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].

This was by no means unique to Hitler and Nietzsche. How else to explain the mysterious survival of the Jews in strictly human terms? Christians and Jews can explain the mystery as the result of the will of God and his covenant with Abraham. Let those who scoff at this try to present a more credible empirically verifiable and falsifiable alternative. They can’t.

Although I have confined myself so far almost exclusively to one of Nietzsche’s books for the sake of clarity and simplicity, some of Nietzsche’s comments from Beyond Good and Evil are useful in this context. This book too, by the way, was published by Nietzsche before his collapse, so his sister’s influence is not relevant. Anyway, Nietzsche says “But the Jews are undoubtedly the strongest, most tenacious, and purest race now living in Europe. They understand how to assert themselves even under the worst conditions (better even than under favourable conditions) . . .” (Part Eight, 251).[i] In the same context Nietzsche added that it was necessary for thinkers concerned about the future of Europe to “take the Jews as well as the Russians into account as, for the time being, the surest and most probable factors in the great interplay and struggle of forces” (251).

This is rather peculiar. The Jews are the strongest race in Europe? They know how to assert themselves? A sure factor in the great struggles of the day? Even before his breakdown, Nietzsche revealed himself here as a man with a very strange way of looking at things. Significantly, Nietzsche says in this same section that no more Jews should be allowed into Germany because they were a threat to the survival of Germany:

That Germany has a richly sufficient number of Jews, that the German stomach and German blood have difficulty (and will still have difficulty for a long time to come) absorbing even this quantum of “Jew” in the way the Italians, the French, and the English have absorbed them, as a result of a stronger digestive system—that is the clear message and language of a general instinct which we should listen to and according to which we must act. “Let no more Jews in! And especially bar the doors to the east (also to Austria)!” So orders the instinct of a people whose type is still weak and uncertain, so that it could be easily erased, easily dissolved away by a stronger race (251).

Nietzsche’s strangeness becomes even more evident when he says “That the Jews, if they wanted to—or if people were to force them, as the anti-Semites seem to wish to do—could even now become predominant, in fact, quite literally gain mastery over Europe, is certain; that they are not working and planning for that is equally certain” (251).

The Jews could gain mastery over Europe if they wanted to? No sensible person would claim that Jewish butchers, bakers, candle-stick makers, Talmud scholars, lawyers, and teachers had the ability to gain mastery over Europe. Nietzsche is here showing an idea of the Jews that was completely divorced from reality. Within a few years he would progress in his understanding from the perception that the Jews could have the mastery of Europe but were not aiming for it, to the perception, stated in The Antichrist, that they were undermining European civilization to ensure their own survival.

Maybe someone who studied Nietzsche in more depth (not that I recommend this) could show how the progression of his insanity was evident in his writings. That seems to be the case, in this instance at least. Obviously, the man was not the picture of mental health one month and stark raving mad the next month. But, such speculations aside, let us examine Nietzsche’s final view as expressed in The Antichrist. There Nietzsche wrote that the Jews used decadence to ensure their own self-preservation by undermining and weakening people who would otherwise be a threat to them:

Psychologically, the Jews are a people gifted with the very strongest vitality, so much so that when they found themselves facing impossible conditions of life they chose voluntarily, and with a profound talent for self-preservation, the side of all those instincts which make for decadence–not as if mastered by them, but as if detecting in them a power by which “the world” could be defied (24).

The cunning, tricky, and devious Jews are not decadent themselves—they are, after all, “gifted with the very strongest vitality.” No, they use decadence to achieve their goal of domination:

The Jews are the very opposite of decadents: they have simply been forced into appearing in that guise, and with a degree of skill approaching the non plus ultra of histrionic genius they have managed to put themselves at the head of all decadent movements (–for example, the Christianity of Paul–), and so make of them something stronger than any party frankly saying Yes to life. To the sort of men who reach out for power under Judaism and Christianity,–that is to say, to the priestly class–decadence is no more than a means to an end. Men of this sort have a vital interest in making mankind sick . . . (24).

Notice that the Jews are at the head of all movements of decadence. This was the view stated by Wagner, whom Nietzsche deeply admired for a long time. Democracy, a free press, socialism, bad music, capitalism, worker unrest, failure to admire Nietzsche, Christianity—anything that conflicted with an imaginary ideal could be attributed to Jewish corruption. Of course, Bolshevism was unknown in Nietzsche’s day, but someone who could blame the Jews for all forms of decadence, including socialism, would have no difficulty in linking them to whatever else might come up.

Nietzsche went on to point out that the Jewish problem was a racial problem: “The whole disaster was only made possible by the fact that there already existed in the world a similar megalomania, allied to this one in race, to wit, the Jewish . . .”(44). All of this “is not an accident due to the chance talents of an individual, or to any violation of nature. The thing responsible is race. The whole of Judaism appears in Christianity as the art of concocting holy lies . . .” (44).

Defenders of Nietzsche ignore or minimize his comments about the Jews, sometimes even stating the exact opposite of the truth in this matter—whether through ignorance, or through sincere inability to recognize their hero’s faults, or through deliberate deception to protect Nietzsche’s reputation I won’t presume to guess.

It is interesting that the Chinese Communists also saw Christianity as a trick devised to oppress people. They claimed that the American imperialists were “using the Bible to anaesthetize people in order to enslave them.”[ii] This does not mean that they were influenced by Nietzsche—though some Chinese intellectuals were (and are) more well informed about Western philosophical trends than many realize. That religion was used by the capitalists to keep people satisfied with their oppressed state was a basic idea of Marxism long before Nietzsche. He had a similar idea, only he blamed not the capitalists, but the Jews.

[ii] Stephen Wang, The Long Road to Freedom: The Story of Wang Mingdao (Tonbridge 2002), p. 32.

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.

In elaborating on these ideas, Nietzsche has comments referring to the Christians as vampires, parasites, and bloodsuckers (49) (58). It needs to be stressed that this included Jews and applied to Jews (except for the few independent spirits acceptable to Nietzsche). He makes this clear when he states that, although the original God of one chosen people became the God of the whole world, the democratic God, the cosmopolitan God, yet nevertheless “ . . . he remains a Jew, he remains a god in a corner, a god of all the dark nooks and crevices, of all the noisesome quarters of the world!” (17).

Unlike some today, Nietzsche understood that there was such a thing as the “Judaeo-Christian moral system” (24). That there is one God, a God of moral laws and rules that we must submit to and obey; that happiness in life comes not from exaltation of the self but from obedience to God; that God is a moral God who rewards good and punishes evil—often in this life but certainly in the next—Nietzsche understood that, in the European context of his day, this came from Christianity and initially from Judaism.

Nietzsche declared war on these concepts and sought to destroy them. Although his ideas are more acceptable now, they will fail in the end—and his own personal campaign ended in his destruction. As Jesus said, “. . . whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.” None of his contemporaries exalted themselves more highly than Nietzsche, the overman, the spiritual elitist who despised common people, the first man to speak the truth in many centuries—and none were more horribly abased (as the sordid descriptions of an insane Nietzsche amply illustrate). Howling, raging, weeping, singing, smashing windows, writing nonsense, making barking noises, groaning, raving and making wild gestures, dancing naked, uttering long incoherent monologues, roaring, begging for help, childlike and docile, silent with vacant eyes, moaning, and unable to control his bodily functions—such was the fate of this pitiful loser who thought of himself as an “overman,” a superior being.

I hope no one will imagine I am gloating. I am stating the facts, and would have been much happier if Nietzsche could have repented of his sinful ideas, come to a real understanding of life, and found the happiness that always eluded him—but, Nietzsche did not want to do that. He fought against God, and he lost. I can agree with Stefan Steinberg’s comment that “In a certain respect Nietzsche’s tragic end is itself a metaphor . . .”—though Steinberg did not mean this in a Christian context, and explained his metaphor in a secular way.[i]

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

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.

For one thing, there are many and great personal dissimilarities between Darwin and Hitler. For another, many people have believed in Darwin’s theories without becoming Nazis, and many countries have ingested Darwinism into their cultural mainstreams without becoming fascist dictatorships. Another argument has already been presented-that a Darwinian concept of the origins of man is incompatible with Naziism. Obviously, Darwinism does not inevitably or necessarily lead to Naziism.

Those on the other hand who do not believe that Darwinism is true have no difficulty seeing a very real connection-and they too have plausible arguments. For one thing, there is Hitler’s Darwinian rhetoric-rhetoric that was elaborated on at length in Mein Kampf and later supported by Hitler’s actions (not, like a very few random comments about Christianity, contradicted by his actions).

Hitler frequently appealed to Darwinian logic. Here are a few examples from one chapter of Mein Kampf:

. . . the most patent principles of Nature’s rule. . .

. . . it will later succumb in the struggle against the higher level . . .

. . . the will of Nature for a higher breeding of all life . . .

Only the born weakling can view this as cruel, but he after all is only a weak and limited man; for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable higher development of organic living beings would be unthinkable.

In the struggle for daily bread all those who are weak and sickly or less determined succumb, while the struggle of the males for the female grants the right or opportunity to propagate only to the healthiest. And struggle is always a means for improving a species’ health and power of resistance and, therefore, a cause of its higher development.

. . . since the inferior always predominates numerically over the best, if both had the same possibility of preserving life and propagating, the inferior would multiply so much more rapidly that in the end the best would inevitably be driven into the background, unless a correction of this state of affairs were undertaken. Nature does just this by subjecting the weaker part to such severe living conditions that by them alone the number is limited, and by not permitting the remainder to increase promiscuously, but making a new and ruthless choice according to strength and health.

. . . exact scientific truth . . . cold logic . . .

. . . the rigid law of necessity and the right to victory of the best and stronger in this world. [vol. I chapt. 11, "Nation and Race"]

Hitler is not angling for votes or trying to deflect opposition here. He is stating that the Darwinian struggle for survival-of-the-fittest is the fundamental law of life, and only weaklings don’t accept it.

This is not a question of a few cut-and-paste quotes. Hitler made many references, in speeches and in writing, to nature’s elimination of the unfit as essential to progress. Moreover, in a chapter from a work in progress (Hitler’s Ethic[T&SL1] ), historian and scholar Richard Weikart makes the useful observation that Hitler frequently used the word Entwicklung, and explains that the word can be translated as “development,” but was also used by German biologists to mean “evolution.”[ii] This same source also notes that Hitler never used the word “Darwinism.” I offer my own observation that this can be used to argue either that Darwin was not important to Hitler, or that Hitler saw the progress of animal species (including the human animal species) through struggle and the elimination of the unfit as a basic law of life, not as a theory presented by an English scientist.

Reich (New York 1971), p. 103.

[ii] Richard Weikart, Hitler’s Ethic: The Nazi Pursuit of Evolutionary Progress (New York forthcoming 2009), chapt. 2 (“The Cult of Evolutionary Progress”).

[T&SL1]Unpublished work in progress

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.

For one thing, millions of people share Osama bin Laden’s ideas. Should they be killed? If Sam Harris says “Yes,” then he wants to slaughter millions of people not because they have done anything wrong, but because they might do something wrong someday. That was Lenin the atheist’s reasoning in a nutshell. It’s easy for people who deny the immortal soul to advocate-and do-such things. If, on the other hand, Harris says millions of people should not be killed for their ideas, but should only be killed if they put their ideas into practice, or if they enable and cause others to put those ideas into practice, then he has shifted ground considerably, and did express himself poorly.

A second problem with this is that in his aforementioned book The End of Faith, Harris has repeatedly identified not only Islamic extremists, but also Christians who believe in the Bible, as threats to the survival of humanity. According to him, belief in the Bible is a threat to civilization and Christians, not just Osama bin Laden, could easily be included among those whose dangerous ideas require their elimination.

Many quotes could be given to show that Harris sees theism, including biblical Christianity, as a danger.

our religious differences-and hence our religious beliefs [emphasis in original]-antithetical to our survival [emphasis added]. We can no longer ignore the fact that billions of our neighbors believe in the metaphysics of martyrdom, or in the literal truth of the book of Revelation . . .Words like “God” and “Allah” must [emphasis added] go the way of “Apollo” and “Baal,” or they will unmake our world. “[iii]

. . . faith is still the mother of hatred . . . The only salient difference between Muslims and non-Muslims is that the latter have not proclaimed their faith in Allah, and in Mohammed as his prophet. [Harris is imprecise in his use of language here-he says "non-Muslims" when he means "non-Muslim theists like Christians and Jews," not "all non-Muslims"-but his meaning is clear from the preceding words and from the whole thrust of the chapter.][iv]

Words like “the fall of civilization,” “could ultimately destroy us,” “driving us toward the abyss,” “life-destroying gibberish” (this of both the Koran and the Bible)[v] tell us that Sam “The-sky-is-falling” Harris wants to save the human race from religion-and what might not be done if the fate of humanity is at stake? Wouldn’t it be justified to kill some people to save humanity-especially if they have no immortal souls and are nothing but matter?

Harris does not just want to save humanity-he wants to “create the world anew.” This requires “the building of strong communities”[vi] where everyone will think the way Sam Harris wants them to. Wouldn’t life be so much easier in a “unified” community where everyone marched to the beat of the same drum? That was Hitler’s and Lenin’s dream exactly. To achieve this secular paradise religion, especially Christianity and Islam, needs to go. It is urgent for the future well-being of humanity. Religious faith “must” disappear. “Religious tolerance . . . is one of the principle forces driving us toward the abyss.” Along with this clear call for intolerance, Harris advocates “uprooting” religion, which he falsely describes as “the most prolific source of violence in our history.”[vii] Somehow he blames the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the War of 1812, drug related ghetto violence and World Wars I & II on religion.

Sam Harris has a strong incentive to “uproot” the ideas that “must” disappear-the salvation of the human race. Do I need to point out that the word “uproot” has connotations of violence? Harris openly said people with dangerous ideas should be killed, and then, when questioned, said “Oh, I just meant a few terrorists.” He has identified theists, including Bible believing Christians, as people with dangerous ideas that menace the human race. That Christianity is dangerous is one of the main themes of his Letter to a Christian Nation. What is to prevent him, or those with his “values,” from believing that killing Christians, or any other believers, is necessary for the good of mankind?

“The world would be a much better place if we could just get rid of (a) the capitalists and kulaks; (b) the Jews; (c) people who believe in God. They are to blame for all our problems. They are enemies of humanity, and we are doing the world a favor by getting rid of them.”

Once an atheist accused me of “paranoia” on this point-but I am not the least bit paranoid about Sam Harris. I realize he may just be talking without knowing what he is saying-though I doubt it. I realize he will probably never get his hands on the levers of power. I only want to suggest that he may, like Hitler, be pointing at other people as the source of evil when he is a source of evil himself. Certainly the atheists Lenin, Stalin, and Mao make Osama bin Laden look like a Boy Scout. Hitler also gave plausible explanations to those who were concerned about his radical statements.

Perhaps, since the idea that bloodshed follows from secular ideas is one of the main ideas of this study, it might not be too much of a digression to look at another place where Sam Harris advocates a policy that could lead to the deaths of millions. Referring to the SARS scare that emerged out of China in 2003, Harris states that the consequences of China’s irrational and politically motivated policies did not lead to catastrophe-that time. He goes on to say that it is “not difficult to imagine” a situation where inability to properly handle such a health crisis would be too dangerous for the entire world. In that case, “There is little doubt we would ultimately quarantine, invade, or otherwise subjugate such a society.”[viii]

This is a remarkable statement. If a truly world-threatening epidemic were to emerge from China, the Sudan, Burma, Mexico, Rumania, or some other country whose health-standards were less than adequate, Harris thinks it might be necessary to “invade” or “subjugate” such a country. Oh, he allows for the possibility of a quarantine as well, but he can calmly and rationally advocate a policy-including subjugating China or, who knows, even Russia-that would cause unimaginable suffering and slaughter.

Sam Harris has a vision of an ideal world. In this world, there would be no irrational health policies and no security threats, because everyone would have basically the same ideas (his ideas naturally). In order to attain this vision, some people will have to go. Religious people have to go, and threats to the general well-being must be subjugated, by force and invasion and full scale war if necessary. Sam Harris is a good example of how the road to secular Utopias leads through swamps, bogs, and quagmires of human blood and bones-and in the end proves to be unattainable, so all of the suffering was in vain.

[ii] Sam Harris, “Response to Controversy,” http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-controversy2/; accessed September 2008.

[iii] Harris, The End of Faith, pp. 13-14.

[iv] Ibid., p. 30.

[v] Ibid., pp. 26, 26, 15, 23.

[vi] Ibid., pp. 24, 21.

[vii] Ibid., pp. 14, 15, 27.

[viii] Ibid., p. 233

The belief in the animal nature of man explains some of the more bizarre and seemingly inexplicable aspects of the Holocaust. Hundreds of thousands or even millions of cattle or poultry can be legally and ethically slaughtered to prevent the spread of cattle disease or bird flu. If people are essentially animals, who-except a born weakling, a pacifist windbag, or someone who thoughtlessly parroted Jewish nonsense-would allow poetical ethical notions to interfere with the need to eliminate harmful human beings for the good of society? By the way, I could slaughter a hundred thousand chickens to prevent the spread of bird flu and then go home and enjoy a normal life with my family-and so could someone who rid the earth of some noxious and harmful subhumans.

Also, we breed better forms of cattle or horses, and there is nothing wrong with that. Himmler was being perfectly logical and reasonable in trying to breed better and more advanced types of humans-if, that is, people are essentially no more than animals as Darwinists claim. We use the hair and skin of dead animals-why not do the same with people? To waste the skin and other useful by-products of dead people makes no sense at all-if people are the same as animals.

One of the most weird and difficult aspects of Nazi ideology and actions to comprehend is that they followed logically from certain presuppositions. The Nazis had a clear, consistent, and coherent world-view and acted accordingly. Much of their world view-thought not all of it of course-can be found in the writings of Haeckel, and of many other less prominent German social Darwinists who shared his views.

Returning to our comparison, both Haeckel and Hitler had a sense of hierarchy. Some human animals were higher than, superior to, and worth more than others. This follows logically from an evolutionary scenario-and which group of people, according to secular standards, was the most highly developed in the world? Who had the most advanced technology, and were able to dominate other groups most easily? The Europeans. And who dominated among the Europeans? The Spaniards, the Greeks, the French, the Italians had had their day. The Eastern Europeans were dismissed as backward. It was the northern Europeans, the Germanic peoples, who occupied by right the highest place on the evolutionary tree-all others were beneath them.

Haeckel and Hitler also had an authoritarian and hierarchical view of government. Haeckel never advocated National Socialism-that was (in its final form) inconceivable given the stability of the imperial government. Nevertheless, a shared philosophical hostility to democracy as unhealthy and unnatural, with a strong emphasis on the right of the stronger to dominate, is significant.

Also significant is the very similar concept of God shared by the two men. This was not the God the Judaeo-Christian tradition. It was a god that emerged out of a modern and uniquely German philosophical tradition, a god that was merely the projection of man-made ideas onto the cosmos as a whole. Hitler was not a systematic thinker outside of the limited confines of his ideology, though within those confines he was rigorously logical. Basically his concept of god was a peculiar hybrid: a combination of a Folkish spirit that advanced the human race through the instrumentality of conflict with the German people as its chosen group, and a scientific naturalist view of God as working through, and being understood by, scientific and natural law.

“God” for Haeckel and for Hitler, and for many others of that day, was thus merely an abstract and impersonal concept. It could be described with language borrowed from religion-”Almighty,” “Supreme Being,” “the Creator,” “Providence”-but it was a god invented by human reason and working within the confines of human reason. This is clearly illustrated by Martin Bormann’s concept of God.

It is worth noting how perfectly Bormann’s concepts match Haeckel’s. Some of those concepts are (quoting a Nuremberg document written by Bormann):

National Socialism and Christianity are irreconcilable . . . National Socialism is based on scientific foundations . . . National Socialism on the other hand must always, if it is to fulfill its job in the future, be organized according to the latest knowledge of scientific research . . .

. . . the concepts of Christianity, which in their essential points have been taken over from Jewry.

When we National Socialists speak of a belief in God, we do not understand by God, like naïve Christians and their spiritual opportunists, a human-type being, who sits around somewhere in space . . . The force of natural law, with which all these innumerable planets move in the universe, we call the Almighty or God.

. . . we National Socialists impose on ourselves the demand to live naturally as much as possible, i.e., biologically. The more accurately we recognize and observe the laws of nature and of life, the more we adhere to them, so much the more do we conform to the will of the Almighty.[i]

That Hitler valued science is insufficiently appreciated. Some quotes from his Table Talk could easily have been made by such apostles of the New Atheism and enemies of Christianity as Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, or Richard Dawkins. For example, he reportedly stated that people were attracted to religion by fear of the unknown or by intellectual simplicity, but the time would come “when science can answer all the questions.”[ii]

This source has many comments to that effect. Religion would “crumble” before the “advances of science”; science cannot err too much because it is non-dogmatic and self-correcting. Hitler is quoted as saying, “science postulates the search for, and not the certain knowledge of, the truth.” Religious dogma was in conflict with research, and would collapse “under the battering-ram of science.”[iii]

In what became a minor internet controversy, the aforementioned Richard Dawkins compared one of his opponents, Shmuley Boteach (a Jewish rabbi), to Hitler. Elaborating on his comment, Dawkins was careful to explain that he did not mean Boteach thought like Hitler, or acted like Hitler, only that he sounded like Hitler, or spoke like Hitler.[iv] Not enough people have pointed out that, on the level of ideas, Dawkins can also be compared to Hitler-although Dawkins is far too humane and decent a man to really try and live by the evolutionary theory he professes to believe in. Hitler was much more consistent.

[ii] “Excerpts from Hitler’s Table Talk,” see note 7 above.

[iii] Ibid.

In his book A Mighty Fortress: A New History of the German People 110 B.C. to the 21st Century (London 2004), Prof. Steven Ozment uses the Table Talk to document Hitler’s belief in evolution and in the superiority of science over religion (p 282). He also states that it was the decline of traditional values and the emergence of modern ideology that opened the door to Hitler (pp. 252, 276, 286).

[iv] Richard Dawkins, “My Response to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach,” The Huffington Post; http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-dawkins/my-response-to-rabbi-shmu_b_100910.html; accessed September 2008.

The present situation

Christianity is being attacked in America today as never before. On TV shows and in movies, in the news media, in academia, in best-selling books, etc., Christians are being increasingly portrayed as narrow-minded, intolerant, ignorant, hypocritical, and even evil. This goes beyond mere ridicule. The basic teachings of Christianity are being condemned to an extent previously unimagined in this country.

It is being increasingly said that Christianity has had a negative impact on America’s history and culture-not just because of abuses, but because of fundamental characteristics of the religion. It was the Christians, it is argued, who enslaved the blacks, exterminated the Indians, oppressed women, burdened people with guilt and denied them sexual freedom, and forced the gays to stay in the closet.

Christianity has even been blamed for pollution and the destruction of the environment. God’s commandment in Genesis to “subdue” the earth and “have dominion” over the creatures is said to be a license for ecological plundering and pillaging. Never mind that the destruction of the environment only emerged as a serious problem in the modern era, nearly two thousand years after Christ died and rose again. Never mind that those who make the most noise about the destruction of the environment continue to enjoy their wasteful and environmentally destructive modern lifestyles while they attack the Bible.

Part of this negative trend has been increasing attempts to link Christianity and the Bible to Adolf Hitler and the crimes of the Nazis. While it will seem incredible to some that the teachings of Christ and the Bible should be linked to Aryan supremacy, German militarism, the horrors of the death camps, and the extermination of six million Jews, such is sadly the case.

Christianity linked to Naziism

In the recent past, it was much more commonly assumed that Christianity had nothing to do with National Socialism. It was believed that Christianity was basically benevolent, while National Socialism was basically evil, that Hitler was as far removed from the Sermon on the Mount as it is humanly possible to get. The great majority of Americans would have assumed that the Jewish experience in America was the norm, the result of the Christian influence on American culture.

The cultural climate has changed in the last fifty years, however, and the growing power of secularism makes people less inclined to view Christianity so tolerantly. The well-known support of German Christians for Hitler; statements about God, Christianity, and the churches by Hitler and by leading Nazis, including strong opposition to atheism; Hitler’s Catholic upbringing and his Concordat with the Vatican; the fact that Hitler never officially withdrew from the Catholic Church; the official support for “positive Christianity” in the Nazi party platform; the supposed fact that Hitler came to power in an overwhelmingly Christian country; centuries of Christian anti-Semitism; verses in the New Testament that seem hostile to Jews; the massacres of the Canaanites in the Old Testament-all of these and even other arguments have been emphasized by those who see more and more evidence of connections between Hitler and Christianity.

Reputable scholars and historians have studied Hitler’s ideology more objectively. George Mosse’s The Crisis of German Ideology: Intellectual Origins of the Third Reich; Daniel Gasman’s The Scientific Origins of National Socialism; Peter Viereck’s Metapolitics: The Roots of the Nazi Mind; Richard Weikart’s From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany; Michael Mack’s German Idealism and the Jew: The Inner Anti-Semitism of Philosophy and German Jewish Responses; Paul Lawrence Rose’s Revolutionary Antisemitism in Germany from Kant to Wagner-these all show from different perspectives and with different emphases how the 19th century’s secular philosophies opened the door to the emergence of horrors unprecedented in the history of the human race. John Conway’s The Nazi Persecution of the Churches 1933-1945 does not deal with the origins of National Socialism, but it demonstrates that Hitler viewed Christianity as a rival for the allegiance of the German people and sought to eliminate its influence as much as possible, his devious political rhetoric notwithstanding.

The work of these and other authors too numerous to name have had a significant impact, but unfortunately there remain those who seem to relish attacking Christianity. Oblivious to historical realities and misinformed or even hopelessly ignorant of biblical teachings, they continue to try to link Christianity to Hitler. They have had an impact as well, and we should not underestimate them. Too few Christians understand the extent to which what they perceive as a beneficent religion of grace, peace, and forgiveness is increasingly associated by many with the cruelties of the Third Reich.

A Holocaust video checked out from the local library asserts that centuries of Christian anti-Semitism made Jews Hitler’s natural target (completely omitting all of 19th-century secular and racial anti-Semitism). A popular biography of Hitler agrees with a Holocaust scholar that Hitler was just carrying out the policies of the Roman Catholic Church when he slaughtered the Jews. An in-depth academic analysis of the Holocaust published by a prestigious university press and acclaimed by scholars from top American universities refers to the false and “venomous” anti-Jewish teachings of the New Testament and asserts that by demonizing the Jews Christianity played a significant role in laying the foundations for the Holocaust.[i]

The debate over what Hitler believed and where he got his ideas has not merely continued over the years, it has intensified. This is true to such an extent that Richard Evans, editor of the prestigious Journal of Contemporary History has written, “The relationship of German National Socialism to religion in general, and Christianity in particular, has recently moved to the forefront of historical inquiry.”[ii] Partly this is due to a natural human desire for deeper spiritual understanding that the countless secular books about Hitler have not satisfied and will never satisfy. Partly it is due to the fact that linking Hitler to Christianity is an increasingly common tactic in the culture wars. If Naziism can be convincingly blamed on Christian influence, then obviously Christians are potentially dangerous fanatics who deserve to be marginalized or even excluded from the political process as much as possible. This reasoning explains why some believe they are protecting American liberty and democracy by working to eliminate Christian influence. There are those who sincerely believe that they are defending democracy by attacking and marginalizing Christianity.

…

As groundless as such arguments are, they are effective with people who know little about history and nothing about Christianity. In more than one internet debate, I have been referred to Walker’s website for proof that Christianity leads to hatred, cruelty, and fascism. Such accusations have gone for far too long without a direct response. As was the case in Germany, the Christians in America have been too passive and inert while the forces of darkness grow in strength and intensity. The spread of such ideas will affect us directly and has already begun to affect us. We are mistaken if we think that because God has blessed America with liberty in the past, we are therefore guaranteed of this blessing forever.

[ii] Richard Evans, “Naziism, Christianity and Political Religion: A Debate,” Journal of Contemporary History 42, no. 1 (2007), p. 5

To contact the webmaster send and email to admin@hitlerandchristianity.com

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. READ THE WHOLE REVIEW

From the Messianic Times:

On the face of it, the premise that Hitler was a practicing Christian seems to reside in the gutters of the same dark, dead-end road as eugenics, Holocaust denials, and The Protocols of Zion. The conclusion seems so absurd, that an entire tome dedicated to its dismantling feels like overkill. Unfortunately, a modicum of investigation shows that it is necessary to refute this notion.

In the last fifteen years or so, the idea that from birth to bunker, Hitler was a Christian, has gained enough traction as to be taken seriously in academic circles— so much so, that author Joe Keysor felt compelled to definitively counter this absurd misconception in his new book, Hitler, The Holocaust, and The Bible.  [Full review available only to subscribers.]

From Don Hank writing at the John Birch Society:

Keysor notes something that no other historians seem to have noticed despite the fastidious research into the Third Reich, namely, the salient effect of secular influences on Hitler and the major secularizing influence of modernist theology on biblical Christianity in Germany long before Hitler emerged. Keysor points out that the secular philosophers who influenced Hitler most were Kant, Fichte and Hegel, as well as certain others. But the Folkish tradition, “with its uniquely German interpretations of Darwinism, added immensely to the respectability of the movement” as “…articulated in the writings of the eminent German Darwinist Ernst Haeckel.”

Keysor writes that, while historians constantly point to supposed religious fanaticism (Crusades, Inquisition) as a dangerous ingredient in politics, no one points out that “the atrocities of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro and Pol Pot, are much more relevant to our own times and even some centuries ago, and much greater in terms of the numbers slain…” and yet they “are not held up as examples of the dangers inherent in trying to organize society by reason alone.”

From Sntjohnny.com:

Extensively researched with an immense bibliography to boast, Mr. Keysor’s book exhaustively mines the writings that Hitler himself cited as influential (if anyone care’s about Hitler as an authoritative source on the matter, of course) and writings that perhaps were not expressly cited but clearly reflected in Hitler’s ideology.

Mr. Keysor astutely observes, “Odd, that for so many people the 16th century and the 1st century had so much to do with the Holocaust, and the 19th century had nothing to do with it.” (pg 70)

This completely jibes with my assessment of the situation, too.

From Atheism is Dead (an exhaustive review!)

Overall, Joe Keysor’s “Hitler, the Holocaust, and the Bible” is a great read which combines the excitement of a thriller, the intellectual satisfaction of carefully considered historical information and logic, the dichotomous nature of polemics, along with an emotional roller coaster.

This is a very serious book on one of world history’s most serious subjects and yet, I have never laughed so often whilst reading such seriousness as Joe Keysor’s commonsensical approach exposed the sheer nakedness of the pseudo-skeptic propagandists time and time, and time and time again with a touch of gentle “irreverent” whit with an occasional touch of sarcasm.

Surely, it is an important contribution to the historical study of Adolf Hitler and Nazism, the discernment of polemics and propaganda, the sensitive nature of multi-cultural relationships, and the essential importance of treating the Bible and Christianity in a fair and hermeneutically appropriate manner.

From James Hannam at Quodilbeta:

I’m no specialist on the Nazis but luckily I know a man who is. My friend Edward Bartlett-Jones, while certainly no Nazi himself, does appear to know far more about them than might be considered healthy. Some say he has the score of Wagner’s Die Walküre embroidered into his bathrobe, others claim that he leaves copies of Nietzsche’s Also sprach Zarathustra in dentists’ waiting rooms. Needless to say, he lives in Berlin. He is also an agnostic and so I thought I should send him Keysor’s Hitler, the Holocaust and the Bible for an expert opinion. He replied,

Overall I think it’s a good book but it has a strong Christian bias. The research is commendably thorough and without going back through the original sources, I didn’t see anything that struck me as being taken out of context. There is a good summary of Hitler’s philosophy (p48-49) and anyone who still thinks Hitler was a Catholic should be persuaded otherwise by page 87. There is also a good explanation of what Hitler meant by “God” on pages 93 to 94.

From Chris writing at AtheismisDead:

In Joe Keysor’s well-timed book, “Hitler, the Holocaust, and the Bible,” the reader is taken into the intriguing but sobering worldview that drove the machinations of Hitler’s regime. The timing is right, because Joe Keysor recognizes that when Reductio ad Hitlerum arguments against Christianity are packaged in philosophical sophistry and served up by the disarming bespectacled professor, that it is time to call the bluff.