The Protocols of Satan, Part 21: Hitler and Nietzsche

  • Christogenea Saturdays
ChrSat20161224-Protocols_of_Satan_21.mp3 — Downloaded 6274 times
 
00:00

 

The Protocols of Satan, Part 21: Hitler and Nietzsche

In our last presentation of the Protocols of Satan we took a digression to discuss an article from a February, 1936 issue of The Catholic Gazette, one of several Catholic newspapers in Britain in the 1930’s which had been attempting to warn people concerning The Jewish Peril, as the article was titled. Doing this, we found a modern-day critic of such literature in Ulrike Ehret, who has recently written a book titled Church, Nation and Race: Catholics and Antisemitism in Germany and England, 1918-45. While Ehret dismisses any possibility of a conspiracy of the Jews to attain world supremacy, which they have indeed since acquired – whether she notices it or not – she nevertheless corroborates for us the existence and influence of much of this type of anti-Jewish literature at that early time. As we had said, Ehret is not our friend, however her research was useful to us in that regard.

So before our latest digression, presenting Protocol No. 2 we spent considerable time in part 19 of this series discussing some aspects of the fulfillment of the boast that “The administrators chosen by us from among the people in accordance with their capacity for servility will not be experienced in the art of government, and consequently they will easily become pawns in our game, in the hands of our scientists and wise counselors, specialists trained from early childhood for governing the world.”

Responding to this, we explained that it certainly explains why so many men of seemingly average or even low intelligence are regularly promoted to run for the highest political offices in the nation. We can readily hold up as examples Barack Obama, George W. Bush, John McCain, Al Gore, and countless other incompetent clowns now occupying the world stage. For instance, on the trail of his first campaign Barack Obama boasted of having visited “57 states… with one left to go”, discounting Alaska and Hawaii. However there are only 48 contiguous states in the United States. How could Obama think that the United States had 60 states? Not that he was ever really an American...

As another example, regardless of the post-speech spin of the leftists pundits, when the sitting House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was speaking in reference to Obamacare and said “But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy”, she certainly seemed to have sincerely believed exactly what she had professed: that Americans, and even congressmen, did not have to know the substance of the bills which Congress passes before they become law. Pelosi is either very shrewd but with a slip of the tongue had informed on herself unintentionally, or she is very stupid and actually did believe what she said. The latter assessment seems to be the more accurate, that she is just doing what she is told by those faceless staff members who work behind the scenes.

In a 2008 television interview, Obama’s running mate, Vice President and long-time Senator Joe Biden said “When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed. He said, 'Look, here's what happened.” The more subtle error is that Roosevelt never explained the October 1929 stock market crash, and neither could he have explained it because his own financial backers had engineered it. But more visibly, Roosevelt did not become President until 1933, and commercial broadcasting in the United States did not begin on a major scale until 1947. In 1929 television was a mere curiosity which was still in the experimental stages. Roosevelt was the first president to appear on television, at the opening session of the New York World's Fair on April 30, 1939. Truman was the first to actually give a speech on television, in 1947.

Even stupider things have been said by American politicians, but these are a few examples of how stupid politicians can actually attain the highest offices in government. Another congressman, the negro and career lawyer Hank Johnson, is famous for posing a question predicated on a belief that large islands in the ocean could tip over, as if they only floated on the surface. So it seems that these shallow Washington politicians simply spout whatever they may think is logical to fit the situation which they are in at the moment, but they are actually dolts who have no tangible knowledge, no foundation in fact, no care for truth, and steamroll the interests of the nation with the agenda of the darker powers lurking in the shadows while thinking nothing of the treachery. In an honest world, Joe Biden should be a hardware store clerk, Nancy Pelosi wiping tables in a school cafeteria, and Barak Obama sweeping flies off the asses of circus elephants. But instead they rule over us. In our opinion, only the Protocols explains this phenomenon, and we find that explanation here.

In our last presentation we also saw how, only a short time after the Protocols were published, the Jews were indeed able to begin planting their advisers into the American government at every level, all the way up to the office of President, as that same paragraph of Protocol No. 2 had boasted. So in that regard we made examples of Edward Mandell House, Harry Dexter White, Henry Kissinger and others. But we also tried to illustrate that the planting of Jews into the bureaucracy was on a much wider scale than the many obvious names, as 15% of Franklin Roosevelt’s appointees were Jews, and many of them were still working in government long after Roosevelt was gone. The trend continued into the Truman government, where Morgenthau, Harry Hopkins, Harry Dexter White and the banker Bernard Baruch were all just as influential as they had been with Roosevelt. In truth, in under twenty years from the establishment of the Federal Reserve, the American government was permanently and irreparably mutated, since the bureaucracy was greatly expanded from that time forward.

So we left off with Protocol No. 2 where it said that “The GOYS are not guided by the practice of impartial historical observation, but by theoretical routine without any critical regard for its results. Therefore, we need give them no consideration.” In reference to this we cited Adolf Hitler, who certainly agreed that the way that history is taught and learned in the West is all wrong, because it does not properly study and assess the results of historical events in order to help correctly determine the true causes. But that statement in the Protocols was made to qualify what had come before, where the Jews had boasted that their behind-the-scenes “scientists”, acting as counselors and specialists, would be the true powers controlling those willing dupes and shills who are placed into political office. With this we then discussed at length a man who never held office, but who had great influence in the affairs of government both in Europe and America, and that was Louis Marshall. A look at the life of Louis Marshall, a man whose name has always been obscure to most Americans, is a glimpse into the reasons for the success of the program outlined in the Protocols.

These things having been discussed sufficiently, or at least we hope to have done so, we shall continue with our presentation of the second of the Protocols.

PROTOCOL NO. 2, continued:

Until the time comes let them amuse themselves, or live in the hope of new amusements or in the memories of those past.

We will leave a lengthier discussion of amusements for a presentation of Protocol No. 13, which is titled “Distractions”. In the meantime we shall only state that it is not a mistake that the Jewish-controlled so-called news media gives free coverage in articles and announcements to organized sports, which are only a collection of private for-profit entertainment businesses, or to Hollywood movies, which are also private for-profit entertainment ventures. Packaged as “news”, this coverage really only serves as perpetual free advertising for businesses that provide eternal distractions to the unsuspecting Goyim. The mere fact that these things are packaged as news gives them an esteem in the public which they do not merit, since they are actually nothing but worthless entertainments.

This bread-and-circuses atmosphere that the media propagates, where such private entertainments are categorized and presented as public news, openly promotes idolatry and has very much assisted to advance the destruction of the Christian culture. While the United States government was subverted, and during its continued subversion up to this very day, many – if not most – Americans are too busy with sports and entertainments to take notice of what is really happening to the world around them. Then when they are confronted with facts, they deny them because the facts are inconsequential to their own artificial reality. It is difficult to illustrate the dangers of Jews and negroes in New York or Boston when a Max Baer or a Joe Louis are winning fixed fights, Sandy Koufax is throwing shut-outs, Joe Namath wins a Super Bowl, and Hank Greenberg or Hank Aaron are hitting home runs. And by the way, the Jewish boxer Max Baer was the father of the actor who played the part of the beloved Jethro of Beverly Hillbillies fame, so we can joke about how they really got their money. Jethro was a Jew, and nothing wholesome can come out of Hollywood – which just so happens to be in Los Angeles, the city of the fallen angels. And not to say that sports idolatry is good under any circumstances, but there are many great White athletes who never have a chance to play because the Jews who control the world of finance and media have a political agenda to promote negros. Once the entire country is worshipping negros, it is impossible for the people to avoid become molded in the image of their gods.

PROTOCOL NO. 2, continued:

Let that play the most important part for them which we have induced them to regard as the laws of science (theory). For this purpose, by means of our press, we increase their blind faith in these laws. Intelligent GOYS will boast of their knowledge, and verifying it logically they will put into practice all scientific information compiled by our agents for the purpose of educating their minds in the direction which we require.

This is an aspect of the systemization of deception which Paul of Tarsus had warned about. Once becoming learned, the indoctrinated become self-righteous based on their perceived knowledge, and there is no convincing them of their error.

This Protocol is discussed at length in a book titled The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship, and we are going to reserve a lengthy discussion for a later day. However we have already laid a foundation for understanding in our series of programs on the Jews in Medieval Europe. The purpose of that series was to show how the Jews had come to control the modern sciences by promotion of the Kaballah, and with prominent European scholars having become fascinated with Kaballistic Jewish mysticism, the foundation for speculative Freemasonry was developed and the Jewish rabbis pretended to hold the keys to hidden knowledge. Making themselves the highest scientific authorities. They then asserted that authority through Freemasonry and used thr lodges to further disseminate their “science”.

The authors of The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship seem to either have missed or ignored the connection between Johann Reuchlin, John Dee, Cornelius Agrippa and many other Medieval alchemists to the Jews and the Kaballah, and then to the first lodges of Speculative Freemasonry. They also seem to miss or ignore the professions of early Freemasons of the Jewish nature of Freemasonry, which we had cited from several books written by Freemasons of the 19th century such as Jeremiah Howe and Richard Carlile. So while they discuss the Protocols, and this portion in particular, they rather unfortunately dismiss the idea of a Jewish conspiracy as being racist, and divert all blame to Freemasonry alone.

Even more unfortunately, the authors of this book, Phillip and Paul Collins, accepted Anthony Sutton’s ridiculously absurd views of Adolf Hitler, and link Nazism to Darwinism and Nietzscheism just as the Jews of today are wont to do, using Werner Maser’s assessments of Mein Kampf as support for their contentions. Then they do us a great disservice where they say that “Nazism (a variant of fascism) sprung from Nietzsche-ism”. We would assert that neither Sutton nor Maser expressed a proper understanding of Hitler. While Hitler may have believed in the evolution of a society of people through natural selection resulting from the trials it faced in the natural world, he did not believe in Darwinian evolution, but rather made frequent mention of a Creator, and the destiny of nations to fulfill roles assigned to them by that Creator.

But with all of their flaws, what our authors have done well is to show the connections of Charles Darwin to Freemasonry. But beyond the mention of Nietzsche here in the Protocols and their wrongful assertion that he inspired Hitler, they fail to address him much further. They show the connections between Freemasonry and the concept of a scientific dictatorship in the French Revolution, which certainly presaged the attitudes towards science that are manifest as the Jews have steadily increased their influence in publishing and the media to this day. Then they have gone a step beyond that, and have rather adeptly explained that with the inevitable failure of Darwinism as an absolutely untenable position, Freemasonry has already prepared another alternative in the ancient astronaut theory, extending the idea of panspermia promoted by the likes of DNA scientist Francis Crick, who understood that Darwinian evolution was impossible. But Crick’s panspermia thesis had a precedent in the writings of Freemason Albert Pike. In this regard they quote both Pike and Michael Hoffman, who had also noticed the connection.

Evidently, Albert Pike wrote of the planting of man, the sciences and religion on earth by aliens from Sirius, the Dog Star, which Hoffman sees as a symbol of the so-called “global elite”. We would rather see it as a symbol for Canaanite Jewry. The Pike theory, or variations of it, has surfaced in places such as the many novels of the Jew Zechariah Sitchin, and more unfortunately, even in Christian Identity circles in the sermons of Wesley Swift. However we are also certain that these ideas did not originate with Pike. Rather, they are Kaballistic regurgitations of ancient mystery religions which are now given a modern technological veneer.

In this regard, our authors have also explained how science fiction as a genre has been used to prepare the masses for such beliefs, and also serve the purpose of conditioning the masses for the acceptance of “science” as an ultimate authority, using Freemasonic writers such as Aldous Huxley as examples. Here are some of their remarks concerning Huxley:

Aldous Huxley first presented the ‘scientific dictatorship’ to the public imagination in his book Brave New World. In Dope, Inc., associates of political dissident Lyndon LaRouche [this is a Commuunist source which we ourselves would shy away from] claim that Huxley’s book was actually a ‘mass appeal’ organizing document written ‘on behalf of one-world order’ (Dope, Inc., 538). The book also claims the United States is the only place where Huxley’s ‘science fiction classic’ is taught as an allegorical condemnation of fascism. If this is true, then the ‘scientific dictatorship’ presented within the pages of his 1932 novel Brave New World is a thinly disguised roman a’ clef – a novel that thinly veils real people or events – awaiting tangible enactment.

They proceed to discuss the impact of science fiction writing on popular society, and connect the Huxley family to another Freemason and writer of evolution as science, H. G. Wells, who was mentored by Aldous Huxley’s grandfather. Wells, made famous by science fiction such as War of the Worlds, also wrote a popular book of supposedly actual history titled The Outline of History and variously subtitled either The Whole Story of Man or Being a Plain History of Life and Mankind. I have a two-volume copy of it on our bookshelves. It was a gift from a much older cousin who was enamored by it since his youth. He sent it over 15 years ago, when he first learned of my studies in Biblical and Classical history, hoping to offer correction for my mistakes. Wells’ history espouses evolution as well as racial egalitarianism, and over the past hundred years it has polluted many young minds with these Freemasonic, and ultimately Jewish ideals.

We may return to The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship at some point in a future discussion on these Protocols. For now it should suffice to say that not all advocates of panspermia rely on alien astronauts to spread the so-called building blocks of life throughout the universe. The supposed “scientific” definition relies on meteors and other inanimate objects. But of course, they fail to realize that if Darwinian evolution fails to explain complex protein replication here on earth, how could one explain such a phenomenon in places other than earth? Who created the aliens that brought life here, or the complex proteins lodged in the ice of meteors? Such a gaping discrepancy is not adequately explained. Such a so-called ‘science’ relies on the blindness of the people, and our authors correctly relate that phenomenon to the ancient pagan priesthoods and their collaboration with rulers who sought to control the masses using religious superstition. As we have said here in the past, much of modern theoretical science does indeed find its roots in the Kaballah and in ancient pagan myths.

However with the technical advances that mankind has made, the Kaballistic nonsense somehow becomes all the more plausible in the minds of the people once they are adorned with a technical veneer, and we see “science” persistently touted as a moral authority over so many political and social issues every day in our modern media. This “science” which they choose to promote cannot be questioned, and even the voices of dissenting scientists are regularly squelched out by the media drumbeat. For perhaps 70 or 80 years now, it is possible to tell someone of a scientific study, and whatever matter it is will merely be believed. The belief in science is as religious as any religion. Thus the Protocols boast:

PROTOCOL NO. 2, continued:

Do not think that our assertions are without foundation: note the successes of Darwinism, Marxism, and Nietzscheism, engineered by us. The demoralizing effects of these doctrines upon the minds of the GOYS should be already obvious to us.

This last passage is controversial. We should nevertheless discuss its content as if it is a legitimate statement of the Protocols, however first we are going to present a short article written by one Karl Radl. This author has a website called Semitic Controversies, A Daily Blog about Jews and Judaism. Much of what we have seen of his writing is good, but his perspective is not quite what we would hope to find. For instance, in an article titled The Myth of the 'Good Jew', he also seems to dismiss the possibility of there being good Nazis, at least as a rhetorical device. While of course we agree that there cannot be good Jews, we would also assert that if it were not for Jews, we would not even have to discern the existence of Nazis. In any event, sometimes Radl criticizes antisemites as much as he criticizes Jews, but of course that criticism of antisemites is sometimes deserved.

Karl Radl does profess that the Protocols are a legitimate document, and he reports that he is writing a book on the subject. He is critical of the edition put out by Sergei Nilus, as he says that it incorporated some of Nilus’ own notes into the text of the Protocols without distinguishing them as notes. [This reminds us of the manuscripts of the New Testament upon which the King James Version is based.] Since we are just becoming familiar with his work, we have not had time to investigate his opinions much further, but found one article in relation to this particular passage which seems to be authoritative and presents an interesting view of this passage of the Protocols. So we will present here the following brief article from his website:

The Marx, Darwin and Nietzsche Passage in the Protocols of Zion

It has come to my attention recently that I may not have covered a particular issue to do with the infamous Protocols of Zion specifically enough as people who have cited my work on the Protocols have never-the-less missed one of the side points I made in my original article.

That issue is very simple: in Protocol 2 (in the Nilus edition of the Protocols) there appears a passage which claims that Darwin, Marx and Nietzsche were jewish and/or Masonic agents.

For completeness I quote the passage from the normal Protocols text:

'Do not suppose for a moment that these statements are empty words: think carefully of the successes we arranged for Darwinism, Marxism and Nietzscheism. To us Jews, at any rate, it should be plain to see what a disintegrating importance these directives have had upon the minds of the goyim.' (1)

This is a passage that is massively problematic for proponents of the Protocols of Zion being at least a semi-truthful narrative of jewish ideas and intentions and/or as an intellectual methodology for understanding the jewish history and behavioural trends in the future. Conversely it is also one of the most common and rhetorically most powerful anti-Protocols arguments and it is frequently used to put proponents of the Protocols in a Catch 22.

Either they suggest with the Protocols Darwin, Marx and Nietzsche were jewish/Masonic agents (Marx is possible, but Darwin and Nietzsche are not) or the Protocols are textually incorrect: thus placing them at the intellectual mercy of the anti-Protocols debunker.

The problem for the anti-Protocols debunkers using this passage however is rather fundamental and actually informs us that they; ironically enough, tend to be ignorant of the scholarly literature around the Protocols (i.e. that they likely have an external reason to simple scholarship and intellectual reasoning to be arguing the anti-Protocols case).

That problem is fairly simple.

This passage doesn't form part of the original Protocols and is one of many additions to the text by the Christian mystic: Sergei Nilus. Where the Darwin, Marx and Nietzsche assertion comes from is obvious if we quote the original text of Pavlov Krushevan's serialised first edition of the Protocols.

To wit:

'The intellectuals [the “goyim”] are proud of their knowledge without logical verification, and put into practice all the notions dealing with science, written by our agents with the intention of forming the minds in ways that will prove useful (the translator remembers the successes of Darwinism, of Marxism, of Nietzscheianism and the other unproven doctrines).' (2)

From this original text it is clear that the Darwin, Marx and Nietzsche quotation is nothing to do with the Protocols text itself: rather simply being an addition by Krushevan to illustrate the point being made by the original text, which Nilus has then worked into the text of the Protocols.

[Early in this series we had mentioned the first Russian publication of the original Protocols in Znamia (The Banner), which was made by Pavlov Krushevan in seven installments beginning in September, 1903. This was nearly two years before the first Nilus edition.]

This then makes sense of what we call 'the translators note' and explains why this quotation has been often used to; in my opinion incorrectly, situate the origin of the Protocols in a non-jewish Russian nationalist context as that is precisely where the translators note comes from!

However because this is not actually part of the Protocols and only Krushevan's interjection of his suggestion as to who and what the text is talking about: we can see that it cannot be used as part of the Protocols itself.

Thus necessarily the Darwin, Marx and Nietzsche statement cannot be used to 'debunk' the Protocols, because it simply isn't part of the original Protocols!

References

(1) Protocols of Zion, 2002/2003 Historical Review Press Edition, p. 28

(2) Cesare de Michelis, 2004, 'The Non-Existent Manuscript: A Study of the Sages of Zion', 1st Edition, University of Nebraska Press: Lincoln, p. 88

We would assert that Marx was indeed connected to the rabbis of Judaism who sought to subvert European civilization, greatly assisted by their control of the Freemasonic lodges. For whatever reason, Karl Radl dismisses the possibility of Darwin’s having been used for that same end. However the authors of The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship explain that Darwin did indeed come from a family of Freemasons, and they correctly assert that his work assisted the Freemasonic agenda.

And here we should discuss Friedrich Nietzsche, as he continues to influence generations of nationalist-minded thinkers to this day, and like it or not, he has indeed helped to advance the Jewish agenda – even if he has done so unwittingly. It is not a matter of whether or not Darwin and Nietzsche were consciously part of a Freemasonic plot to subvert Christendom. Rather, it is how the works of those men were used by Jews and Masons to assist in their plot to subvert Christendom. So the comment in the Protocols, whether it belongs to Nilus, to Krushevan, or to the Jews themselves, is nevertheless relevant.

Nowhere does this affect our own cause more than in the disinformation which is created by connecting Hitler with Nietzsche. And this too may seem not to have its origins with the Jews, as Nietzsche’s own sister tried to interest the National Socialists in her dead brother’s writings, and some National Socialists did indeed take to Nietzsche. But Nietzsche himself was far from National Socialism, and Hitler was no follower of Nietzsche. Quite the contrary, he certainly despised him even if he never said it.

Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche was educated at the universities of Bonn and Leipzig. At the age of only 24 he was appointed Professor of Classical Philology at the university of Basel. After suffering a mental breakdown in January 1889 from which he was never to recover, he died eleven years later at age 55. Many sources allege that the breakdown was caused by syphilis.

Nietzsche was a professor of the classics who had chosen to belittle Christianity and declare that God is dead. Sometimes he seemed to extol Christ, but it was the Christ of his own making, and certainly not the Christ of the Bible. Nietzsche’s Jesus seems to have been an amoral anti-establishmentarian molded after Nietzsche himself, who was also a nihilist with a spirit more like that of a Jewish hippie than a 19th-century German philosopher. In The Political Influence of the British-Israel Movement in the Nineteenth Century, Richard Simpson said that Nietzsche “believed the world was without any moral goal, the purpose of a race should be effected by intellectuals not God, and Christianity was ‘the greatest of all conceivable corruptions.’” In our opinion, there is little from philosophy which could be more accommodating to the Jew. The destruction of the common morality has always been a key item on the Jewish agenda, as they strive to build their global Sodom upon the ashes of Christendom. Among those later influenced by Nietzsche were Max Horkheimer of the Frankfurt School.

But evidently, Nietzsche’s philosophy was not consistent, according to many sources who have studied his writings. Not that we would promote Ayn Rand, but perhaps The Atlas Society summarizes Nietzsche appropriately:

Nietzsche’s concept of knowledge did not only allow for contradictions. It required them. Only total, comprehensive knowledge, which incorporated opposite opinions, was true knowledge for him. Thus, it was possible for him to write for and against Judaism, for and against Christianity, for and against racism. The National Socialists could interpret his writings any way they wished and manipulate them for their ends because of Nietzsche’s explicit rejection of reason and logic.

Similarly we read in an Occidental Observer article by Andrew Joyce titled Nietzsche’s Jewish Problem:

Friedrich Nietzsche’s puzzling stance on Jews and Judaism has perplexed me for the better part of a decade, so I was intrigued and optimistic about Princeton University Press’s 2015 publication of Robert Holub’s Nietzsche’s Jewish Problem: Between Anti-Semitism and Anti-Judaism.... I couldn’t perceive any true coherence or solidity in Nietzsche’s writing beyond his celebrated aphorisms. Taken as a whole, the philosophy of Nietzsche was apt to strike me as too intentionally fluid; too deliberately open to interpretation. Nowhere was this non-committal stance more apparent than in Nietzsche’s sparse, vague, contradictory and often quite opportunistic references to Jews and Judaism.

As one might expect of a philosopher as enigmatic as Nietzsche, his work has been approached awkwardly and suspiciously by scholars and ideologues alike. His attitudes towards Jews, in particular, have been debated, discussed and fought over from the very beginning of his public career. Nowhere, and at no time, was a consensus ever reached. During the Third Reich he was both ‘recruited for the cause’ by some, and rejected outright by others. His foundational place in the National Socialist philosophical canon was thus never assured, primarily because of his nihilism, his hostility towards Nationalism, and his ambivalence regarding Jews. Confusion still reigns. Modern scholarship has been divided between those who condemn Nietzsche outright as a ‘racist’ reactionary and a proto-Fascist, and those who highlight his vocal opposition to political anti-Semitism as thus seek his social exoneration and academic rehabilitation. As noted above, elements of Nietzsche remain strongly attractive to the Left. Therefore, where total exoneration of anti-Semitism has been found difficult, blame for ‘corrupting’ Nietzsche and shaping him as an ‘anti-Semite’ has been attributed variously to his one-time guru, Richard Wagner, or his sister Elisabeth, who married Bernhard Förster, perhaps the leading figure in nineteenth-century political anti-Semitism. The result of these battles has not been a clarification of the historical record, but an ever-thickening web of biased interpretations, white-washing, and pseudo-history.

Relativism has been promoted by Jews at least since the creation of the Talmud, and Nietzsche seems to be one of its victims. Studying the writings of Adolf Hitler in Mein Kampf and throughout his speeches, Hitler was never such a relativist, and his views on Germanism, Christianity and Judaism were always consistent.

Nietzsche’s original publisher was Ernst Schmeitzner, a noted opponent of the Jews who along with many other notable Germans, had joined in a petition to Otto von Bismarck in 1880 to revoke some of the political and social equality which the Jews had then only recently been granted. The petition made its way to the Prussian parliament, where Leftists sought to have both the petition and antisemitism generally condemned, and they failed. Conservatives in the parliament backed the petition, but ultimately its demands were not granted, and the Jews did not lose any of their advantages.

For this, because Schmeitzner was an “antisemite”, Nietzsche is said to have abandoned his publisher in disgust. After his death, Nietzsche’s sister was perhaps his biggest promoter, and was said to have convinced many National Socialists of the value of his philosophy to their cause. Nietzsche’s sister was married to Bernhard Förster, a man who later became a prominent National Socialist, and she was convinced that her brother’s writings were complimentary to National Socialism, rather mistakenly in our opinion. She was the caretaker, curator and editor of Nietzsche’s manuscripts. Then, from 1930 when she had become a supporter of the National Socialists, she began to promote her brother to Party leadership. For that there is a famous picture of Adolf Hitler. Most commentators assert that when the photograph was taken Hitler was contemplating Nietzsche, or even admiring him. We are more certain that Hitler was glaring at the bust of Nietzsche in absolute disdain.

Here we are going to cite what we believe is a rather balanced article, from what seems like a rather unlikely source, a website called NoBeliefs.com which purports to be for “freethinkers”. However we have found several of their articles related to this particular topic to be factual and rather objective. This particular article is really a list of statements and is titled Hitler Myths. We shall casually add our own comments to its assertions.

The following provides a brief explanation for some of the most common misconceptions about Adolf Hitler. Unfortunately in today's 'Faith-based' culture, rarely do people look closely at the reasons or evidence of Hitler's belief, many times confusing the beliefs of other prominent Nazis for Hitler's views.

This is true, and we observe it all the time. If one prominent National Socialist embraced Hindu Mysticism, then Hitler is described as a Hindu Mystic. If one prominent National Socialist embraced Germanic paganism, then Hitler was a viking shaman and a member of the Thule Society. If one prominent National Socialist embraced Madame Blavatsky, then Hitler was a New Age Kaballist. If one prominent National Socialist embraced Nietzsche, then Hitler was a Nordicist and a racist who embraced Darwinian evolution and the idea that only Germans could be Die Übermenschen. But they never read Mein Kampf and Hitler’s speeches and imagine that Hitler was telling the truth about himself, because those things betray their own anti-Christian agendas. Continuing with our source:

Myth 1: Hitler was not a Christian

The entire section on Hitler's Christianity [provided in a separate article, while this is something we ourselves have written on at length at the Mein Kampf Project at Christogenea] provides ample evidence for his brand of Christianity. The evidence itself destroys any opinions or beliefs about Hitler's alleged apostasy.

The evidence shows that:

  • Hitler was born and baptized into Catholicism
  • His Jewish antisemitism came from his Christian background.
  • His early personal notes shows his interest in religion and Biblical views.
  • He believed that the Bible represented the history of mankind.
  • His Nazi party platform (their version of a constitution) included a section on Positive Christianity, and he never removed it.
  • He confessed his Christianity.
  • He tried to establish a united Reich German Church.
  • Hitler allowed the destruction of Jewish synagogues and temples, but not Christian churches.
  • He encouraged Nazis to worship in Christian churches.
  • He spoke of his Christian beliefs in his speeches and proclamations.
  • His contemporaries, friends, Protestant ministers and Catholics priests, including the Vatican, thought of Hitler as a Christian.
  • The Catholic Church never excommunicated Hitler. He died a Catholic.

To ignore the evidence of Hitler's Christianity demonstrates how power of belief can obscure the facts.

Myth 2: Hitler pretended his Christianity only for political purposes

This one represents one of the most persistent constructions about Hitler's Christianity. Revealingly, proponents of this myth never provide evidence for this hypothesis. If he, indeed, pretended himself as a Christian, then on what evidential material does it stand on? If Hitler acted as a pretend Christian, then where does he disown his belief in Christ? Does he write in his private notes that he used religion only for political purposes? Did any of his close associates or friends think so? Where?

Of course Hitler did try to use political force to control Christianity and he tried to establish a unified Reich Christian Church, but this only supports his stand on his view of "positive Christianity" as described in the Nazi party platform (their version of a constitution). And yes, he criticized the Catholic and Protestant hierarchy, but so what? So do Popes and Protestant leaders. Martin Luther himself strongly condemned the Catholic religion and thought of it as the work of the Devil.

I suspect that those who propagate this myth rely on mainly one source: the dubious reliability of Hitler's table talk (a second-hand source that allegedly records the words of Hitler). The table-talk got edited by the anti-Catholic Martin Bormann (Hitler's secretary) and describes political views against the hierarchy of orthodox Christianity (just as Bormann would have liked) but even here, Hitler never speaks against Jesus Christ, but rather in favor of him. (See Hitler's table talk and other extraneous sources). And we now know, thanks to Richard Carrier's discovery, that the anti-Christian phrases in the English version of the table talk (which came from the French translated version) were forged, most likely by the French translator of the table-talk, Francois Genoud, who was a known forger (citing On the Trail of Bogus Quotes by Richard C. Carrier). Note, the German version of table-talk does not contain the anti-Christian phrases!

What obliterates this theory comes from the fact that Hitler continued to express his "positive" Christian views, well after his rise to power. If, indeed, he needed Christianity only for political purposes, then why-oh-why does he continue with the charade after he has established himself as absolute dictator?

But just for the sake of argument, lets pretend that Hitler really did pretend his Christianity; that his sole aim went to politically winning over German Christians so that he could gain their confidence. How in the world does that improve your argument in protecting Christianity from Hitler? If that proved the case, then who should get the blame, Hitler or the gullible Christian German citizens who believed him? And what does that say for the integrity of Christianity if the most Christianized country in the world could not distinguish a member of their own belief system? Think about it. If the most pious Christians and clergymen could not tell if Hitler practiced false or "real" Christianity, then how in the world could anyone tell? I submit that the only way to tell comes from the very words from those who make the claim. Indeed, this constitutes the very flaw of any religion because there never has existed a testable way to determine the truthfulness of a belief in the supernatural. And if you cannot tell by the words of your fellow Christians, then anyone with minimal acting talent can deceive anyone, including monks, bishops, or popes. In fact, monks, bishops and popes themselves, could fall prey to falsehood. I submit to you that a false Christian and a real Christian makes absolutely no difference. Why? Because if I have it right (and I think I do) then Christianity never represented reality, thus an honest believing Christian and a dishonest believing Christian fall on equal turf: they both have it wrong, and they both practice falsehoods!

While the author is right, that there is no way to test as to whether someone professing the faith actually believes in God or in Christ, that is not the test of Christianity. The author is wrong, that Christianity is not represented in reality – the true practice of Christianity is certainly in reality, but the denominational churches also never practised it. According to the Gospel, the test of Christianity is in whether one loves one’s people, and acts on that love throughout the conduct of his life. But this aspect of Christianity has been ignored by the churches, and for that people such as our author have been alienated. Because the churches in Germany neglected real Christianity, Hitler sought to correct them, especially where their objective was to edify the negro at the expense of the German people, something which is not at all Christian. Continuing with our source:

The only evidence we have, or could ever have, about people who call themselves Christian comes from the very confession of those making the claim. And since Hitler makes his claim to Christianity abundantly and clearly, we can only rely on his claim, regardless of whether he actually believed in Christ or not. False Christianity has as just much validity as any claim to Christianity, even if you could prove dishonesty.

But regardless of how you view a person's claim to their religion, to say Hitler used Christianity only for political forces has absolutely no historical basis to back it up. To simply rely on belief or opinion says absolutely nothing about historical fact.

Beyond the reach of our author as well as the people whom he criticizes is the strongest proof of Hitler’s Christianity. That lies in the fact that the very foundations of National Socialism are derived from the ideals of the Christian Scriptures. Love for one’s kindred people and personal sacrifice for the well-being of those people is fundamental to Christianity and for that reason, Hitler made those things fundamental to National Socialism. But these things have also been overlooked by the priests of the mainstream denominations as well as the Roman Catholics, who were never practising Christians. Continuing with our source:

Myth 3: Hitler got his ideas of Aryan superiority and Jewish hatred from Darwinian evolution

Hitler showed no knowledge of Darwinian evolution or natural selection. Nowhere in Mein Kampf does he mention Darwin, natural-selection or even the word "evolution" (in the context of natural selection).

As for Aryan superiority and his Jewish hatred, Hitler clearly describes in Mein Kampf how he slowly began to change his mind about the Jews from the influence of the anti-Semitic movement of the Christian Social Party. His views with regard to anti-Semitism he said, "succumbed to the passage of time, and this was my greatest transformation of all." (read volume 1, chapter 2). Nowhere does he explain his anti-Jewish beliefs in Darwinian terms.

Evidently, Hitler developed his antisemitism from his observances of jews and his own observations of history. While he criticized the academics for not studying history properly, looking at outcomes in order to better assess the causes of events, he himself did that, and for that reason, along with his personal observations, he came to despise the Jews.

In his private notes, where he describes the Bible as a "Monumental History of Mankind," Hitler outlines his views of the Aryan and the Jew, all in the context of Bible reasoning, never in the context of Darwinian natural selection.

It is only regrettable that like most modern commentators, he took it for granted that the Jews were the Israelites of the Old Testament. Nothing is further from the truth.

Moreover, Hitler viewed progeny, not in regards to evolution but in terms of blood lines (a Biblical view). He peppered his writings and speeches with "blood" words. Examples in Mein Kampf include:

"One blood demands one Reich."

"Bavarian by blood, technically Austrian, lived my parents..."

...the German in Austria had really been of the best blood..."

"...the weakness of leadership will not cause a hibernation of the state, but an awakening of all the individual instincts which are present in the blood..."

Clearly, Hitler had no scientific sophistication or an understanding of Darwin's theory of evolution and his "blood-line" explanation of human "progress" reveals a Biblical view, not a Darwinian view. He did, however, at times express ideas, not from Darwin, but rather from Herbert Spencer's concept of Social Darwinism, which has little to do with natural selection and served as an adjunct to his already established religious views. Spencer's Social Darwinism tried to connect Darwin's biological theory with the field of social relations. The result of Social Darwinism resulted in many eugenics programs that began in America and adopted by the Nazis. [Note that Darwin never expressed the idea that natural selection could extend from biological systems to social systems.]

Hitler best sums up his belief of Aryan superiority and his stand against the Jews with his declaration in Mein Kampf:

"I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.."

Nor can Christians accuse the Nazis of promoting Darwinism or claim that the Holocaust came as a result of Darwinist thinking. In fact, the Nazi Germans banned writings about Darwinist philosophy. The Lists of Banned Books, 1932-1939 included the banning of:

"Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Häckel)."

and also:

"All writings that ridicule, belittle or besmirch the Christian religion and its institution, faith in God, or other things that are holy to the healthy sentiments of the Volk."

First, we do not understand how the writers at NoBeliefs.com could profess a belief in the holocaust, a belief which cannot be established as fact.

But this one quotation from Hitler in Mein Kampf is only a sample of his Christian profession, and many more quotations made by Hitler show that his worldview was derived from a Biblical perspective. Furthermore, Hitler properly saw the Jew as the enemy of that perspective. Only a true Christian could have such a worldview.

Myth 4: Hitler followed Friedrich Nietzsche's philosophy

If Hitler followed Nietzschian philosophy or even admired his work, then where does he describe him or his philosophy?

Nowhere in Mein Kampf does Hitler even mention Nietzsche, or Nietzchian terms such as superman (uberman), or super race. Of course Hitler did think the Aryans represented a superior race to the Jews, but never in Nietzchian terms.

The Bible teaches that the Aryan, or Adamic race, is a superior race to the Jews, who are derived from a race of devils, serpents, or vipers. However superior in the Biblical sense is not relative to skill or intelligence, but instead to the favor and grace of God, something which no Jew could ever obtain.

Hitler properly understood that the Aryan man was the pinnacle of the Creation, and that the Jew was a corruption of that Creation. To this end he said in Mein Kampf, in Volume 2, Chapter 1: Weltanschauung And Party, that: “To undermine the existence of human culture by exterminating its founders and custodians would be an execrable crime in the eyes of those who believe that the folk-idea lies at the basis of human existence. Whoever would dare to raise a profane hand against that highest image of God among His creatures would sin against the bountiful Creator of this marvel and would collaborate in the expulsion from Paradise.”

Continuing with our source:

Note that Joseph-Arthur de Gobineau invented the theory of the superior Aryan race in the 1800s in his book, An Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races. Gobineau believed that racial mixture would bring about the decline of "superior" peoples. Gobineau influenced Richard Wagner (beloved by Hitler), and Houston Stewart Chamberlain (whom Hitler read and met), both of who influenced early National Socialism (and both mentioned in Mein Kampf). Popular in Germany in the 1900s, many Germans accepted Gobineau's ideas and, no doubt, influenced Hitler either directly or indirectly. Moreover, Hitler's "superior" race ideas sound like a combination of Biblical race laws and Gobineau's Aryan race ideas, but not at all like Nietzsche.

Nor does it make sense that the Christian Hitler would admire an atheistic Nietzsche. Hitler loathed atheism. In his writings and speeches, he admonished atheists. For example:

We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.

-Adolf Hitler, in a speech in Berlin on 24 Oct. 1933

Perhaps the most notorious misrepresentation of connecting Hitler and Nietzsche came from a photo-op of Hitler visiting the Nietzsche archive. Many have incorrectly believed that Hitler visited the archive on his own volition. Not so. The photo-op idea came from Nietzsche's sister, Elisabeth Förster, a wealthy Nazi supporter, who established the Nietzsche Archive in 1933, It was she who invited Hitler (after much persuasion) to visit the archive for publicity purposes. Hitler visited the archive to appease Nietzsche's anti-Semite sister. The event appeared in the German newspapers and William Shirer (The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich) briefly mentioned the event as if Hitler often visited the archive because he admired Nietzsche. Shirer probably got his information from the German propaganda article rather than from the facts of the event. (Note, scholars have criticized Shirer for his lack of scholarship and poor source material.) Elisabeth Förster also misrepresented Nietzsche by making her brother look like an anti-Semite and a proto-Nazi (Nietzsche's philosophy had little resemblance to the National Socialist German Workers' Party). Unfortunately many Germans fell for the Nietzsche-Nazi connection including many members of the Thule society.

The pre-Nazi Thule society began in the early 1900s. Rudolf von Serbottendorff became the driving force of this order which practiced occultism and an admiration of Nietzsche. Many members of the Thule society later became Nazis and did influence Nazi literature. However, Hitler never showed any interest in the Thule cult or in its pagan practices.

Hitler actually denounced the pagan practices of organizations such as the Thule Society, in Volume 1, Chapter 12 of Mein Kampf. Our source concludes by stating that:

Anyone who uses such material to justify a Hitler-Nietzsche link simply lacks historical depth (laziness of research) and has no understanding of Hitler.

Let's face it; Hitler showed no philosophical sophistication. If any philosopher had an influence on him, it probably came from Schopenhauer (which he does briefly mention in Mein Kampf). Hans Frank, Hitler's personal lawyer, recalled that Hitler carried a copy of Schopenhauer's World as Will and Representation with him throughout World War I, but Hitler never revealed any appreciation of Friedrich Nietzsche or his philosophy.

We have already stated that Nietzsche was one of the influences of Frankfurt School denizen Max Horkheimer. Another member of the Frankfurt school was Herbert Marcuse. His grandson, Harold Marcuse, is, quite conveniently, a professor of German history at the University of California, Santa Barbara. So we have an assurance that nobody learns German history at that university. Interestingly, however, it does seem that these Frankfurt School Jews are also prominent among those promoting a connection of Hitler and Nietzsche. In this regard we have found an article published as a student research paper and written by Michael Kalish, a name popular among Jews, which is titled Friedrich Nietzsche's Influence on Hitler's Mein Kampf. Of course, as we have already seen, it cannot be proven that Nietzsche had any influence on Hitler, and the evidence in Mein Kampf is precisely the contrary. However Michael Kalish’s professor was Harold Marcuse.

More appropriately, many writers compare the jewish psychologist Sigmund Freud to Nietzsche, and speak of “striking resemblances” in their philosophies. According to the conclusion given in an abstract of a February, 1995 article from the British Journal of Psychiatry titled The influence of Nietzsche on Freud's ideas, archived at the National Center for Biotechnology Information at the U. S. National Library of Medicine, “Freud repeatedly stated that he had never read Nietzsche. Evidence contradicting this are his references to Nietzsche and his quotations and paraphrases of him, in causal conversation and his now published personal correspondence, as well as in his early and later writings.”

According to Cajus Fabricius in Positive Christianity and the Third Reich, Nietzsche was a naturalist who deified those who were supposedly in communion with Nature and are critical of culture. It seems that he may have made a good Green Party theorist and candidate. However naturalism is another form of Jewish materialism, as Fabricius also said, that:

Humanitarians there are who would glorify the social life of mankind as such, intelligentsia who consider thought to be the culmination of human life, aesthetes who regard art as the sublime in life, and there are also very doubtful revaluations such as the practical materialism of the Marxians or the naturalism of Nietzsche, all being philosophies of life that may be either included in the “Jewish-materialistic spirit” rejected by our Programme, or else are dangerously near to it. For the more mankind and the physical phenomena of Nature surrounding us are regarded as divine, the more quickly does the spirit of naturalism and materialism gain ground, and the more rapidly does the importance of spiritual values vanish, and the sensual spreads like rank growth and the animal in man clamours for its rights. In other words: the deification of mankind quickly degenerates into a deification of subhuman nature as has been proved by numerous instances where Marxism holds sway, but it is also to be found in other trends of thought as well.

Fabricius was elucidating the fact that Christianity is the viable opposite of the philosophy of the Jews expressed in the Protocols, even if he did not consciously realize that as an objective. He also rightly explained that Nietzsche’s philosophy was simply another form of Jewish materialism, and here in the Protocols if the Jews really did not claim to have been responsible for him, then at least Sergei Nilus understood that they were responsible for him, and that it was they who promoted him. If indeed they were not responsible directly, they certainly were responsible indirectly, as Nietzsche seems to be just another White European humanist intoxicated with the licentiousness of the Classics. His collapse and the loss of his mind at the relatively young age of 43, and his death at the age of 55, support the assertion, since he died of mercury poisoning, a treatment for syphilis, although the diagnosis has been challenged. In any event, Nietzsche announced the death of God, but it is obvious that God was the death of him.

Here we will read a relevant paragraph from Nesta Webster’s Secret Societies and Subversive Movements:

Here, then, we have a revolutionary movement which is anti-Socialist and even anti-Bolshevist, which tends to prove the opinion I have already expressed, that Bolshevism is only one phase of the world-conspiracy. But if we explain this by the old antagonism between the opposing revolutionary camps of Anarchy and Socialism, how are we to account for the fact that the same destructive purpose animates people who are neither Anarchist nor Socialist, but can only be ranged in the category of extreme reaction? Of this phase of the movement Nietzsche provides the supreme example. In his imprecations against "the Crucified," the advocate of autocracy and militarism rivals the most infuriated of revolutionary Socialists. The whole spirit of perversion is contained in the description of Nietzsche by his friend Georges Brandes: "His thoughts stole inquisitively along forbidden paths: 'This thing passes for a value. Can we not turn it upside-down? This is regarded as good. Is it not rather evil?'" What is this but Satanism? The case of Nietzsche is not to be explained away by the fact that he died raving mad, since a number of apparently sane people still profess for him unbounded admiration, and whilst deriding Socialism and even attacking Bolshevism join in the war against Christian civilization. The conspiracy therefore exists apart from so-called democratic circles.

We must agree with Nesta Webster in this aspect. We have previously touched on an idea expressed in Protocol No. 5, in Part 10 of this series on the Protocols, that the Jews had boasted that, concerning political matters, they would confuse Christian society with countless contradictory opinions. Here is what they said:

To control public opinion it is necessary to perplex it by the expression of numerous contradictory opinions until the GOYS get lost in the labyrinth, and come to understand that it is best to have no opinion on political questions. Such questions are not intended to be understood by the people, since only he who rules knows them. This is the first secret.

The second secret necessary for the success of governing consists in so multiplying popular failings, habits, passions, and conventional laws that no one will be able to disentangle himself in the chaos, and consequently, people will cease to understand each other. This measure would help us to sow dissension within all parties, to disintegrate all those collective forces which still do not wish to subjugate themselves to us; to discourage all individual initiative which might in any degree hamper our work.

Now if they carried this strategy out in the political arenas, why would they not extend it to the social, academic and religious arenas? They most certainly have, especially through the promotion of what they call ‘science’. It is not necessarily true that Nietzsche or Darwin had an active role in confusing the masses, but rather, the constant promotion of men such as Nietzsche or Darwin, and what the Jews in turn printed concerning them, have caused much confusion. A truly Christian society would not perpetuate the mindless drivel of Nietzsche, whose works were obscure in his own lifetime, or Darwin, whose theories have never been proven although they are accepted and persistently promoted by the Jewish-controlled society as if having been proven.

This phenomenon is explained in the final paragraphs of the second of the Protocols:

PROTOCOL NO. 2 Continued:

It is essential that we take into consideration the modern ideas, temperaments, and tendencies of peoples in order that no mistakes in politics and in guiding administrative affairs may be made. The triumph of our system, parts of whose mechanism must be adapted in accordance with the temperament of the peoples with whom we come in contact, cannot be realized unless its practical application is based upon a resume of the past as related to the present.

There is one great force in the hands of modern states which arouses thought movements among the people. That is the press. The role of the press is to indicate necessary demands, to register complaints of the people, and to express and foment dissatisfaction. The triumph of free babbling is incarnated in the press; but governments were unable to profit by this power and it has fallen into our hands. Through it we have attained influence, while remaining in the background. Thanks to the press, we have gathered gold in our hands, although we had to take it from rivers of blood and tears.

But it cost us the sacrifice of many of our own people. Every sacrifice on our part is worth a thousand Goys before God.

That last sentence is reminiscent of the Talmud.

The triumph of free babbling is evident over these past few decades, as we see so many people accept ideas and opinions based on their own emotions, and there are few who actually care to investigate the facts. By this method, Jewry has created thousands of rabbit holes for nationalists to fall into, and most of them never find their way out.

For the rest of this conclusion to Protocol No. 2, we will elaborate in the near future, Yahweh God be willing.