Hitler's first speech as Chancellor of Germany in 1933.

ilostabet

Kingfisher
No other topic in the modern history is as shrouded in bias as the Third Reich and Hitler, either by its detractors, its defenders and the general public, who accepts the clear fantasy painted by the detractors. I have no doubt the picture painted by the detractors is extremely skewed and some of their claims are proven to be lies.

Having said that, any political figure which arouses the fervor of a mass of people like Hitler did is extremely dangerous. He was seen as a messiah by many, and as the devil incarnate by just as many. All of this, of course, a result of being subjected to propaganda - in that case primarily through the radio.

Be it Hitler, Obama or Trump, the feverous supporter (or detractor) ceases to be an individual engaged in rational thought, and will go along with anything (for or against). He becomes part of the mass, controllable by key words which can be used at exact times to lead to certain desired results.

That is the best lesson from Hitler. Not his ideology, nor his strategy. His influence - and see how it is mirrored in our own days through even more powerful mediums.
 

Oberrheiner

Kingfisher
Having said that, any political figure which arouses the fervor of a mass of people like Hitler did is extremely dangerous.
People were prostituting themselves to afford food and still starving, he came and gave them their dignity back - of course they would have followed him to hell and back.
 

ilostabet

Kingfisher
People were prostituting themselves to afford food and still starving, he came and gave them their dignity back - of course they would have followed him to hell and back.
doesn't make it any less unhealthy, even if I understand why. it's just another example of how modernity can only solve problems by creating new ones.
 

Oberrheiner

Kingfisher
I wasn't saying it was healthy, I'm just not so sure that we would have reacted differently in that same situation.

In any case weimar's problem was not a new or modern one, some might say it's been here for over two thousand years ..
 

911

Crow
I agree with the first part. But neither are other political systems like communism, industrial - capitalism or liberalism

Mein Kampf had about as much to do with Nazi Germany as the Bible has to do with present day Christianity

Far less than you'd expect

It's more about context and circumstances than scripture

An example: Christianity is an egalitarian religion, but Christian states are far from egalitarian. Slavs were regarded as Untermenschen yet the Ukrainians, Slowakians, Croatians fought side by side with the Germans on the East front

I agree that the Nazis looked at Christianity from a position of strength. In the 20s and 30s the Church had lost much of its political and societal power already and anti-clerical and nationalist tendencies ran strong. The Church, or the religion-over-state type of people were in no position to pose a real threat to the Nazis

So their attitude was along the lines of: how can Christianity help us pursue our goals? What do we have to change in Christianity to make it more compatible to our system?

And not along the lines of 'we have to be careful with the Church because they can be a competitor for power one day'

Also please show me how 'nazi Germany moved towards paganism'

Large parts of Germany and Austria were still Christian in the 1930s, the degeneracy was mostly confined to the big cities. The conservative anti-communist base in Germany and across Europe was largely Christian. so It's very evident that Hitler and and NASDAP needed to tailor their message to reach that base.

In the early 20th centuries, Catholics were on the forefront of conservative, anti-bolshevik movement across Europe. Tintin for example came out from a conservative Catholic Belgian youth magazine, his first adventure was in Soviet land, where the nature of that regime were laid out to the young Franco-Belgian audience:





Also please show me how 'nazi Germany moved towards paganism'
Hitler was a disiciple of Blavatsky, and of Eckart, and the nazis were ideologically linked to the Thule society, all of these roots are pagan and occult, down to the swastika and black sun symbology.
 

bucky

Pelican
Large parts of Germany and Austria were still Christian in the 1930s, the degeneracy was mostly confined to the big cities. The conservative anti-communist base in Germany and across Europe was largely Christian. so It's very evident that Hitler and and NASDAP needed to tailor their message to reach that base.

In the early 20th centuries, Catholics were on the forefront of conservative, anti-bolshevik movement across Europe. Tintin for example came out from a conservative Catholic Belgian youth magazine, his first adventure was in Soviet land, where the nature of that regime were laid out to the young Franco-Belgian audience:







Hitler was a disiciple of Blavatsky, and of Eckart, and the nazis were ideologically linked to the Thule society, all of these roots are pagan and occult, down to the swastika and black sun symbology.
Wasn't that occult stuff more Himmler's thing though? I always had the impression that Hitler was aware of it but not particularly interested. He was more focused on whatever would help him achieve power and transform Germany according to his vision.

Iirc the black sun isn't ancient, it's an invention of Himmler's, using ancient futhrac runes.
 

ilostabet

Kingfisher
I wasn't saying it was healthy, I'm just not so sure that we would have reacted differently in that same situation.

In any case weimar's problem was not a new or modern one, some might say it's been here for over two thousand years ..
We probably wouldn't. We would have been exposed to the same environment. That doesn't change the fact that both Weimar and the reaction were utterly modern.

Yes, there were always jews and there were always degenerates, but there was no mass printing, cinemas or photographs with which to create a mass culture out of those things. The terrorists of the French Revolution knew all too well the disruptive power of pornography, but they only had live theater and limited drawing reproduction to work with. Thus their accomplishments in the field were meager in comparison with Weimar. Not because of different intentions or lesser commitment. Just for lack of adequate technology.

I would certainly agree that the mass culture of the Nazis was preferable to the pornography and degeneration of the mass culture of Weimar. But the problems of mass culture transcend the content itself. In fact, mass media in general tends to promote egalitarianism, not hierarchy and if the Nazis taught us anything is that active repression and tight control of those mediums is required to not have them degenerate into egalitarianism of whatever variety. There is no distinction between a good TV watcher and bad one, no learning is needed to watch TV, whatever age, education and income level you are it serves the purpose. Mass communication technology especially of a audiovisual variety serves more naturally Weimar society than it did the Nazis. Whereas the latter had to concoct a whole program to control those mediums tightly to their hierarchical and traditional purposes, if one let's them free they will always tend towards vulgarity.
 
Last edited:
Large parts of Germany and Austria were still Christian in the 1930s, the degeneracy was mostly confined to the big cities. The conservative anti-communist base in Germany and across Europe was largely Christian. so It's very evident that Hitler and and NASDAP needed to tailor their message to reach that base.

In the early 20th centuries, Catholics were on the forefront of conservative, anti-bolshevik movement across Europe. Tintin for example came out from a conservative Catholic Belgian youth magazine, his first adventure was in Soviet land, where the nature of that regime were laid out to the young Franco-Belgian audience:







Hitler was a disiciple of Blavatsky, and of Eckart, and the nazis were ideologically linked to the Thule society, all of these roots are pagan and occult, down to the swastika and black sun symbology.
The population of Nazi Germany was nominally 1.5 procent atheist. I am convinced the numbers in the much more agricultural and backwards Russian Empire were even below that. Going by your logic the communists/ nazis should have never been able to mount anything more than a hindrance.

I am not saying that the Christians didn't do anything to stop and combat the 'Red Threat'. In fact, it was so big an issue that entire political parties were named after this (The Dutch Protestant Christian was named ARP- Anti Revolutionary Party)

Or the nazi threat for that matter. But its not relevant due to its political shortcomings. It's Christianity's pacifist nature and the centuries of State interference in Church affairs that had basically rendered it a submissive, secular and easily managed institute/ religion

How much resistance did the Church mount to the Nazis? Not a lot. There was a minor schism in the Protestant church (Kirchenkampf) that led to some theologians breaking away. That was after the Nazis proclaimed that they would change the nature of the religion to make it more compatible with nazism.

To change the whole underpinnings of the religion. To commit blasphemy. And very few lifted a finger. In fact the Catholic Church never dared to drop out of the 1933 agreement. The Calvinists referred to a John Calvin's teachings about every secular government being God-send and how one should undergo the punishment.

The only group that was against it were the Lutherans

It's a bit like Xi Jinping's planned rewriting of Quran and Bible. What are the tens of millions of Chinese Christians going to do? Revolt? Of course not. Now the Muslims are a different beast. Warrior mentality, no pacifist scripture, lack of secular Absolutist history

Another example of how the peaceful nature influenced things. During the Weimar period armed communist and nazi gangs went at it on an almost daily basis. Their goal? To control the streets and project power. The communists had their version of the current day AntiFa and the Nazis had their SturmAbteilung groups (which emerged from Freikorper groups of WW1 veterans)

What did the members of the Christian parties do whenever a deadly mass brawl broke out? Hurry back home, close the curtains and complain whispering to one another - the walls had ears- how these people were such brutes

The Nazis didn't fear the Christians. Their political parties were disbanded, their leaders were watched, their religion was nazified. ~1830 till 1945 was the age of secular nationalism

--

Some high ranking individuals were linked to the the Thule Society, Nazism as a whole was not

There have never been any moves towards implementing neo-paganism in Nazi Germany. At no point in time did Churches close, were Pagan temples opened, was pagan literature spread in schools etc

The only person that had these ideas was Heinrich Himmler

Yes the Swastika is an ancient Aryan/Indian symbol. On the other hand the Iron Cross was the second most used symbol in nazi Germany (flag of the Kriegsmarine for instance)

Now that I am thinking about it.. In German swastika means Hakenkreuz. Kreuz is cross.. ;)
 

Oberrheiner

Kingfisher
Yes, there were always jews and there were always degenerates, but there was no mass printing, cinemas or photographs with which to create a mass culture out of those things.
So .. degenerates are ok as long as there is no technology ?

What would you argue against technology is ok as long as there are no degenerates ?
 

ilostabet

Kingfisher
So .. degenerates are ok as long as there is no technology ?

What would you argue against technology is ok as long as there are no degenerates ?
I think you are being purposefully obtuse and needlessly combative. My point was very clear and obvious. Personally, I don't care one way or the other about Hitler or the Third Reich, I think dictatorship is always a bad solution, or not a solution at all - it's like continuously pruning weeds instead of pulling them out. I would rather remove the root of the problem than curtail freedom in order to control the negative externalities of that root.

So no. Degenerates are not ok, in any sense of the word, not for society, not for themselves, but they seem to always have existed, across history and across the globe, regardless of technological level.

The question is how their behavior is regulated and which tools are at their disposal to promote degeneracy. The more powerful the tools, the more aggressive the regulation has to be - and by necessity, this regulation cannot be just of them, but of everyone (if it is to be done right and effectively).

However, as I've written, the bias of these communication technologies is toward vulgarity, so if one is to avoid it tight regulation is always needed. Within a few years of the deregulation of the printing press, pornography was being printed and distributed, as well as all manner of anti-clerical and anti-monarchical literature, for yet another historical demonstration of both points (the regulation one and the bias one).
 
Tintin for example came out from a conservative Catholic Belgian youth magazine, his first adventure was in Soviet land, where the nature of that regime were laid out to the young Franco-Belgian audience:
I never realized that. Was there any directly Christian material that got edited out in modern editions? I remember Tintin was always messing around near the occult, but I can't remember much mention of God. In any case, they're great comics.
 

Leonard D Neubache

Owl
Gold Member
...
Another example of how the peaceful nature influenced things. During the Weimar period armed communist and nazi gangs went at it on an almost daily basis. Their goal? To control the streets and project power. The communists had their version of the current day AntiFa and the Nazis had their SturmAbteilung groups (which emerged from Freikorper groups of WW1 veterans)

What did the members of the Christian parties do whenever a deadly mass brawl broke out? Hurry back home, close the curtains and complain whispering to one another - the walls had ears- how these people were such brutes

The Nazis didn't fear the Christians. Their political parties were disbanded, their leaders were watched, their religion was nazified. ~1830 till 1945 was the age of secular nationalism
...
Christianity was there before those idiots, it still exists after those idiots failed and died, and it will exist long after the current crop of idiots fails and dies too. That's because it doesn't rely on words being written on a piece of paper. You could burn every Bible in the world and God could rewrite it word for word through the hands of a disciple of Christ.

There is no pathetic ism that has demonstrated even a fraction of Christianity's longevity.

"But you can't just ignore earthly oppression!!!"

Eternal salvation goes "brrrrrr".
 
Christianity was there before those idiots, it still exists after those idiots failed and died, and it will exist long after the current crop of idiots fails and dies too. That's because it doesn't rely on words being written on a piece of paper. You could burn every Bible in the world and God could rewrite it word for word through the hands of a disciple of Christ.

There is no pathetic ism that has demonstrated even a fraction of Christianity's longevity.

"But you can't just ignore earthly oppression!!!"

Eternal salvation goes "brrrrrr".
Interesting angle. There are a few debatable statements in your post I'd like to point out though

I don't agree that the Divine Spirit would at any time re-revelate the Word of God

That's a very mystic and otherworldly approach. The Bible has been canonized for about 1800 years now. The Church Father's have elaborated the Church teachings during the Four Councils.

These works don't mention a second Divine Revelation. How would it relate to Divine Providence and the Allmightyness of God in the light of free will anyway?


Large parts of the world that were once predominantly Christian are now devoid of any Christians (Arabian peninsula, central Asia, Japan, maghreb, Western china) Countless branches and Churches have disappeared (nestorians, gnostics, arianists, pelagianists, montañistas, donatists etc)

The idea that in the light of oppression Christianity by turning the other cheek has always bounced back is not true

A certain type of pushback is necessary. The Church pre- 1789 understood that. The bishops in the Late Antiquity led the christianization of the Egyptian and Germanic countryside - by sword. Pope Urbanus ll called for the Crusades to defend Jerusalem. Warrior monks fought for Christianity throughout the Old World. Catholic clergymen financially facilitated the Castilian/Portuguese reconquista

All in the name of God, with full support from the Church
 

911

Crow
The pushback needed today is taking back the Vatican, and removing luciferian rainbow flags from churches, an offense punishable by 16 years in jail in the United States today. So more about leaders like E. Michael Jones than Charles Martel.
 

911

Crow
I think you are being purposefully obtuse and needlessly combative. My point was very clear and obvious. Personally, I don't care one way or the other about Hitler or the Third Reich, I think dictatorship is always a bad solution, or not a solution at all - it's like continuously pruning weeds instead of pulling them out. I would rather remove the root of the problem than curtail freedom in order to control the negative externalities of that root.

So no. Degenerates are not ok, in any sense of the word, not for society, not for themselves, but they seem to always have existed, across history and across the globe, regardless of technological level.

The question is how their behavior is regulated and which tools are at their disposal to promote degeneracy. The more powerful the tools, the more aggressive the regulation has to be - and by necessity, this regulation cannot be just of them, but of everyone (if it is to be done right and effectively).

However, as I've written, the bias of these communication technologies is toward vulgarity, so if one is to avoid it tight regulation is always needed. Within a few years of the deregulation of the printing press, pornography was being printed and distributed, as well as all manner of anti-clerical and anti-monarchical literature, for yet another historical demonstration of both points (the regulation one and the bias one).
No, Rheiner's point is concise and on target. Germany in the 1930s was for more modern than in the 1920s, and orders of magnitude less degenerate. It became a prosperous society built on a foundation of family, labor and nation, and technology enabled it.

Technology is just a tool that can be used to great benefit for the public, or to spread degeneracy and control it. We had TV, movies and magazines in the 1950s, but it was only until the morality code was broken in the 1960s that they became a tool for degeneracy. The content before that was largely positive.
 
Last edited:

911

Crow
I never realized that. Was there any directly Christian material that got edited out in modern editions? I remember Tintin was always messing around near the occult, but I can't remember much mention of God. In any case, they're great comics.
Tintin was a very positive character and comic, it reflected traditional European upper-middle class values. In a couple of strips, Tintin fought off occult secret societies that were involved in the drug and human traficking. In another strip he exposes the warmonging and profiteering role of arms merchants, with a character like Basil Bazaroff, based on a famous arms dealer and Rothschild frontman Basil Zaharoff.


He also warns young readers of alcoholism, with the recurring afflictions of captain Haddock.

Also what's kind of unique about Tintin when viewed in a current angle is that there is no lust involved, no girlfriends or romantic pursuits in Tintin, which is a stark contrast from any American teenage character story after the 1970s, which will usually be oversexed, with storylines centered on dating and romantic pursuits. Henry Makow featured a TV writer who said that all teenage characters in his sitcoms and films had to be rebellious against their parents and society, and driven by lust, this was a requirement by those who owned and produced the media.
 

911

Crow
...

Some high ranking individuals were linked to the the Thule Society, Nazism as a whole was not

There have never been any moves towards implementing neo-paganism in Nazi Germany. At no point in time did Churches close, were Pagan temples opened, was pagan literature spread in schools etc

The only person that had these ideas was Heinrich Himmler

Yes the Swastika is an ancient Aryan/Indian symbol. On the other hand the Iron Cross was the second most used symbol in nazi Germany (flag of the Kriegsmarine for instance)

Now that I am thinking about it.. In German swastika means Hakenkreuz. Kreuz is cross.. ;)
Hooked or broken cross.

A bit similar to the broken cross rune, which the SS used on their graves instead of the cross.

"The Germanic tribes who used it attributed strange and mystical properties to the broken cross sign. Such a 'rune' is said to have been used by 'black magicians' in pagan incantations and condemnations....To this very day the inverted broken cross--identical to the socialists' 'peace' symbol--is known in Germany as a 'todersrune,' or death rune. Not only was it ordered by Hitler's National Socialists that it must appear on German death notices, but it was part of the official inscription prescribed for the gravestones of Nazi officers of the dread SS. The symbol suited Nazi emphasis on pagan mysticism.''
With the arms of the cross raised in an upright position, it is "a Pythagorean emblem of the course of life, in the form of a rising path with fork roads to Good and Evil.'' It also signifies fertility, but with the arms pointing downward, it denotes evil and death.



"In fact, the inverted 'Man-rune'--the figure encircled in the common sign which the Communists tell us means 'peace'--has for centuries been a favourite sign of Satanists.''


Anton LaVey, the founder of the Church of Satan, used the peace symbol as the backdrop for his altar.


One former witch makes the following comment about the peace symbol:

"It is an ancient and powerful symbol of Antichrist. During the dark ages it was used in Druid Witchcraft and by Satanists of all sorts during the initiation of a new member to their order. They would draw the magic circle and give the initiate a cross. The initiate would then lift the cross and turn it upside down. He would then renounce Christianity in all three dimensions (sic) of time (past, present and future) and break the horizontal pieces downward forming the design of the 'Raven's Foot.' This ugly symbol is nothing short of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. For one to wear or display this symbol is to announce either knowingly or unknowingly that you have rejected Christ. Remember, symbolism is a picture language, and a picture is worth a thousand words.''
 
Top