Xref: taco alt.atheism:11794 talk.religion.misc:41560
Path: ncsuvm!taco!gatech!psuvax1!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!apollo!perry
From: perry@apollo.hp.com (Jim Perry)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Hitler the atheist?
Message-ID: <1991Jun24.205348.17075@apollo.hp.com>
Date: 24 Jun 91 20:53:48 GMT
Sender: netnews@apollo.hp.com (USENET posting account)
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Apollo Division - Chelmsford, MA
Lines: 198
Nntp-Posting-Host: capsicum.ch.apollo.hp.com

We've recently undergone another of those spates of discussions of
morality in which appeared the inevitable and undocumented appeal to
Nazism in general and the Holocaust in particular as the ultimate end
result of whatever view the author opposes (recently atheism, humanism,
moral relativism).

I am no historian, certainly not of this century.  What I know of WWII
and related events is primarily that which percolates through our
culture, school history classes, contemporary fiction, films and
documentaries, and the like.  Generally, I "know" that the above
arguments are baseless both because they disagree with what I do know
about the historical events, and even more because there is rarely any
actual historical information claimed, making the whole thing more of
an ad hominem exercise than reason.  Still, I broke down this weekend
and spent some time in the library.  I started with _Mein Kampf_, on
the theory that Hitler *was* Nazism.  From there I proceeded to
various works on Nazism and the Holocaust, to look for evidence of
official policy as it differed from Hitler's philosophy.  Frankly,
that was a mistake, because of course the official policy implemented
Hitler's racist philosophy all too faithfully, and I gave up because
my stomach couldn't take any more.

Anyway, without too much comment, three passages from _Mein_Kampf_:
these are somewhat lengthy, but I chose to quote longer passages
rather than try to edit them down.  The first is a general comment on
the state of religion in Germany, and repeats arguments I have seen
frequently in these groups.  The final two are more offensive, and
delve into Hitler's anti-semitism.  Anyone who finds these the words
of an atheist and advocate of atheism is using a most unusual
definition of the term (and there will be some).

THIS IS OFFENSIVE MATERIAL.  Everthing after this is in the words of
Adolf Hitler, with the exception of [editorial annotation].

----

  All these symptoms of decay are in the last analysis only the
consequences of the absence of a definite, uniformly acknowledged
philosophy and the resultant general uncertainty in the judgment and
attitude toward the various great problems of the time.  That is why,
beginning in education, everyone is half-hearted and vacillating,
shunning responsibility and thus ending in cowardly tolerance of even
recognized abuses.  Humanitarian bilge becomes stylish, and, by weakly
yielding to cankers and sparing individuals, the future of millions is
sacrificed.

  How widespread the general disunity was growing is shown by an
examination of religious conditions before the War.  Here, too, a
unified and effective philosophical conviction had long since been
lost in large sections of the nation.  In this the members officially
breaking away from the churches play a less important role than those
who are completely indifferent.  While both denominations maintain
missions in Asia and Africa in order to win new converts for their
doctrine -- an activity which can boast but very modest success
compared to the advance of the Mohammedan faith in particular -- right
here in Europe they lose millions of inward adherents who either are
alien to all religious life or simply go their own ways.  The
consequences, particularly from the moral point of view, are not
favorable.

  Also noteworthy is the increasingly violent struggle against the
dogmatic foundations of the various churches without which in this
human world the practical experience of a religious faith is not
conceivable.  The great masses of people do not consist of
philosophers; precisely for the masses, faith is often the sole
foundation of a moral attitude.  The various substitutes have not
proved so successful from the standpoint of results that they could be
regarded as a useful replacement for previous religious creeds.  But
if religious doctrine and faith are really to embrace the broad
masses, the unconditional authority of the content of this faith is
the foundation of all efficacy.  What the current _mores_, without
which assuredly hundreds of thousands  of well-bred people would live
sensibly but millions of others would not, are for general living,
state principles are for the state, and dogmas for the current
religion.  Only through them is the wavering and infinitely
interpretable, purely intellectual idea delimited and brought into a
form without which it could never become faith.  Otherwise the idea
would never pass beyond a metaphysical conception; in short, a
philosophical opinion.  The attack against dogmas as such, therefore,
strongly resembles the struggle against the general legal foundations
of a state, and, as the latter would end in a total anarchy of the
state, the former would end in a worthless religious nihilism.

  For the political man, the value of a religion must be estimated
less by its deficiencies than by the virtue of a visibly better
substitute.  As long as this appears to be lacking, what is present
can be demolished only by fools or criminals.

  Not the smallest blame for the none too delectable religious
conditions must be borne by those who encumber the religious idea with
too many things of a purely earthly nature and thus often bring it
into a totally unnecessary conflict with so-called exact science.  In
this victory will almost always fall to the latter, though perhaps
after a hard struggle, and religion will suffer serious damage in the
eyes of all those who are unable to raise themselves above a purely
superficial knowledge.

  Worst of all, however, is the devastation wrought by the misuse of
religious conviction for political ends.  In truth, we cannot sharply
enough attack those wretched crooks who would like to make religion an
implement to perform political or rather business services for them.
These insolent liars, it is true, proclaim their creed in a stentorian
voice to the whole world for other sinners to hear; but their
intention is not, if necessary, to die for it, but to live better.
For a single political swindle, provided it brings in enough, they are
willing to sell the heart of a whole religion; for ten parliamentary
mandates they would ally themselves with the Marxistic enemies of all
religions -- and for a minister's chair they would even enter into a
marriage with the devil, unless the devil were deterred by a remnant
of decency.

----

[...] But scarcely had [the National Socialist movement] succeeded in
giving the German people its great, unifying idea of struggle in this
question ["the Jewish question"] than the Jew commenced to
counter-attack.  He seized upon his old weapon.  With miraculous speed
he threw the torch of discord into the folkish movement and sowed
dissension.  As things then stood, the only possibility of occupying
the public attention with other questions and withholding a
concentrated attack from the Jews lay in raising the _Ultramontane
question_, and in the resulting clash between Catholicism and
Protestantism.  These men can never atone for the wrong they did our
people in hurling this question into their midst.  In any case the Jew
reached his desired goal: Catholics and Protestants wage a merry war
with one another, and the mortal enemy of Aryan humanity and all
Christendom laughs up his sleeve.

  Just as formerly they were able to busy public opinion for years
with the struggle between federalism and centralization, thus wearing
it down with exhaustion, while the Jew sold the freedom of the nation
and betrayed our fatherland to international high finance, now again
he succeeds in causing the two German denominations to assail one
another, while the foundations of both are corroded and undermined by
the poison of the international world Jew.

  Bear in mind the devastations which Jewish bastardization visits on
our nation each day, and consider that this blood poisoning can be
removed from our national body only after centuries, if at all;
consider how racial disintegration drags down and often destroys the
last Aryan values of our German people, so that our strength as a
culture-bearing nation is visibly more and more involved in a
regression and we run the risk, in our big cities at least, of
reaching the point where southern Italy is today.  This contamination
of our blood, blindly ignored by hundreds of thousands of our people,
is carried on systematically by the Jew today.  Systematically these
black parasites of the nation defile our inexperienced young blond
girls and thereby destroy something which can no longer be replaced in
this world.  Both, yes, both Christian denominations look on
indifferently at this desecration and destruction of a noble and
unique living creature, given to the earth by God's grace.  The
significance of this for the future of the earth does not lie in
whether the Protestants defeat the Catholics or the Catholics the
Protestants, but in whether the Aryan man is preserved for the earth
or dies out.  Nevertheless, the two denominations do not fight today
against the destroyer of this man, but strive mutually to annihilate
one another.  The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred
duty, each in his own denomination, of making _people_stop_just
talking_superficially_of_God's_will,_and_actually_fulfill_God's_will,
and_not_let_God's_word_be_desecrated_. [orig. ital.]

  For God's will gave men their form, their essence, and their
abilities.  Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the
Lord's creation, the divine will.  Therefore, let every man be active,
each in his own denomination if you please, and let every man take it
as his first and most sacred duty to oppose anyone who in his activity
by word or deed steps outside the confines of his religious community
and tries to butt into the other.  For in Germany to attack the
special characteristics of a denomination, within the religious schism
we already have with us, necessarily leads to a war of annihilation
between the two denominations. [...]

----

  The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of
Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by
the mass of numbers and their dead weight.  Thus is denies the value
of personality in man, contests the significance of nationality and
race, and thereby withdraws from humanity the premise of its existence
and its culture.  As a foundation of the universe, this doctrine would
bring about the end of any order intellectually conceivable to man.
And as, in this greatest of all recognizable organisms, the result of
an application of such a law could only be chaos, on earth it could
only be destruction for the inhabitants of this planet.
  If, with the help of his Marxist creed, the Jew is victorious over
the other peoples of the world, his crown will be the funeral wreath
of humanity and this planet will, as it did thousands [millions in
second ed.] of years ago, move through the ether devoid of men.
  Eternal Nature inexorably avenges the infringement of her commands.
  Hence today 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. [orig. ital.]

----

[Adolf Hitler, from _Mein Kampf_, trans. Ralph Mannheim]
--
Jim Perry   perry@apollo.hp.com    HP/Apollo, Chelmsford MA