitler and demonize them as a menace to American democracy. Relying on the bible as the Word of God, Joseph Keysor’s Hitler, the Holocaust, and the Bible responds to deceptive attacks on Christianity. The widely misunderstood question of what a Christian is is clarified according to scripture, and hatred and cruelty of any sort are shown to be contrary to the message of Christ. It studies the failure of German Christians — with rare exceptions — to stand for Christ, and shows that blind obedience to Hitler was contrary to biblical Christianity.

A Christian?

Also examined is the secular nature of Hitler’s thought. Hitler’s hostility to Jewish-inspired Christianity is shown, and his philosophical roots in German philosophy, secular racial anti-Semitism, and German interpretations of Darwinism are explored. It was human wisdom, not the Bible, that opened the door to Hitler.

---

Buy the Book

---

Subscribe to our email list to receive periodic updates and announcements!

Excerpt from chapter one (more excerpts in menu to right)

Read the preface

Title: Hitler, the Holocaust, and the Bible: A Scriptural Analysis of Anti-Semitism, National Socialism, and the Churches in Nazi Germany Author: Joseph Keysor Release Date: Hitler’s Birthday, April 20th, 2009. Updated Hard Cover: March 8th, 2010. Soft Cover ISBN: 978-0-9822776-5-2 Hard Cover ISBN: 978-0-9822776-4-5 Pages: 488 Publisher: Athanatos Publishing Group Amazon Link – Hard Cover: Order on Amazon Amazon Link – Soft Cover: Order on Amazon Order soft cover from Publisher: Click Here Order hard cover from Publisher: Click Here Cover Design: Sojourner Design

Author’s Biography:

Joseph Keysor currently teaches English at a private school in Oman, where he has been for over five years. He taught English at private schools, a college, and a university in mainland China for eight years. He has a BA in Russian and East European Studies from MacMurray College and a masters degree in adult education from Northern Illinois University.

Hard Cover	Soft Cover
		“…thought-provoking in the extreme, extensively researched and referenced… a welcome addition to a wide and controversial historiography and is worthy of serious consideration. British Church Newspaper Buy on Amazon Kindle Buy Direct from the Publisher Order hard cover thru publisher for $22.95 Order soft cover thru publisher for $17.95

This review is posted with permission from the British Church Newspaper.  If it ever becomes available online, we shall link to it.

---

The question of how a civilised and modern state in the heart of Europe could devise, organise and perpetrate a racial genocide of the scale and brutality of the Holocaust has, in the minds of many, defied rational analysis. Yet to simply disregard it as unthinkable or the work of a few psychopaths is intellectually unsound and deeply unsatisfactory. The Holocaust was not unthinkable for it was thought up by the Nazi elite and implemented by some of the most educated and sophisticated minds in Germany. The origins of the Holocaust and specifically of German antisemitism must be traceable at least in part to historical, cultural or philosophical influences.

In his book Hitler, the Holocaust, and the Bible, Joseph Keysor seeks to attack the notion that the path to Treblinka starts in the gospels and in the Pauline literature. The author shows the naivety of such a claim pointing to pre-Christian antisemitism, characterised by the Egyptian pharaohs and the machinations of the Amalekite Haman. Keysor also puts the alleged antisemitic passages of the New Testament within their axiomatically cultural, historical and undoubtedly theological context. Keysor also gives a much fairer analysis of the writings of Chrysostom and Luther. He is both moderate and thoughtful in his analysis. While not trying to justify their opinions on the Jews, he explains how in the light of their other writings, they would never have supported or condoned the treatment of the Jews under Nazi rule. In addition to this, the author draws an important distinction between nominal Christianity and Biblical Christianity showing a clear incongruence in Weimar and Nazi Germany. While his marginalising of Hitler’s popularity amongst the German people is perhaps slightly dubious, Keysor is balanced in his castigating of the church for its silence, acquiescence and toleration of many Nazi policies.

Keysor also discusses how historical factors alone cannot explain the plans and actions of the National Socialist regime. Only within a theological context of understanding man’s depravity and sinfulness can the true rationality of their crimes be explored in a meaningful way. This is couched within a discussion of the strong philosophical traditions of Germany, characterised by the likes of Kant, Wagner, Haeckel and Nietzsche. Strong evidence is put forward that these, rather than Christianity, form the basis of much of Nazi ideology.

Keysor’s book is thought-provoking in the extreme, extensively researched and referenced and written from a clearly intellectual, rather than polemical standpoint. It is a welcome addition to a wide and controversial historiography and is worthy of serious consideration.

Michael Gray

Preface to the second edition

Some changes have been made to the first edition. With the help of some constructive criticisms, as well as more research materials obtained from the States, I have been able to strengthen the bibliography and add more historical detail and accuracy to the work. Some of the Christian polemics have been deleted from the second part, which is after all more academic in nature (as well as from chapter 4). The sections on Luther, Bonhoeffer, Kant, Schopenhauer, and Wagner in particular have been added to and revised.

Whatever flaws there might be in the book—and no book on these topics will satisfy everyone—I am confident that the main points are unassailable. Biblical Christianity, as taught by Christ and the apostles, and as practiced by many sincere Christians over the centuries, has nothing whatever to do with modern secular hallucinations such as National Socialism or Communism. Criticisms which do not touch upon these points may be interesting and useful, but cannot I think be anything other than secondary.

Finally, it should be pointed out that this book is a work of Christian apologetics, not of secular academic scholarship. As such, it legitimately deals with aspects of the human experience beyond the confines of conventional studies of Hitler.

A word from the author about quotations:

Some of the sources used in this book are in the public domain. Some have been quoted with permission from the authors or publishers. I have relied on “fair use.” If any possessors of copyright feel I have transgressed the boundaries of fair use (I often use less than 100 words) they may contact the publisher and we will take necessary steps to rectify any perceived violation of copyright. I was unable after repeated attempts to locate the source of the internet translation of Mein Kampf.

Excerpt from Chapter 8

So much of National Socialism can be found in the Folkish movement that it is not surprising two major studies have located the origins of Hitler’s ideology there. Viereck’s Meta-politics: The Roots of the Nazi Mind focuses on the ideas of Wagner. Mosse’s The Crisis of German Ideology: Intellectual Origins of the Third Reich focuses on broader intellectual trends and currents of which Wagner was only a representative. Viereck spends more time elaborating on the Folkish roots in romanticism, especially in philosophy, while Mosse concentrates more on the spread of Folkish ideas through German society in the 19th and early 20th centuries-but in spite of their differences, both studies have a lot in common. Taken together, they provide a significant part of the explanation for Hitler.

Neither Mosse nor Viereck pay much attention to Darwin, and neither of their books lists Darwin in the index. Viereck makes only one passing reference to “social Darwinism,” the belief that the Darwinian law of survival-of-the-fittest applied to people as well as to animals. Mosse devotes a few pages to social Darwinism and recognizes its importance, but asserts the fundamental incompatibility between National Socialism and Darwinism proper. He claims that the Darwinian concept of the origins of man was not acceptable to Nazi race theorists.[i] Not only (in Mosse’s view) was such a humiliating ancestry unsuitable to a race of superior beings destined to rule; it also required a common origin of all races-another blow to the Aryan ego.

It might seem, then, that Darwinism as Darwin taught it is of little relevance to our study-and those who believe that Darwinism is true and beneficial will find no difficulty in detaching it from National Socialism, which was false and harmful. Apart from this basic presupposition, they have a number of other reasonable points to make against the idea of a Hitler-Darwin connection. (more…)

That the self-proclaimed advocates of secular tolerance might themselves be (like some theists) fully capable of killing for their beliefs is exemplified by the popular atheist author Sam Harris. In his book The End of Faith, he states that “Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them.”[i] This statement raised so many eyebrows, even among atheists, that Harris felt compelled to give an explanation on the internet.[ii] Since this attitude is directly related to the crimes of Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, and Mao, it merits some discussion.

Attempting to dispel criticisms of his remark, Harris first gives on the internet the relevant passage from The End of Faith. Then he concedes that he did not express himself as well as he might have-”Granted, I made the job of misinterpreting me easier than it might have been”-and goes on to claim that saying he wants to kill people for their ideas “remains a frank distortion of my views.” He explains:

When one asks why it would be ethical to drop a bomb on Osama bin Laden or Ayman Al Zawahiri, the answer cannot be, “because they have killed so many people in the past.” These men haven’t, to my knowledge, killed anyone personally. However, they are likely to get a lot of innocent people killed because of what they and their followers believe about jihad, martyrdom, the ascendancy of Islam, etc.

At this point we can breathe a sigh of relief-if he only wants to kill some terrorists then it’s alright-and Harris (who wears a white hat) can go back to his hobby of demonizing theists (who wear black hats). A closer examination of his explanation reveals, however, a couple of difficulties. (more…)