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]

[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).

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.

[2] Ibid., various pages.

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.

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

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.

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 failure to understand the dark reality of original sin has nullified from the outset the vast majority of attempts to come to grips with the evils of the Third Reich. People with no firm convictions concerning righteousness, holiness, sin, or evil wander in a maze when they try to understand these matters. They are certain that the Nazis were evil, but are unable to provide any convincing or coherent explanation of the delight in cruelty that is one of the most outstanding features of the Holocaust. A real explanation is possible within a biblical framework. For those who see human nature as basically good, Hitler will forever remain an insoluble riddle—as will many of life’s other problems.

For example, in Daniel Goldhagen’s book Hitler’s Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust, a scholar who tries to understand these things without reference to that reality of God which alone gives meaning to ethics and moral standards lists conventional secular explanations for the cruelty of the Nazis.[i] Those who persecuted Jews were (a) coerced, forced to go along to avoid death or imprisonment; (b) blindly following orders with no moral sense; (c) conforming to peer pressure; (d) petty bureaucrats concerned only with their careers; (e) unaware of the big picture, committing individual acts without having a sense of the enormity of the whole.

Goldhagen rightly senses that although these explanations apply to varying degrees in individual cases, they are all somehow inadequate. He suggests that the criminals did evil because they wanted to do so. This is getting closer to the truth—but what is it that makes some people enjoy evil, revel in it, and pursue it to the farthest possible extremes? This question is totally beyond the reach of conventional secular scholarship. It is the problem of sin and evil in the human heart, and the Bible says the human heart is wicked by nature. Thus, any serious attempt to explain the Holocaust must take into account not only its uniquely German characteristics, but also evil itself.

Parenthetically, the title of Goldhagen’s book—Hitler’s Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust—implies that ordinary Germans were slaughtering Jews. This omits the fact that the majority of Germans never voted for Hitler and in fact voted against him. Finding themselves in a dictatorship not of their making, they went along to varying degrees (with rare exceptions), but only a small percentage of Germans were directly involved in the Holocaust.

Victor Klemperer, a Jew who was able to remain in Germany due to his Aryan wife, does not in any way minimize the cruelties of the Third Reich, but also records examples of Germans who went out of their way to demonstrate that they had nothing against him personally. In the second volume of his diary, I Will Bear Witness: A Diary of the Nazi Years 1942-1945, Klemperer states that in the factory where he was forced to work, “ninety-nine percent of the male and female workers are undoubtedly more or less extremely anti-Nazi, well-disposed to the Jews, opposed to the war, weary of tyranny . . .” He adds “but fear of the one percent loyal to the regime, fear of prison, ax, and bullet binds them.”[ii]

To really understand the crimes of the Nazis we need more than stereotypes about Germans. We need coherent concepts of sin and evil. These are provided by biblical teaching. Satan and human wickedness are spiritual realities, not just Bible words, and these powers of sin and evil that drove Hitler and his followers did not disappear when Hitler killed himself. I knew an American years ago who enjoyed bullying people beneath him and then presented a false front of injured innocence when people objected. He once told me “I wish I could have been in the SS,” and I had the distinct impression he wasn’t joking. Those who do not have a convincing explanation for human evil in general can never have a convincing explanation for any particular manifestation of evil—be it Auschwitz, the Soviet Gulag, the Cambodian killing fields, or the abduction and murder of a single child by a random serial killer. Those who are nothing more than indifferent to others also show the power of sin, as do those who knowingly do what is wrong, or even just keep silent because they are afraid of persecution or disapproval.

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.