According Bormann's adjutant Heinrich Heim, he recalled Hitler saying the following at the table:
𝐃𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝: 𝟏𝟎. 𝐎𝐤𝐭𝐨𝐛𝐞𝐫 𝟏𝟗𝟒𝟏
"... This corresponds to Nature's principle of allowing selection to occur eternally anew through struggle: the law of existence demands uninterrupted killing so that the better lives. Christianity is REBELLION against this basic [Natural] law, protest against creation; If carried out consistently, it would lead to the breeding of the inferior" [1] (https://archive.org/details/table-talk-german-jochmann_202310/Table-Talk_German-Jochmann/page/59/mode/1up)
How do we know Hitler had said this? Hitler's personal friend Walther Hewel documented this same exact conversation within his personal diary confirming that Hitler did in fact say such things. This is his identical recollections:
According Bormann's adjutant Heinrich Heim, he recalled Hitler saying the following at the table:
𝗗𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱: 𝟭𝟰.𝟭𝟮.𝟭𝟵𝟰𝟭
"Minister Kerrl wanted to create a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity in the NOBLEST sense. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THIS IS POSSIBLE; the reason lies in Christianity itself. The one thing I could still accept is the Christianity of papal decay; factually speaking it is dangerous, propagandistically it is a lie. But a pope who, even if he was a criminal, employed great masters and created many beauties, is more sympathetic to me than a Protestant pastor who goes back to the original state of Christianity. Pure Christianity, so-called ORIGINAL CHRISTIANITY, aims to make Christian theory true: It leads to the annihilation of humanity, is naked Bolshevism in metaphysical disguise" [1] (https://archive.org/details/table-talk-german-jochmann_202310/Table-Talk_German-Jochmann/page/125/mode/1up)
But how exactly can we confirm that Hitler had actually said this? Alfred Rosenberg, who is documented to be a witness of this specific table talk, writes in his diary on the exact day it happened paraphrased the exact same thoughts of what Heim reports:
𝗗𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱: 𝟭𝟰.𝟭𝟮.𝟭𝟵𝟰𝟭
"The Führer said that Kerrl's motives were certainly only NOBLE, but that it was a hopeless attempt to unite National Socialism and Christianity. Me: There have been so many attempts to save the "pure doctrine", but these experiments have all failed. The Führer: This restoration of ORIGINAL CHRISTIANITY would be the worst thing, as Julius II etc. who promoted great artists, were still less dangerous than primitive Christianity, despite all their crookedness." [2] (https://archive.org/details/alfred-rosenberg-diary/page/122/mode/1up?q=Kerrl)
According to Bormann's adjutant Henry Picker, Hitler remarked that the churches in recent times had saved face somewhat by retreating to the position that biblical stories could be interpreted symbolically. He took the side of evolution over Church doctrines:
𝗗𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱: 𝟮𝟰.𝟭𝟬.𝟭𝟵𝟰𝟭
"Today at 10.00 a.m. in the religion lesson, the story of creation is told using the words of the Bible, while in the natural history lesson at 11.00 a.m. the theory of evolution is presented. The two are absolutely contradictory. As a schoolboy, I sensed the contradiction and got stuck into it, and I held up to the professor the second lesson what the first lesson had said, so that the teachers were in despair! The church helps itself by explaining that the depiction of the Bible is to be understood symbolically. If someone had claimed this 400 years ago, they would have been roasted to death amidst pious hymns. [...] Science is nothing more than a ladder that you climb. With each step, you see a little further. But science cannot see to the end of things either." [1] (https://archive.org/details/table-talk-german-jochmann_202310/Table-Talk_German-Henry/page/73/mode/1up)
Alfred Rosenberg's representative at the FHQ, Werner Koeppen, confirms this table talk to be legit when he reports Hitler to be saying the same sentiment on the same exact day:
𝗗𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱: 𝟮𝟰.𝟭𝟬.𝟭𝟵𝟰𝟭
"The Führer then spoke about the relationship between the church and foreign science. The dogmatic church no longer has the power and strength to oppose the findings of science with the stake as it did in three centuries. [...] in the first hour of geology class, schoolchildren are taught the formation of the earth according to our current scientific knowledge. In the second hour, the priest comes and teaches the formation of the earth according to the creation account in the Bible. No scientific knowledge is final, like an infinite ladder, after every step there is a new one, and the church takes advantage of this fact by contrasting this change with its supposedly eternal doctrine of salvation." [2] (https://catalog.archives.gov/id/255115211?objectPage=844)
"From a conversation that took place with the Führer:
The missionaries who came to Germania to spread Christianity were political commissars. The Roman state was destroyed by Christianity; the so-called RELIGION OF PAUL revolutionized the slaves and the subhuman elements of Roman society. Christianity is in every age characterized by its cultural effects: the Roman artists, the Roman state, created the finest works of art; the so-called works of art made by the Christians of those years that have been preserved in the catacombs show Bolshevik-futuristic traits.
The whole magnitude of the contrast between barbarism and Christianity is revealed in the hygiene both inspired: We still to this day wonder at the Roman aqueducts and baths! In contrast, Christianity suppressed every form of sanitation made necessary by nature; a man became a saint by living in his own excrement. Even today it is forbidden for nuns to bathe undressed. They take their baths just like children in schools run by the "Englische Fräulein,"* in a long chemise.
How would the world look if Christianity had not come and scientific discovery had not stopped for around 1500 years? The extent to which Christianity destroyed the so-called barbarian culture is something we can hardly imagine today. Something similar might have happened if Thomas Münzert had established himself and his doctrine. What we need are history books by National Socialist scholars who possess a strong realistic sense and therefore do not come up with completely idiotic hypotheses."
In his notes, he documents that Hitler talked about religion, with a mention of Christianity. He reported that Hitler had said:
"It is the eternal natural law of the stronger that gives Germany, before history, the right to subjugate these inferior peoples, to dominate them and to force them to do useful work. This has nothing to do with Christian ethics, but precisely because it corresponds to the older and more proven laws of nature, it is intended to last. The Führer then spoke of the church and said that National Socialism must be extremely careful not to imitate church ritual customs. The National Socialist concept of God could only be based on the laws of nature and life to the extent that they were accessible to the human mind. Only if this concept of God can be brought into harmony with the respective scientific knowledge of the time and does not impose anything unreasonable on the reason of the German people will it last, but everything else is pointless and harmful."
"He [Bormann] always had a jacket pocket full of blank cards or sheets, cards, slightly stiffer paper. And he also always had pencils, short stubs of pencil so to speak, which were easy to carry in his pocket without breaking anything. He always had them with him and immediately jotted down his thoughts or these snippets of conversation or whatever."
— 𝐌𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐧 𝐁𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐧 𝐉𝐫, citation from the film "Hitlers Helfer" Bormann - Der Schattenmann
This is corroborated by Albert Speer's experience being a member of Hitler's inner circle and being at various table talks:
"If in the course of such a monologue Hitler had pronounced a more negative judgment upon the church, Bormann would undoubtedly have taken from his jacket pocket one of the white cards he always carried with him. For he noted down all Hitler's remarks that seemed to him important; and there was hardly anything he wrote down more eagerly than deprecating comments on the church. At the time I assumed that he was gathering material for a biography of Hitler."
And lastly in another writing of Albert Speer, "Spandau: The Secret Diaries", he begins to write the following on the topic of him reading Hitler's Table Talk:
All in all, Albert Speer, out of the many, confirm the authenticity of Hitler's Table Talk via testimony and first hand experience of being at the table. Speer also happens to note down a conversation with Hitler in his memoir where Hitler speaks about why did the Germans had to have Christianity and instead a better religion. He writes:
"You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?" [3] (https://www.google.com/books/edition/Inside_the_Third_Reich/XLSa_RIDHMUC?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA96&printsec=frontcover)
So Speer himself also adds to the endless collection of testimonies of Hitler's inner circle on his thoughts on Christianity.
"In the table talks Hitler is also frequently (https://t.me/NSHeathenry/209) depicted as criticizing every effort of the Church to meddle in politics, expressing the idea that organized religion (Christianity in particular) cannot be done away with until a viable alternative ideology is in place and the view that the Church could only lose a conflict with science (https://t.me/NSHeathenry/365). These views were developed (https://t.me/NSHeathenry/793) and PRESENT (https://t.me/NSHeathenry/392) already in Mein Kampf, and thus contain essentially nothing new at all. What the table talks do add to what we find in Mein Kampf, however, is the strong criticism of Christianity and Christian dogma. We see the same in other independent sources, too, such as WERNER KOEPPEN’S NOTES (https://t.me/NSHeathenry/918) and Rosenberg’s (https://t.me/NSHeathenry/703) and Goebbels’s (https://t.me/NSHeathenry/269) diaries, SO WE CAN BE SURE THAT HE EXPRESSED SUCH VIEWS ..."
Hitler's hatred of Christianity has been proven completely valid by time. Christians overwhelmingly these days revere Jews and negroes. They are one of the primary importers of negroes and Hispanics to Europe and Mexico respectively.
Christian churches were instrumental in browbeating white southerners into accepting the civil rights regime and Afrikaaners into accepting black majority rule.
Christians also regularly sabotage white collectivizing by prioritizing religion over race. Look at E. Michael Jones, Sarah Stock, and the other trad caths.
And they are right to do so. Christianity is not a racial religion and its about this world. This world is after all fallen and the domain of Lucifer. Their main focus is on the next world and living a virtuous life.
It makes perfect sense for a Christian to go to Africa and feed the blacks and explode their population further. They are saving ''God's children''and bringing more of them into the world.
As for Slavs, Hitler's views on them changed later on. He in fact even said that the future of Europe will belong to the stronger men of the East and that Russians would become the dominant power down the line.
He also spoke highly of Poles later on and praised their creative ability, and called for their incorporation into the Reich.
Excellent research again as usual. I don't know what your reasoning behind all of this is (Your national socialism article, your Europa the Last Battle article and now this). I will give you benefit of the doubt and say you as a philosopher just want the truth to be out there. That's what I got from your articles. If that is your intention then thank you. God bless from Croatia.
The reasoning behind this is for Keith to cynically ingratiate himself with Jews by way of ham-fisted deradicalisation articles, this latest one cherry picking those aspects of table talks most likely to offend the most people, and ignoring further context in the talks or changes of position later (see Caspar's comment)
Who Keith thinks he is appealing to is unclear. Nobody goes to church in Europe anymore, including himself.
You're leaving out the fact that Heim's version is also off of memory and not from any original notes. The notes they found in the archives for Heim were edited. You're severely misrepresenting the research in Hitler's Redux.
Also Goebbel's diary was held by the Soviets, as Rosenberg's diary was held by the FBI/Holocaust museum. The idea that they weren't tampered with or mistranslated is hilarious.
I mean Keith clearly mentions in this essay that Heim reconstructed what Hitler said from memory, if you’re going to be critical at least base it on what is actually in the essay. The fact that there are 3 people who likes this comment of yours is embarrassing because it tells me 3 other people clearly did not read the essay as closely as they should.
It is also absurd to suggest that reconstructing what anyone said off memory is somehow unreliable. Of course it is generally not going to be as reliable as penning down a direct quote from Hitler, but there’s no reason why memory needs to be flawed to the point of being unreliable every single time. Is yours for example so flawed that you cannot even remember the general point of some book you’ve read a while ago?
“If someone doesn’t agree 100% with National Socialism, he is a subversive”
You National Socialists are pathetic and remind me why I stopped being one. You behave like you are in a cult. No, scratch that, you ARE in a cult that worships National Socialism and Hitler. Next you’ll tell me how no one stops being a National Socialist, which will only further prove my point and why no one should listen to any of you.
Also, you clearly wrote that Keith left out the fact that Heim reconstructed everything from memory and now you say he’s just “paying lipservice”? Do you take me for a fool?
He's simply a liar, isolated demands for rigor is a fallacy/undermining technique. Table talks is perfectly valid and should be taken exactly as Hitler's real thoughts and words. Borman and the others were very meticulous in all their work, there is no chance they just made things up and twisted anything.
Also I think the argument that Hitler’s words would have been treated as gospel is very strong. Hitler would’ve been seen as a messianic figure for many. His word would have been regarded as law and tampering with what he said would be considered sacrilege.
I can already see it coming though. Some National Socialist would explode and come at me frothing in the mouth about how I dared to agree with a “mainstream historian” on something and I’m therefore now a “shill”. Never mind that the reason is that I found the reasoning to be sound in this case.
Really the issue is with Christians, they don't want to accept the established facts that National Socialism was anti-Christian, so they end up lying online over and over. It's all rather pathetic and wastes everyone's time. You also correctly note they will attack you personally if you simply say the truth
Nah, I won’t keep an eye out for it, just like I don’t care for what members of TV race say. Enjoy yelling into the void.
Anyone who thinks Hitler was a “white nationalist” instead of a German nationalist that he actually is should not be taken seriously in the first place
None of those people claim Goebbels or Rosenberg's diaries are tampered with you dumb liar. No historian thinks such nonsense, all historians agree that National Socialists were anti- Christian and Table Talks is nothing unusual when you look at all the other evidence.
NS hated Christianity, only a liar says otherwise. Deal with the thousands of reports from the SS documenting their severe bullying and destruction of Christianity, arresting priests for teaching banned bible verses etc.
Nilsson is antifa trash, anyone citing him to begin with is announcing they are an idiot. He has zero qualifications on anything Third Reich and is simply a freak that thinks christians are all fascists, thus made these stupid books to lie to people.
Nilsson's conclusions fall short of the evidence he provides and this extends far beyond Hitler's alleged remarks about Christianity or the Church. It is well known that Hitler fell out with Cardinal Faulhaber of Munich and that the church produced the Encyclical Mit Brennender Sorge (1937) around the same time.
Contradictory accounts were given of the origin of documents, a lot of money changed hands (at a time of austerity) and Genoud was a forger. In light of Nilsson as a whole, the Table Talks are considerably less reliable than Mein Kampf, his published speeches and the war conference records. The use of them is partly to validate the idea of a "secret" doctrine or conspiracy at odds with what was said in public.
No, I meant that he could have gone further at the end of his book in casting aspersions on the reliability or genuineness of the published documents, in light of the deceptions and contradictions he uncovered in the provenance and transmission of the real or purported originals.
I know that, and? A nationalist doesn’t need to like National Socialism. If anything, I can think of plenty of reasons why nationalists wouldn’t necessarily like National Socialism and Hitler. Keith has always been open about being a nationalist concerned with the fate of the Irish first and foremost because, spoiler alert, he’s Irish.
>continually sides with mainstream (Jewish) moral framework
Examples other than Keith trying to be a consistent Platonist and nationalist? Because being a Platonist and nationalist is anything but mainstream and popular in this day and age.
Why? Because he said something you didn’t agree with?
AFAIK Adam Green is a staunch neo-pagan, which Keith assuredly is not. If anything, he has explicitly stated that paganism is irrelevant and not a solution for declining spirituality in the West.
Do we know if Hitler had plans to de-christianize germany a la Stalin or he was more akin to Napoleon: privately atheist/unchristian but is fine with a christian Germany longterm?
I assume people like Himmler would have pushed for some NeoPagan policies or at least heavy investment into NeoPagan monuments/movements. And maybe other nazi hierarchs might have been willing to secularise Germany even further. Were there any of the Nazi Leadership position that were particularly religiously christian to begin with or to push back?
There was certainly a strong movement to re-paganize Germany within the NSDAP. If Himmler had succeeded Hitler at any time during the fun times, that probably would have gotten a lot of traction. Many such decent youtube videos on the subject.
Excellent little piece of research, thank you
Thank you!
Is it? Carrier himself would disagree:
“The grand ‘myth’ of the Table Talk is that it is a collection of the verbatim words of Hitler recorded by eyewitnesses… This turns out to be untrue.”
Carrier is a leftist that thinks Christians are fascists, same as Nilsson. Neither are qualified to speak on table talks or anything WW2.
Did you read the article?
Dropping some more details to solidify your case, the attacks on TT are logical fallacies/special pleading/isolated demands for rigor..
Corroboratory Evidence on Table Talks entries:
------------------------------------------------------
According Bormann's adjutant Heinrich Heim, he recalled Hitler saying the following at the table:
𝐃𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝: 𝟏𝟎. 𝐎𝐤𝐭𝐨𝐛𝐞𝐫 𝟏𝟗𝟒𝟏
"... This corresponds to Nature's principle of allowing selection to occur eternally anew through struggle: the law of existence demands uninterrupted killing so that the better lives. Christianity is REBELLION against this basic [Natural] law, protest against creation; If carried out consistently, it would lead to the breeding of the inferior" [1] (https://archive.org/details/table-talk-german-jochmann_202310/Table-Talk_German-Jochmann/page/59/mode/1up)
How do we know Hitler had said this? Hitler's personal friend Walther Hewel documented this same exact conversation within his personal diary confirming that Hitler did in fact say such things. This is his identical recollections:
𝐃𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝: 𝟏𝟎. 𝐎𝐤𝐭𝐨𝐛𝐞𝐫 𝟏𝟗𝟒𝟏
"Führer at the table: Christianity is REBELLION against creation. It is the reversal of all natural laws, which, even in the smallest process of fertilization, are based on struggle and selection of the best." [2] (https://web.archive.org/web/20240113124835/https://fpp.co.uk/Hitler/Hewel/Tgb_1941.html)
https://t.me/NSHeathenry/1019
-------------------------------------------------------
According Bormann's adjutant Heinrich Heim, he recalled Hitler saying the following at the table:
𝗗𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱: 𝟭𝟰.𝟭𝟮.𝟭𝟵𝟰𝟭
"Minister Kerrl wanted to create a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity in the NOBLEST sense. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THIS IS POSSIBLE; the reason lies in Christianity itself. The one thing I could still accept is the Christianity of papal decay; factually speaking it is dangerous, propagandistically it is a lie. But a pope who, even if he was a criminal, employed great masters and created many beauties, is more sympathetic to me than a Protestant pastor who goes back to the original state of Christianity. Pure Christianity, so-called ORIGINAL CHRISTIANITY, aims to make Christian theory true: It leads to the annihilation of humanity, is naked Bolshevism in metaphysical disguise" [1] (https://archive.org/details/table-talk-german-jochmann_202310/Table-Talk_German-Jochmann/page/125/mode/1up)
[facsimile of the original note] (https://archive.org/details/table-talk-german-jochmann_202310/Table-Talk_German-Jochmann/page/n366/mode/1up?view=theater)
But how exactly can we confirm that Hitler had actually said this? Alfred Rosenberg, who is documented to be a witness of this specific table talk, writes in his diary on the exact day it happened paraphrased the exact same thoughts of what Heim reports:
𝗗𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱: 𝟭𝟰.𝟭𝟮.𝟭𝟵𝟰𝟭
"The Führer said that Kerrl's motives were certainly only NOBLE, but that it was a hopeless attempt to unite National Socialism and Christianity. Me: There have been so many attempts to save the "pure doctrine", but these experiments have all failed. The Führer: This restoration of ORIGINAL CHRISTIANITY would be the worst thing, as Julius II etc. who promoted great artists, were still less dangerous than primitive Christianity, despite all their crookedness." [2] (https://archive.org/details/alfred-rosenberg-diary/page/122/mode/1up?q=Kerrl)
[facsimile of the entry] (https://collections.ushmm.org/search/catalog/irn73077?rsc=176524&cv=626&x=569&y=1642&z=1.0e-4)
https://t.me/NSHeathenry/1020?single
-------------------------------------------------------
According to Bormann's adjutant Henry Picker, Hitler remarked that the churches in recent times had saved face somewhat by retreating to the position that biblical stories could be interpreted symbolically. He took the side of evolution over Church doctrines:
𝗗𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱: 𝟮𝟰.𝟭𝟬.𝟭𝟵𝟰𝟭
"Today at 10.00 a.m. in the religion lesson, the story of creation is told using the words of the Bible, while in the natural history lesson at 11.00 a.m. the theory of evolution is presented. The two are absolutely contradictory. As a schoolboy, I sensed the contradiction and got stuck into it, and I held up to the professor the second lesson what the first lesson had said, so that the teachers were in despair! The church helps itself by explaining that the depiction of the Bible is to be understood symbolically. If someone had claimed this 400 years ago, they would have been roasted to death amidst pious hymns. [...] Science is nothing more than a ladder that you climb. With each step, you see a little further. But science cannot see to the end of things either." [1] (https://archive.org/details/table-talk-german-jochmann_202310/Table-Talk_German-Henry/page/73/mode/1up)
Alfred Rosenberg's representative at the FHQ, Werner Koeppen, confirms this table talk to be legit when he reports Hitler to be saying the same sentiment on the same exact day:
𝗗𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱: 𝟮𝟰.𝟭𝟬.𝟭𝟵𝟰𝟭
"The Führer then spoke about the relationship between the church and foreign science. The dogmatic church no longer has the power and strength to oppose the findings of science with the stake as it did in three centuries. [...] in the first hour of geology class, schoolchildren are taught the formation of the earth according to our current scientific knowledge. In the second hour, the priest comes and teaches the formation of the earth according to the creation account in the Bible. No scientific knowledge is final, like an infinite ladder, after every step there is a new one, and the church takes advantage of this fact by contrasting this change with its supposedly eternal doctrine of salvation." [2] (https://catalog.archives.gov/id/255115211?objectPage=844)
https://t.me/NSHeathenry/1022
-------------------------------------------------------
𝐌𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐮𝐦 𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐚 𝐦𝐞𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐲 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧 𝐁𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐧'𝐬 𝐨𝐟𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐞
"From a conversation that took place with the Führer:
The missionaries who came to Germania to spread Christianity were political commissars. The Roman state was destroyed by Christianity; the so-called RELIGION OF PAUL revolutionized the slaves and the subhuman elements of Roman society. Christianity is in every age characterized by its cultural effects: the Roman artists, the Roman state, created the finest works of art; the so-called works of art made by the Christians of those years that have been preserved in the catacombs show Bolshevik-futuristic traits.
The whole magnitude of the contrast between barbarism and Christianity is revealed in the hygiene both inspired: We still to this day wonder at the Roman aqueducts and baths! In contrast, Christianity suppressed every form of sanitation made necessary by nature; a man became a saint by living in his own excrement. Even today it is forbidden for nuns to bathe undressed. They take their baths just like children in schools run by the "Englische Fräulein,"* in a long chemise.
How would the world look if Christianity had not come and scientific discovery had not stopped for around 1500 years? The extent to which Christianity destroyed the so-called barbarian culture is something we can hardly imagine today. Something similar might have happened if Thomas Münzert had established himself and his doctrine. What we need are history books by National Socialist scholars who possess a strong realistic sense and therefore do not come up with completely idiotic hypotheses."
𝗦𝗶𝗴𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗕𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗻'𝘀 𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗱𝘄𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗻 𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗻𝗮𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲
Source: Bundesarchiv Berlin-Lichterfelde, "Vorlagen für Reichsleiter Bormann". Christentum. - Vermerk Bormanns über eine Unterhaltung bei Hitler, 26. Jan. 1943, BArch NS 6/166 (https://invenio.bundesarchiv.de/invenio/direktlink/8832de21-0c2a-40dc-b9dc-5b56f9335b18/) p.101-103
https://t.me/NSHeathenry/1025
-------------------------------------------------------
𝐖𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐞𝐫 𝐊𝐨𝐞𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐧 (𝐀𝐥𝐟𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐑𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐠’𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐅𝐇𝐐) 𝐧𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐝𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐝𝐨𝐜𝐮𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐓𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐮𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐇𝐢𝐭𝐥𝐞𝐫 𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐅𝐇𝐐.
In his notes, he documents that Hitler talked about religion, with a mention of Christianity. He reported that Hitler had said:
"It is the eternal natural law of the stronger that gives Germany, before history, the right to subjugate these inferior peoples, to dominate them and to force them to do useful work. This has nothing to do with Christian ethics, but precisely because it corresponds to the older and more proven laws of nature, it is intended to last. The Führer then spoke of the church and said that National Socialism must be extremely careful not to imitate church ritual customs. The National Socialist concept of God could only be based on the laws of nature and life to the extent that they were accessible to the human mind. Only if this concept of God can be brought into harmony with the respective scientific knowledge of the time and does not impose anything unreasonable on the reason of the German people will it last, but everything else is pointless and harmful."
— Führerheadquarters, September 24, 1941.
Source: NARA, RG 242, T-84, Roll 387-EAP 105/44 (https://catalog.archives.gov/id/255115211?objectPage=805)p.805-806
(Can also be found in the German archives at: Bundesarchiv Berlin-Lichterfelde, BArch R 6/34a)
https://t.me/NSHeathenry/918
𝐌𝐀𝐑𝐓𝐈𝐍 𝐁𝐎𝐑𝐌𝐀𝐍𝐍 𝐇𝐀𝐃 𝐀 𝐂𝐎𝐍𝐅𝐈𝐑𝐌𝐄𝐃 𝐓𝐄𝐍𝐃𝐄𝐍𝐂𝐘 𝐓𝐎 𝐍𝐎𝐓𝐄 𝐃𝐎𝐖𝐍 𝐇𝐈𝐓𝐋𝐄𝐑'𝐒 𝐖𝐎𝐑𝐃𝐒 𝐃𝐔𝐑𝐈𝐍𝐆 𝐇𝐈𝐒 𝐌𝐎𝐍𝐎𝐋𝐎𝐆𝐔𝐄𝐒
Martin Bormann's son recalled the following:
"He [Bormann] always had a jacket pocket full of blank cards or sheets, cards, slightly stiffer paper. And he also always had pencils, short stubs of pencil so to speak, which were easy to carry in his pocket without breaking anything. He always had them with him and immediately jotted down his thoughts or these snippets of conversation or whatever."
— 𝐌𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐧 𝐁𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐧 𝐉𝐫, citation from the film "Hitlers Helfer" Bormann - Der Schattenmann
This is corroborated by Albert Speer's experience being a member of Hitler's inner circle and being at various table talks:
"If in the course of such a monologue Hitler had pronounced a more negative judgment upon the church, Bormann would undoubtedly have taken from his jacket pocket one of the white cards he always carried with him. For he noted down all Hitler's remarks that seemed to him important; and there was hardly anything he wrote down more eagerly than deprecating comments on the church. At the time I assumed that he was gathering material for a biography of Hitler."
— 𝐀𝐥𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐭 𝐒𝐩𝐞𝐞𝐫, citation from his memoirs (https://archive.org/details/Inside_the_Third_Reich_Albert_Speer/page/95/mode/1up) p.95
https://t.me/NSHeathenry/1024
-------------------------------------------------------
And lastly in another writing of Albert Speer, "Spandau: The Secret Diaries", he begins to write the following on the topic of him reading Hitler's Table Talk:
"But as far as the ideas are concerned, NOTHING in the book [Hitlers Tischgespräche im Führerhauptquartier 1941–1942] (https://t.me/NSHeathenry/616) has been falsified. ALMOST ALL OF WHAT PICKER PUTS INTO HITLER'S MOUTH I LIKEWISE HEARD HITLER SAY IN THE SAME OR SIMILAR PHRASES. Only much of the super structure has been dropped, and vivid monologues have been produced out of agonizing long-windedness." [2] (https://ia902600.us.archive.org/35/items/the-ted-k-archive-texts-backup-april-2023/a/as/albert-speer-spandau.pdf)
All in all, Albert Speer, out of the many, confirm the authenticity of Hitler's Table Talk via testimony and first hand experience of being at the table. Speer also happens to note down a conversation with Hitler in his memoir where Hitler speaks about why did the Germans had to have Christianity and instead a better religion. He writes:
"You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?" [3] (https://www.google.com/books/edition/Inside_the_Third_Reich/XLSa_RIDHMUC?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA96&printsec=frontcover)
So Speer himself also adds to the endless collection of testimonies of Hitler's inner circle on his thoughts on Christianity.
https://t.me/NSHeathenry/782
-------------------------------------------------------
"In the table talks Hitler is also frequently (https://t.me/NSHeathenry/209) depicted as criticizing every effort of the Church to meddle in politics, expressing the idea that organized religion (Christianity in particular) cannot be done away with until a viable alternative ideology is in place and the view that the Church could only lose a conflict with science (https://t.me/NSHeathenry/365). These views were developed (https://t.me/NSHeathenry/793) and PRESENT (https://t.me/NSHeathenry/392) already in Mein Kampf, and thus contain essentially nothing new at all. What the table talks do add to what we find in Mein Kampf, however, is the strong criticism of Christianity and Christian dogma. We see the same in other independent sources, too, such as WERNER KOEPPEN’S NOTES (https://t.me/NSHeathenry/918) and Rosenberg’s (https://t.me/NSHeathenry/703) and Goebbels’s (https://t.me/NSHeathenry/269) diaries, SO WE CAN BE SURE THAT HE EXPRESSED SUCH VIEWS ..."
— 𝐇𝐢𝐭𝐥𝐞𝐫 𝐫𝐞𝐝𝐮𝐱 𝐛𝐲 𝐌𝐢𝐤𝐚𝐞𝐥 𝐍𝐢𝐥𝐬𝐬𝐨𝐧 (https://ia801208.us.archive.org/32/items/hitler-redux-by-mikael-nilsson/Hitler%20Redux%20%20The%20In...%20by%20Mikael%20Nilsson%20%28z-lib.org%29.pdf) p.42
https://t.me/NSHeathenry/920
It’s great that Grzegorz Braun, the firefighter hero supported you.
Hitler's hatred of Christianity has been proven completely valid by time. Christians overwhelmingly these days revere Jews and negroes. They are one of the primary importers of negroes and Hispanics to Europe and Mexico respectively.
Christian churches were instrumental in browbeating white southerners into accepting the civil rights regime and Afrikaaners into accepting black majority rule.
Christians also regularly sabotage white collectivizing by prioritizing religion over race. Look at E. Michael Jones, Sarah Stock, and the other trad caths.
And they are right to do so. Christianity is not a racial religion and its about this world. This world is after all fallen and the domain of Lucifer. Their main focus is on the next world and living a virtuous life.
It makes perfect sense for a Christian to go to Africa and feed the blacks and explode their population further. They are saving ''God's children''and bringing more of them into the world.
As for Slavs, Hitler's views on them changed later on. He in fact even said that the future of Europe will belong to the stronger men of the East and that Russians would become the dominant power down the line.
He also spoke highly of Poles later on and praised their creative ability, and called for their incorporation into the Reich.
https://qr.ae/pAjV8s
These quotes come from the table talks which you are citing.
Excellent research again as usual. I don't know what your reasoning behind all of this is (Your national socialism article, your Europa the Last Battle article and now this). I will give you benefit of the doubt and say you as a philosopher just want the truth to be out there. That's what I got from your articles. If that is your intention then thank you. God bless from Croatia.
The reasoning behind this is for Keith to cynically ingratiate himself with Jews by way of ham-fisted deradicalisation articles, this latest one cherry picking those aspects of table talks most likely to offend the most people, and ignoring further context in the talks or changes of position later (see Caspar's comment)
Who Keith thinks he is appealing to is unclear. Nobody goes to church in Europe anymore, including himself.
Thank you, that clears up a lot of related uncertainty.
Unattributed notes clear it up? Listen to the man himself not some wishy washy notes
To my mind, the most convincing single piece of evidence is the multiple attributions for the "Christianity and the pox" sentiment.
Excuse me, I meant multiple attestations.
You're leaving out the fact that Heim's version is also off of memory and not from any original notes. The notes they found in the archives for Heim were edited. You're severely misrepresenting the research in Hitler's Redux.
Also Goebbel's diary was held by the Soviets, as Rosenberg's diary was held by the FBI/Holocaust museum. The idea that they weren't tampered with or mistranslated is hilarious.
I mean Keith clearly mentions in this essay that Heim reconstructed what Hitler said from memory, if you’re going to be critical at least base it on what is actually in the essay. The fact that there are 3 people who likes this comment of yours is embarrassing because it tells me 3 other people clearly did not read the essay as closely as they should.
It is also absurd to suggest that reconstructing what anyone said off memory is somehow unreliable. Of course it is generally not going to be as reliable as penning down a direct quote from Hitler, but there’s no reason why memory needs to be flawed to the point of being unreliable every single time. Is yours for example so flawed that you cannot even remember the general point of some book you’ve read a while ago?
What Keith did was take half a paragraph out of context while playing some lipservice to the research in the book.
The Author specifically says that Table Talk is NOT the words of hitler and should not be used as such.
He is calling for a full evaluation of everything to see how much of it is completely false based off his own research.
As for memory, memory is unreliable. Some of the things that were written were months old and based of single words.
But you know - nice job defending a subversive.
“If someone doesn’t agree 100% with National Socialism, he is a subversive”
You National Socialists are pathetic and remind me why I stopped being one. You behave like you are in a cult. No, scratch that, you ARE in a cult that worships National Socialism and Hitler. Next you’ll tell me how no one stops being a National Socialist, which will only further prove my point and why no one should listen to any of you.
Also, you clearly wrote that Keith left out the fact that Heim reconstructed everything from memory and now you say he’s just “paying lipservice”? Do you take me for a fool?
He's simply a liar, isolated demands for rigor is a fallacy/undermining technique. Table talks is perfectly valid and should be taken exactly as Hitler's real thoughts and words. Borman and the others were very meticulous in all their work, there is no chance they just made things up and twisted anything.
Also I think the argument that Hitler’s words would have been treated as gospel is very strong. Hitler would’ve been seen as a messianic figure for many. His word would have been regarded as law and tampering with what he said would be considered sacrilege.
I can already see it coming though. Some National Socialist would explode and come at me frothing in the mouth about how I dared to agree with a “mainstream historian” on something and I’m therefore now a “shill”. Never mind that the reason is that I found the reasoning to be sound in this case.
Really the issue is with Christians, they don't want to accept the established facts that National Socialism was anti-Christian, so they end up lying online over and over. It's all rather pathetic and wastes everyone's time. You also correctly note they will attack you personally if you simply say the truth
Table Talks is NOT the words of hitler. it's the words of Bormann.
Bormann wasn't meticulous - we have proof he changed things.
You're a fool.
"if somebody lies about National Socialism he is a subversive just like the jews"
I don't care what you think. If you lie about White history you are subversive.
It's fine. I'll write an article here that destroys Keith. Keep an eye out for it.
Nah, I won’t keep an eye out for it, just like I don’t care for what members of TV race say. Enjoy yelling into the void.
Anyone who thinks Hitler was a “white nationalist” instead of a German nationalist that he actually is should not be taken seriously in the first place
Show us a single historian that thinks Goebbels or Rosenberg's diaries are tampered with. Laughable cope
Adreas Hillgruber.
Gordon A. Craig.
Ralf Georg Reuth.
Henry Ashby Turner Jr.
Gotz Aly.
Eric A Johnson.
Jurgen Matthaus.
get rektd.
None of those people claim Goebbels or Rosenberg's diaries are tampered with you dumb liar. No historian thinks such nonsense, all historians agree that National Socialists were anti- Christian and Table Talks is nothing unusual when you look at all the other evidence.
Lol.
> Show us a historian
> Shows you historian
> reeeeeeeeeeeee
You're a dope
https://odysee.com/@WhiteArchives:a/nsdapchristian:f
NS hated Christianity, only a liar says otherwise. Deal with the thousands of reports from the SS documenting their severe bullying and destruction of Christianity, arresting priests for teaching banned bible verses etc.
Let me guess do they also have unattributed authors 😂
Nilsson is antifa trash, anyone citing him to begin with is announcing they are an idiot. He has zero qualifications on anything Third Reich and is simply a freak that thinks christians are all fascists, thus made these stupid books to lie to people.
He's pro Ukraine and a Neo con - not antifa.
And who cares - debunk his research.
You can't.
Cope and seethe
Nilsson's conclusions fall short of the evidence he provides and this extends far beyond Hitler's alleged remarks about Christianity or the Church. It is well known that Hitler fell out with Cardinal Faulhaber of Munich and that the church produced the Encyclical Mit Brennender Sorge (1937) around the same time.
Contradictory accounts were given of the origin of documents, a lot of money changed hands (at a time of austerity) and Genoud was a forger. In light of Nilsson as a whole, the Table Talks are considerably less reliable than Mein Kampf, his published speeches and the war conference records. The use of them is partly to validate the idea of a "secret" doctrine or conspiracy at odds with what was said in public.
>Nilsson's conclusions fall short of the evidence he provides
I believe you meant to say his evidence falls short of his conclusions.
No, I meant that he could have gone further at the end of his book in casting aspersions on the reliability or genuineness of the published documents, in light of the deceptions and contradictions he uncovered in the provenance and transmission of the real or purported originals.
In that case we should ask him what he thinks of Keith's characterization.
Excellent research piece Thanks
Keith is a sellout, simple as.
“Keith doesn’t 100% fall in line with National Socialism, therefore he’s a sellout”
l m a o
He publicly denounced NS repeatedly and continually sides with mainstream (Jewish) moral framework. If this isn't selling out, I don't what is.
>he publicly denounced NS repeatedly
I know that, and? A nationalist doesn’t need to like National Socialism. If anything, I can think of plenty of reasons why nationalists wouldn’t necessarily like National Socialism and Hitler. Keith has always been open about being a nationalist concerned with the fate of the Irish first and foremost because, spoiler alert, he’s Irish.
>continually sides with mainstream (Jewish) moral framework
Examples other than Keith trying to be a consistent Platonist and nationalist? Because being a Platonist and nationalist is anything but mainstream and popular in this day and age.
Keith sounds like Adam Green
Why? Because he said something you didn’t agree with?
AFAIK Adam Green is a staunch neo-pagan, which Keith assuredly is not. If anything, he has explicitly stated that paganism is irrelevant and not a solution for declining spirituality in the West.
casually doesn't mention David Irving because he is not "credited"
If I cite Irving people will rightly point out he made his judgement before the problems identified by Carrier and Nilssen.
Do we know if Hitler had plans to de-christianize germany a la Stalin or he was more akin to Napoleon: privately atheist/unchristian but is fine with a christian Germany longterm?
I assume people like Himmler would have pushed for some NeoPagan policies or at least heavy investment into NeoPagan monuments/movements. And maybe other nazi hierarchs might have been willing to secularise Germany even further. Were there any of the Nazi Leadership position that were particularly religiously christian to begin with or to push back?
There was certainly a strong movement to re-paganize Germany within the NSDAP. If Himmler had succeeded Hitler at any time during the fun times, that probably would have gotten a lot of traction. Many such decent youtube videos on the subject.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0Wobk1HCf0
Listen to what he said and not Keith
https://odysee.com/@WhiteArchives:a/nsdapchristian:f
"Almost all historians, including Steigmann-Gall, admit that Hitler was anti-Christian in the last several years of his life."
Case closed.
An authoritative historical source for the time of National Socialism are the books of the late David Irving.
The irony is that Hitler wished to protect the white race as if it was a sheep flock incapable of competing with in the game of natural selection.
Jews and Muslims have always been considered the proverbial devil from the perspective of Christian Europe
Interesting historiography question. --Seems like it parallels the arguments about the authenticity of Jesus' speeches, ironically.