Sunteți pe pagina 1din 350


Winner of the H.L. Mencken Award for Investigative Reporting


Its Religious Cause & Scholarly Cover-Up

Eric Zuesse is a cultural anthropologist, general systems theorist, economist, and investigative journalist. He has been published by Dell Publishing Company, Crown Publishing Company, The New York TIMES, REASON, JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC BEHAVIOR, GENERAL SYSTEMS THEORY, and others. Zuesse is a winner of the H.L. Mencken Award for The Year's Best Investigative News Report."

The Bible is history told as religion tells it. WHY The Holocaust Happened is history told as science tells it. ...No longer is the challenge to the religious account just Copernicus and Galileo - the Bible got the cosmology wrong. No longer is the challenge to the religious account just Darwin and Mendel - the Bible got the prehistory (i.e. evolution) wrong. Now it is history itself that is at stake; the final fig leaf covering the old myth is ripped away; and what stands exposed this time is rape. People's minds have been raped by a false historical account; and now we know both why it lied, and that the Holocaust was its result. Never again.

Dedicated to the victims.

"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind had producedthe Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!" John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, September 3, 1816

*** "The teachings of Christ have laid the foundations for the battle against Jews as the enemy of Mankind; the work that Christ began, I shall finish." Adolf Hitler, speech to his followers, December 18, 1926

Contents Preface PART I: Hitler's "Holy War" Against "the Jews" A Map of the Argument J: The Problem 2: Hitler the Mystery-Man 3: Bible 4: Mission 5: Collateral Damage 6: Church Response 7: Historical Background 8: Hitler's Medievalism 9: Anti-Science 10: The Cover-Up by Scholars 24 27 33 53 67 84 95 100 108 121 127 11

PART II: Where the Bible's Anti-Semitism Came From A Map of the Argument 11: Our Methodological Approach 12: The Pre-Pauline Background 13: Summary of the Case 14: How the Scientific Approach Differs from the Religious One 15: Paul's Detailed Account of Christianity's Split from Judaism 16: Christianity's War Against Judaism CONCLUSIONS 17: Bringing It All Together 18: Of Smoking Guns and Hot Bullets 19: Completing the Work of Nuremberg 20: Policy-Implications Appendix 1: Hitler's Essay, "My Theory of Eugenics" Appendix 2: Random Thoughts on Causation Acknowledgments, and Why I Wrote this Book Index/References 216 229 241 244 254 277 353 356 146 149 154 161 171 176 190


Why did the Holocaust happen? Of all unexplained historical events, of all Man's irrationalities, is there any that so challenges our understanding? Man has not yet come to terms with the most-systematic and vast genocide in history. Testimony to this sad fact has been provided by each subsequent genocide, all mocking the prevailing platitudes about "the brotherhood of Man." Perhaps the failure to understand the Holocaust's cause has contributed to the ineffectiveness of prevention-efforts, as well as policies after the fact, in places such as Cambodia, Bosnia, and Rwanda, where subsequent ethnocides have occurred. Indeed, how would it even be possible to prevent genocide if the cause of one so vast as the Holocaust remains a mystery? With more than a half-century separating us from the Holocaust, we still have not answered the most basic question: why it occurred. Thus, younger generations of Gentians, both Christians and Jewsas well as the ethnic minorities new to the countrycontinue even today to debate the issues of guilt. After all this time, the Holocaust remains an unsolved riddle. The implications of this failure reverberate throughout the world, but perhaps nowhere more so than in Europe, the home of the Holocaust. On 2 April 2000, European Affairs correspondent Sylvia Poggioli, on National Public Radio's Weekend Edition program, brilliantly summed up the looming dangers of Europe's failures in this regard by pointing to a recent resurgence there of majority assaults against minorities. She reported a continent slipping back toward racial chaos eerily reminiscent of events that were thought and hoped to belong only to the past, and that were consequently of ominous portent for the future: 11

Preface The most recent case was a four-day rampage in southern Spain against Moroccan immigrants, but there's racist violence everyday, everywhere: in Birmingham, in Frankfurt, in Florence, in Copenhagen, in Marseilles. A typical site is soccer stadiums. In Britain, in France, and in Italy, you can see ultra-right-wing fans carrying banners with pro-Nazi and anti-Semitic slogans, and often Black players in the field are booed and insulted. What's shocking is that xenophobia is gaining acceptability. The populist parties that embrace anti-immigrant platforms are gaining popularity everywherenot only in France and Austria, but also in Switzerland, in Belgium, in Denmark, and in Norway. The wave of xenophobia has begun to affect the traditional attitudes of many ruling leftist and center-left parties. Voters who used to form the backbone of leftist parties are now attracted to these right-wing anti-immigrant slogans, so governments are introducing political restrictions against immigrants. ... In Denmark, for example, the ruling Social Democrats have made requirements for family reunification very, very difficult. I found everywhere I went, in Italy, in France, in Germany, in Sweden, and in Austria, immigrants live almost exclusively in closed enclavesghettos, whatever you want to call them. For example, in Sweden, 1 saw one community outside of Stockholm where the only blue-eyed Swede was the security guard. In Lyons in France in the downtown area, which is the heart of the City, I never saw anyone who wasn't white. And it's a country with a large immigrant community from its former colonies, but I never saw [an immigrant as aj policeman or anchor on TV. And in Germany, most members of the large Turkish minority live in neighborhoods that are known as little Istanbuls. Ms. Poggioli was asked by the interviewer to explain the possible causes of the problem. The first to be raised was the standard explanation: hard economic times. Ms. Poggioli, however, quickly rejected this: Racism and xenophobia are strongest in the most affluent of European countriesin Austria, in Switzerland, and in some Scandanavian countries. More than anything, I think that Europeans believe that it's their cultural identity that is being threatened. Modern European states were built on the idea of monoethnicity. . . . Europeans are not shocked by the idea of ethnic division and partition. This is also the reason why right-wing 12

Preface parties have succeeded in creating an image of immigrants as an underclass of undeserving members of society. Recent polls show that xenophobia is gaining respectability. Over two-thirds of those polled admitted to being a little racist, and 33% admitted they were very racist or quiet racist. ... There are also many much more worrisome signs, what former Swiss President Ruth Dreyfuss called the return of the repressed in European politics. She meant that all of a sudden we see an acceptance of ultra-right-wing language and platforms that have been rejected since World War II, and this made me think about what I believe is Europe's dirty secret: its continuing reluctance to come to terms with the worst crime ever committed against humanity, and which happened on its territory by Europeans against Europeans half a century ago, ... the Holocaust. And I think it's this reluctance by Europe to come to terms with its past that makes it much more difficult for it to confront its new racism. I agree with Ms. Poggioli that continuing to evade the Holocaust's cause will not do; finally, it must be addressed. After all, how can a physician treat a disease he has not even diagnosed? Thus, the moral challenge of the Holocaust towers over all our futures. But how approach such a gigantic subject? It is not just the senselessness of the thing that so puzzles us: the Holocaust was monumental in its sheer evil. It even appears to have been evil for the sake of evil. To comprehend such a phenomenon, where do we start? Historically speaking, the questions themselves started virtually tumbling over each other at the moment when Allied troops first entered the death camps as liberators and found themselves facing gaunt, hollowed out, survivors strewn around huge mounds of corpses. United State General Omar Bradley recounted as follows the shocking scene when he first entered a camp in Poland: "The smell of death overwhelmed us even before we passed the stockade. More than 3,200 naked, emaciated bodies had been flung into shallow graves." And as reported by Richard J. Evans in his 1989 book In Hitler's Shadow (p. 5), an American GI recalled of his entry into the Nordhausen camp, that there were "piles of skeletal corpses, amid which the living were still lying, weak, lice-ridden, starving, and apathetic." Complicating the intrinsic difficulties of understanding such monstrosities have been the persistent contrary attempts at obfuscation by some historians (discussed at length in In Hitler's Shadow, and in Deborah Lipstadt's 1993 Denying the Holocaust) to prevent precisely that objective, 13

Preface and to keep the roots of the Holocaust, if not the reality of the Holocaust itself, in the dark. In other words, the search to find the Holocaust's origins has also had to contend with a very active effort to confound it. Nonetheless, a number of approaches to explaining the Holocaust have been tried, ranging from the sublime to the ridiculous. Unfortunately, none has stood the test of time. Perhaps the commonest sublime explanation has been that science (or Us consequences, such as modernity) caused this hell on earth. Science has long been routinely blamed for having caused the Holocaust, even though no accusation could be further from the truth. In 1993, the German historian Detlev Peukert (in the book Reevaluating the Third Reich, edited by Thomas Childers and Jane Caplan) expostulated upon "The Genesis of the 'Final Solution' from the Spirit of Science." Four years before, sociologist Zygmunt Bauman had published his Modernity and the Holocaust, saying (p. 61), "racism is unthinkable without the advancement of modern science. ... Racism is strictly a modern product. Modernity made racism possible." Essentially similar charges had been prominently made by the German historians Michael Stunner and Ernst Nolte during the mid-1980's. But even before that, the German-Jewish philosopher and Nazi refugee to the United States, Leo Strauss had long been making the same charge against science. Strauss was a student of the Nazi philosopher Martin Heidegger, a disciple of Hitler's leading legal theoretician Carl Schmitt, and himself the leading philosopher inspiring America's conservative Reagan Revolution during the 1980's. He was a hero to many within the Reagan Administration. During Hitler's reign, Heidegger and Schmitt proudly promoted Naziism as an essential response to what they both viewed as the socially corrosive challenges of modernity and science. All of these politically conservative intellectuals, from the time of Hitler to the present, have agreed: science caused the Holocaust. They did not all agree, however, that the Holocaust was bad; the outright Nazis amongst them seem to have felt that it was either all right or excellent. However, none of them liked either science or modernity. One might think that with so many proponents, the thesis that science caused the Holocaust would surely have been documented in extensive detail. Remarkably, it has never been documented at all. Even more amazingly, only one person even so much as attempted to do so: Daniel Gasman, in his speculative and poorly informed 1971 The Scientific Origins of National Socialism. The reason for this failure to document is amazingly simple: the assertion is false, as will herein be documented in full. Philosophers and social "scientists," such as historians, have accepted it 14

Preface on nothing more than faith, and proceeded to build their analyses upon it. How fitting a basis on which to condemn science: religion, which is to say faith itself, makes yet another jab at science, its epistemological foe. Some of the proponents of this attack against science have even held that only a more religious Germany will be safe against a return of Naziism. We shall show that that would be like injecting cyanide into a person in order to "cure" his cyanide poisoning. Adolf Hitler famously scapegoated Jews as the source of Germany's problems. Historians and others favorable toward religion have similarly scapegoated science as the source of the Holocaust. Both scapegoatings are based on frauds, as the present work will also show. However, science as the "cause" of the Holocaust has been only one among the many insupportable "theories" put forth to explain this horror. As mentioned before, the Holocaust's cause remains a mystery, despite the passage now of more than a half-century after the event. Why did it happen? Why did Hitler do it? Why did the German nation do it? Even today, no one really knows. One reason for the mystery is thatjust as with the science-scapegoating "explanation"none of the obvious or easy "explanations" withstands even cursory investigation. For example, consider the genocide as a possible military device. Obviously, the Holocaust occurred within the context of a World War; yet it actually drained the attention of Hitler and of his fighting forces away from the war-effort, needlessly hardened the worldwide opposition to Germany, and transformed into outright enemies talented people who might otherwise have been neutral or even supportive as "patriotic Germans." Judged purely as a military tactic, the Holocaust was at best dubious, and at worst counter-productive. Horst von Maltitz perceptively observed in this regard in his 1973 The Evolution of Hitler's Germany (p. 171), that "railroad transport trains carrying Jews from the West to extermination camps in Poland were given priority over trains for urgently needed troops and war supplies. Moreover, skilled Jewish laborers, desperately needed in the munitions plants in occupied Poland, were carted off to extermination centers, in spite of strong objections by plant managers." And according to the Polish Ambassador, Jan Ciechanowski, in his 1947 Defeat in Victory (p. 179), he had personally handed U.S. President Roosevelt in the White House on 28 July 1943 a memo that, "The unprecedented destruction of the entire Jewish population is not motivated by Germany's military requirements. Hitler and his subordinates aim at the total destruction of the Jews before the war ends and regardless of its outcome." The basic question thus is posed: what was the relationship 15

Preface between Germany's war effort and the Holocaust? Which served which; what was Hitler's ultimate objective? The Fuhrer's words right before his suicidehis final, supreme, statement of his war-aimsurged his people to continue the war, until victory, against what he held to be the sole real enemy: "the poisoner of all nations, international Jewry." The enemy for him was Jews in all nations; this also sheds light on why over 96% of the Jews slaughtered in the Holocaust did not come from Germany. We shall indeed show that, for Hitler, defeat of the enemy entailed nothing less than the extermination of all Jews. In other words, for Hitler, the Holocaustthe "final solution" was not a military device, it was a military goal; in fact, it was the central military goal, which took precedence over even the expansion of Lebensraum. In order to understand why the Holocaust happened, it therefore is necessary to understand why Hitler hated Jews so fanatically and so obsessively that nothing less than their total extermination would satisfy him. Thus, if the seed that grew into the Holocaust is to be found anywhere, it will be found in Hitler's own motivations; that is to say, in the motivations of Germany's leader, not of the masses of the German people, whose responsibility for this crime was of a fundamentally different nature. Even though one also wants to know why the German people entrusted to Hitler the unprecedented power they ended up placing into his hands, one cannot possibly find the seed for the Holocaust in that knowledge alone; because if Hitler had not wanted the Jews to be exterminated, then the Jews would not have been exterminated. Though it can be debated whether Hitler had to manipulate the German people to achieve that ghastly end, it cannot be debated whether the German people demanded it from him and forced him to do it, or whether they would have repudiated Hitleror even never have elected him in the first placeif the Fuhrer had taken a different path than that of genocide. Unquestionably, Hitler did not need the Holocaust in order either to win or to stay in office; unquestionably, the Fuhrer was leading the German people to this endthis orgy of evil and it is preposterous to assume (as does Daniel Goldhagen) that they were leading him. This has been extensively documented. Even the structuralist scholar of Naziism, Ian Kershaw, in the fifth chapter of his 1989 The Nazi Dictatorship, documents that Hitler skillfully developed within his leadership-ranks an everhardening position in favor of extermination, over other options such as expulsion of the Jews. Richard Breitman, in his 1991 The Architect of Genocide, (pp. 50-1), describes 16

Preface how even the Nazis' early show-policy of Jewish expulsion was aimed at "creating the precondition for a worldwide battle against the Jews." And Rudolph Binion, in his 1976 Hitler Among The Germans, (pp. 28-31), documents that when Reichsbank chief Hjalmar Schacht began to put into place mechanisms for an even minimally successful expulsion-and-resettlement program, Hitler promptly fired him. Regardless whether one accepts the thesis of Goldhagen's 1996 Hitlers Willing Executioners, that "the Germans" perpetrated the Holocaust because they positively enjoyed murdering "the Jews," Hitler had to work long and hard in order to bring about a consensus, first amongst his own leadership group, and then in the population as a whole, favoring the extermination-option. Hitler clearly was the catalyst turning the chemical mixture into the chemical reaction known as the Holocaust. Without Hitler, it would not have taken place. Therefore, no explanation of the Holocaust can succeed that fails to document what Hitler's motivation for it was. In fact, since Hitler led his people toward this end, not the other way around, Hitler's motivation for it is the central reality that must be documented in any successful explanation for the Holocaust. In this context, it should also be noted that despite Goldhagen's claims to be explaining the Holocaust, his book would not provide such an explanation even if his thesis of German mass-anti-Semitism were totally true. His book fails to explain why "the Germans" hated "the Jews." It adds nothing at all that is new to the understanding of anti-Semitism itself, much less to what he undocumentedly asserts to have been the uniqueness of German anti-Semitism that produced this outcome in that particular country at that time. All that Goldhagen documented was the pervasiveness of anti-Semitism there. That does not constitute an explanation of the Holocaust. It leaves hanging not only the longstanding question of why anti-Semitism exists, but also the entire question of why the Holocaustthe particular genocide that happened where and when it didhappened. Even Goldhagen would probably inveigh against a supposed explanation of Hitler's "final solution to the Jewish problem" that stopped at "eliminationist anti-Semitism" on Hitler's part. Yet Goldhagen feels no need to go beyond that for an "explanation" of what "the German people" did. Fortunately, the documentation of Hitler's motivation for perpetrating the Holocaust is extensive, even though it has never been brought together systematically and presented in one place before now. This documentation consists, firstly, in Hitler's own painstaking and detailed 17

Preface explanations, setting forth on different occasions different aspects of what, in its entirety, turns out to have been an amazingly coherent, logically consistent, theory for the Holocaust. This theory was based on his having accepted the literal truthfulness of everything that is in "The Bible Monumental History of Mankind," as he called it in his private notes. The various fragments of his theory for the Holocaust are here, for the first time, assembled from his private notes to himself, his conversations with his friends and colleagues-in-arms, his writings, and his speeches to supporters. Secondly, there is the additional testimony of those who worked most closely with Hitler, consistently verifying his religiosity. Thirdly, there is the factual record of what Hitler did and how he did it. Fourthly and finally, there are the testimony and facts concerning Hitler's upbringing as a child and especially the cultural influences to which he was subjected during those earliest personality-forming years. All four types of evidence are consistent with each other in presenting the same picture of Hitler's motivation for his perpetration of the Holocaust. Hitler never wanted his victims to know why he was perpetrating the Holocaust against them; and, of course, he never used a term such as "the Holocaust," which was introduced only in the War's aftermath. Nonetheless, he was proud to explain to his friends and supporters why he was convinced that the extermination of all Jews was the central moral requirement for the world. Hitler's theory was based entirely upon the Bible, and centered upon his struggle to understand the meaning of "original sin." As we will show, Hitler's concern about "original sin"a concept that recurs frequently in his statementswas largely based on personal problems in his life. Hitler was determined to keep these personal problems private, however, and so he carefully avoided discussing them. Such matters, as he saw it, were not of public interest anyway. Hitler was convinced that the public had no right to know about them, and that, in any event, these matters were irrelevant to the Tightness or wrongness of his policies, despite the fact that he had formulated these policies as a direct consequence of his biblical readings and of his struggles to interpret his personal problems in relation to certain passages in the Bible. Fortunately also, Hitler's theory for the Holocaust was based on the very same biblical passages that he had been pondering in order to find a way to "atone" for what he had determinedon the basis of the Bible, and of those personal problemsto have been his own "curse" from original sin. In other words, 18

Preface the relationship between Hitler's private problems and his biblically based theory for the Holocaust, is transparently obvious, and as a consequence, the facts of his personal life that led Hitler to these fatal Scriptural passages that inspired him to enter politics with the aim to bring about the Holocaust are also clear. This work is not a psychobiography of Hitler; there is no psychoanalytical theory in it, nor any application of any such theory to Hitler's life. The only thing of a psychological nature that is assumed here is that one's personalitywhich in Hitler's case included an intense anti-Semitismis formed on the basis of an individual's earliest experiences in life, and that as one gets older, additions or changes to personality become smaller and smaller. In other words, to put it roughly, cradle-talk is more important than college-talk; the cultural influences experienced during childhood are vastly more important than those experienced later in life. The empirical basis for the general principle is vast, and ranges over numerous disciplines, from human development, to moral development, to developmental psychology, to political socialization, to brain research, to education, to marketing research. Honing in on just the last two: it has recently been shown that Headstart programs for poor children produce lasting benefits only if undertaken during the child's very earliest years, well before school-age; and marketers are so persuaded of the foundational nature of early experience, that advertising-media fetch a hefty premium for reaching young audiences as opposed to old ones, and cigarette manufacturers know that their future is doomed if they fail to convert people while young. Motivation increasingly is coming to be understood on the basis of evolutionary (genetic) and cultural (environmental) factors, and thus to be the domains of evolutionary and of cultural psychology. Inasmuch as the Holocaust was clearly a cultural phenomenon, the psychological challenge it presents is obviously one of cultural psychology. And as a social/anthropological phenomenon, the Holocaust will here be interpreted also from a cultural standpoint, clearly not from an evolutionary one (which Hitler and some scholars might prefer). The cultural influences that shaped Hitler's views of Jews from the crib on were the same ones that other small-town and rural Austrian children of his time experienced, and that were common in Germany and many other countries. Hitler happens to have had remarkable leadership-skills. But one of the reasons why his countrymen accepted him as their leader is that those individuals had themselves been subjected, during their earliest childhood, to the same general cultural influences that Hitler represented. This book, therefore, at the same time as it seeks to explain 19

Preface how those cultural influences ended up producing Hitler as the leader of the Holocaust, aims to explain why his leadership was accepted, and even why, as Goldhagen, among others, established beyond any reasonable doubt, anti-Semitism was prevalent in Germanynot the fact of its prevalence, which Goldhagen documented, but the explanation for it. This aspect of the argument explains, in a sense, why the body, the German people, did the bidding of the brain, Hitler. The brain needs the body in order to carry out its intentions. The body needs the brain in order to organize its actions. The Holocaust, obviously, required both brain and body. But motivation lies in the brain, not in the body, and Goldhagen got that wrong. Also, one might view Hitler as the catalyst for the Holocaust. In those terms, the chemical reaction had to consist of more than merely a willing and ready populace: the chemicals, in the appropriate mixture. (This would include certain historical features of the country and of the time, that were distinctive to Germany in the wake of the Versailles Treaty and the German depression and chaos of the struggling Weimar Republic.) Again, the catalyst made the chemical reaction take place; again, Hitler was the key. The aim in the present work is to provide a complete and fully documented explanation for the Holocaust. This explanation will be both cultural-psychological and cultural-anthropological. It will describe how the culture made Adolf Hitler want to exterminate all Jews, and how the culture made the German nation want to follow his leadership in this enterprise. As has already been mentioned, certain passages in the Bible are parts of this explanation, inasmuch as Hitler based his theory for the Holocaust upon them, and inasmuch as the German people had likewise been raised with these same anti-Semitic myths. Some Germans even accepted them as Hitler himself did, as being literally true because they were from "The BibleMonumental History of Mankind" (as Hitler revealingly referred to it in his private notes). It therefore becomes relevant to address here explicitly the origins of biblical lies, since these lies caused the Holocaust. The second half of the book does this. It turns out that the biblical anti-Semitic statements, such as were put into Jesus' mouth in John 8:44, and which Hitler believed as Gospel Truth, were originated by Saint Paul. Amazingly, one man planted the seed for the Holocaust. The Holocaust was the fullest flowering of seed that had been planted nearly two millennia earlier. The second half of this work documents that. Perhaps more should be said now about the reason for doing this, since it is quite unorthodox in historical explanations to deal with causes seemingly so remote as to have occurred two-thousand 20

Preface years earlier. Hitler's theory for the Holocaust constituted his reason for doing it Prior to his having formulated this theory, his anti-Semitism was inchoate, disorganized, and unfocusedjust as is commonly the case with this sentiment. For example, Karl Barth in his Letters: 1961-1968 (1981), referred on 5 September 1967 to his own "totally irrational aversion, [an] allergic reaction of mine" toward "Jews (even Jewish Christians)." Early in his life, Hitler's own anti-Semitism was likewise inchoate. But Hitler's theorythis "solution" to the problem that so plagued him personally, of original singave him a mission in life; and this mission was the Holocaust. For Hitler, the Holocaust was to be his greatest lifetime achievement, the foundation-stone for the "Thousand-Year Reich." Without this theory, the Holocaust would never have happened. The Holocaust, therefore, was caused by this theory. The theory, in turn, would never have occurred to Hitler if he had never been exposed to the Bible, either directly by his having read it, or indirectly through his having on so many occasions throughout his childhood heard it preached and taught at home, school, and church. Indeed, Hitler's theory for the Holocaustnot to speak of many of his other statementsdrew from over a hundred specific biblical passages, with a core of sixty that were essential to it, so that it is impossible to understand his theory without reference to them. Without a doubt, the Bible was an essential link in the chain of causes that produced as its ultimate consequence the Holocaust. And therefore, what caused the anti-Semitic lies by Saint Paul and his followers who wrote the New Testament, is also a link in this causal chain, and must be understood if the cause of the Holocaust is to be fully known. That is why biblical lies are a subject in this book. Explaining this originating cause of the Holocaust entails certain biographical facts about Saint Paul, just as explaining the later links in the chain entails some biographical facts about Hitler. The personalities, life-stories, beliefs, and goals, of these two particular individuals, thus become essential components in our explanation for the Holocaust. This historical explanation, therefore, is of a new type. It is neither of the idealistic kind that refers to Nietzsche, Fichte, Hegel, Gobineau, or other intellectual influences that Hitler encountered after childhood if at all; nor is it of the materialistic kind that is mechanistic and so refers to no individual beliefs, and not even to personal biographical facts. Likewise, this theory is not structuralist, which is a variant of materialism, nor intentionalist, which is a variant of idealism. However, while the theory proposed here is consistent with an 21

Preface idealistic/intentionalist approach, broadly conceived, it is entirely inconsistent with a materialistic/structuralist approach, since the latter repudiates any consideration whatsoever of strictly personal or individual factors, in favor of an impersonal materialistic-structuralist social analysis, such as Karl Marx's classconflict theory, or Hitler's own racial-conflict theory. I would characterize the new approach as follows: the actual statements from the actual originator/founder of a social/historical movement regarding why he/she started that movement are presented, and are taken seriously as representing the reason why that movement came into being. Hitler was the originator/founder of the Holocaust. Paul was, as we shall show from his own testimony, the actual originator/founder of "Christianity"; Paul, not Christ, originated the faith named after Christ. To some, it might sound beyond belief, simply incredible, that historians do not consult the statements of actual originators/founders of major social/historical movements in order to ascertain historical causes of those movements; but it is true, nonetheless. The accounts from these founders/originators are interpreted in terms of a minimum of theory. As previously mentioned, psychoanalytical and other assumption-rich theory is avoided. Nothing is assumed except the cultural background from which the person came, with special emphasis being placed upon the cultural influences to which the individual was extensively exposed during his/her earliest childhood years, which can therefore reasonably be considered as having shaped the individual's personality. Of course, only time will tell whether this new approach to historical causation is itself a historiographical beginning, or instead merely a onetime occurrencesimultaneously a historiographical beginning and ending.


PART I: Hitler's "Holy War" Against "the Jews"


A Map of the Argument: How Hitler Came to the Conclusion That All Jews Must Be Killed

The argument to follow is going to be complex, because reality is complex. This conceptual map will show, in broad outline, the interrelationships between the parts. Each chapter of the book will deal with a different aspect of this complex whole. Without a map, one might lose one's way. You can think of this outline, therefore, as being like a street-map to a city. Only the main streets are shown, but that will be enough; it will even get you to all the side-streets. The basic theme of this section dealing with Hitler and the Holocaust consists of two parts: First, it is accepted that the Holocaust would not have happened if Hitler had not wanted it to happen. Second, the case is presented that the reason why Hitler wanted it to happen is that in 1919, when he first entered politics, Hitler came to the conclusion that the only way possible for him to deal with certain personal problems that had long plagued him, and also the only way for him to achieve his spiritual salvation as a Christian, would be for him to execute God's will on Earth, as expressed in "The BibleMonumental History of Mankind," (as he phrased the matter), and to cleanse the world of the "original sin" of the "blood poisoning" of "The Aryan" or "Children of God" (or pureblooded Christians) that has occurred by "miscegenation" with "the Jews," whom Christ had identified in John 8:44 as being the 24

A Map of the Argument child of Satan. Hitler, as a fundamentalist Christian to whom the Bible was "history" instead of myth, had concluded that this "race-mixing" violated "Racial purity the highest law" of God, and thus constituted "a terrible fact" producing "misery forever." And he was determined to end it. Throughout his life, Hitler suffered certain physical ailments that, evidently, made him fee) miserable on many occasions, even though doctors could never diagnose the cause. Hitler was convinced that the problem must lie in his blood. First, he tried leeches to purify ithe did not know of what, or how. This got him nowhere. Then, in 1919, right after Germany's defeat in World War I, he came to the solution that he pursued for the rest of his life. In private notes to himself, for what he intended to be his first book, The Germanic RevolutionVolume I, he outlined his interpretation of the meaning of his health-problems, even though he did not mention those health-problems specifically. He was here concerned only with what he felt to be the broader significance of those problemsthe reason why God was punishing him in this way. Hitler, who considered himself to be at least relatively free of individual sin, was convinced that God must be punishing him for his own "original sin." His notes explored the meaning of "original sin" without any personal reference at all. This was typical of him: Hitler always universalized his personal problems, which in any event he felt were nobody's business but his own. In these notes, Hitler divided Mankind into two categories, in accord with biblical passages such as 1 Peter 1-2 defining "God's chosen people," and John 8:44 and Matthew 27:25 defining the children of Satan. As defined by the Christian Bible, God's people are Christians, purified by Christ's blood, and Satan's people are the Jews, who for that reason had shed His blood. In Hitler's notes, "original sin" consisted of the "blood poisoning" of "The Aryan" or "Children of God," by "miscegenation" with "the Jew." In this context, Hitler's own "original sin" for which God was punishing him became clear: Hitler had always believed (as it turns out, falsely) that he was, or might be, the grandson of a Jewthe unknown father of Hitler's own illegitimate father. Hitler had to "atone" for "this curse" of his having Satan's blood coursing through his veins; only thus could he win "Paradise." In a separate writing by Hitler at around the same time, a letter explaining how society should deal with the problem of "the Jews," Hitler gave first expression to his subsequently relentless view that they have to be "eliminated." Again, he did not mention his personal problems: his ailments, and the now-assumed cause for them, his own "blood poisoning" 25

A Map of the Argument by "the Jew." However, when he wrote Mein Kampf in 1924, he filled in more details of what was by then his full-fledged theory for the Holocaust that was to come: for example, that "Paradise" (his term for a disease-free world in which God's People lived uncontaminated with the "blood poisoning" from the people of Satan) must be restored in order finally to end original sin and the miseries it causes. This was the real meaning behind such statements from Hitler as when he said, only two years later, on 18 December 1926, that, "The teachings of Christ [John 8:44, etc.] have laid the foundations for the battle against Jews as the enemy of Mankind; the work that Christ began, I shall finish." Hitler was actually referring here to his subsequent "final solution" to "the Jewish problem." Professional historians, perhaps concerned to avoid the possibility of offending religious believers in what is still an overwhelmingly religious society, have uniformly failed to report Hitler's biblically grounded theory for the Holocaust, even though Hitler's most detailed statement of it was sprinkled throughout Mein Kampf, and so is hardly challenging to document. The present work is the first in which its existence is even acknowledged. The German public were raised with the same anti-Semitic myths as Hitler. That is the key reason why they considered Hitler's anti-Semitism acceptable or even good. That, in turn, is a major reason they elected him, and why they carried out his Holocaust. Thus, the Bible placed the seed for the Holocaust in Hitler's mind, and fertilized the soilthe German publicfor the bumper crop of death that was to come. In sum: the Holocaust was inspired by the Bible, but was triggered by Hitler's personal problems. The Versailles Treaty and Weimar collapse were the stage-setting for the crime, religion was the gun, the Holocaust was the bullet, and Hitler's personal problems triggered the gun that delivered the bullet.


1: The Problem

By virtue of the Holocaust's having been not just a tragedy but a crime, it necessarily had a motive. The extermination of Jews and others was intended, not a mistake. Furthermore, it was a planned and organized mass-crime, that was imposed top-down by identifiable leaders, rather than an unorganized grass-roots phenomenon, such as a riot. Clearly, therefore, not only did motivation matter, but motivation at the topthat is to say, amongst the leadershipmattered the most. Extending further this summary of the responsibility, and thus guilt, for this crime, the leadership below the topmost level of the Fuhrer, Adolf Hitler, took their instructions from Hitler, whose intentions were therefore supreme. This is an attribution of the center not only of guilt, but of cause. Consequently, no answer to the question of why the Holocaust happened would be adequate if it did not resolve what Hitler's motivation was for the Holocaust. However, this specification of "motivation" must itself be real, not fake. For example, if one were to say that Hitler wanted the Holocaust to happen because he felt "eliminationist anti-Semitism," such an "explanation" would be fake. The statement is nothing more than tautological: to want to exterminate all Jews would be the same as to intend the Holocaust; it would actually explain nothing. To specify the motivation for the Holocaust requires more than merely to name a feeling; it requires identifying the actual source of that feeling. Obviously, then, it would be even less to the point to assert that "eliminationist anti-Semitism" amongst the German masses "caused" the Holocaust. In other words, to actually answer the question of why the 27

1: The Problem Holocaust happened, it is necessary to identify the motivation of its leader, its initiator, and its conceptualizer: Hitler himself. There arc other reasons why this is so. For example, if one were to speak of the German masses as having been the cause, or in a standalone sense, the ultimate perpetrators of the Holocaust, then one would be unable to deal in a meaningful way with the reality that some Germans did not share the goal of "eliminationist anti-Semitism," and that the Nazi organization selected only people who did share that goal. This is what one is referring to when saying that the Holocaust was no grass-roots movement or riot: the leadership that selected and organized "Hitler's willing executioners" was the key to the Holocaustthe difference between simply the common anti-Semitism that prevailed in the German/Austrian and other Christian cultures of the time, and the genocide that the German/Austrian Nazis brought about. Thus, the issue that has always been failed is not why "the Germans" did it, but why the Nazi leadership did it, and ultimately why the Fuhrer did it. This is not to deny that something had to have been profoundly wrong with German and Austrian society during the 1930's in order for it to bring Adolf Hitler forward as the revered popular leader of the Germanic Reich. To the contrary, it is to establish on a sound footing the search to identify precisely what that profound wrongness consisted of. That search, too, has been failed. Conservatives, and even extreme conservatives such as the Nazis, have blamed the pre-Nazi German Weimar Republic that was the result of the Versailles settlement that ended World War 1. Liberals have also blamed the Versailles Treaty, combined with the Great Depression. But none of that produced the Holocaust; at most, those conditions produced the opportunity to perpetrate the Holocaust, but certainly not its motivation, its cause. It is the search for the cause that has been failed. And, as this book will demonstrate, the real key that answers why Germany and Austria did it, is to know why the Fuhrer, Adolf Hitler, instigated it. Of course, Hitler is dead, so he is not available to ask. But fortunately, he answered this question during his lifetime, in his private notes and voluminous other writings and statements; and not only did he answer it, but he did so in amazing detail, carefully and coherently. The only reason you don't know why Hitler perpetrated the Holocaust and why the Holocaust happened, is that scholars have covered this up. We shall therefore not just present, in Hitler's own words, his theory behind the Holocaust, but also explain why public knowledge of this theory, upon the basis of which he planned the Holocaust, and which therefore caused 28

1: The Problem the extermination of millions, would be threatening to the authority of scholarship itself, and so has been suppressed. Although scholars have suppressed the theory, they have published, here and there, in a multitude of different places, small squibs or isolated narts of it, but never Hitler's explanation for the Holocaustthe theory on the basis of which he entered politics in 1919 with the aim in mind to eliminate all Jews. It is this theory that is here being exposed to the non-Nazi public for the very first time. One widespread public notion that should be discredited in advance is that Hitler and the other Nazi leaders were simply unaware of the repellent character that the Holocaust presented even to their own people, and yet-more-so to the masses. Despite the myth of morally heedless "Hitler's willing executioners" who were supposedly insensitive to the sheer barbarism of what they were doing, the Nazi leaders who organized the genocide knew quite well that the people they were commanding felt that they were doing dirty work, even if it was dirty work they felt had to be done. All who willingly engaged in this enterprise did so despite its repellency, in pursuit of what they felt to be a higher good. It is that conception of this "higher good" that will be laid out in these pages, in Hitler's own words. For the people working below him, there was no need to know all details of this "higher good," Hitler's entire theory for the Holocaust. It was enough for them simply to share Hitler's cultural values, in terms of which Hitler himself had formulated this theory; for it was those shared cultural values that caused them to obey willingly. The theory was not needed in order to produce that obedience. Consequently, this theory would not have been able to have the impact it did, if it had not sprung from values that the masses of the German and Austrian people shared with their Fuhrervalues, in other words, of the culture itself. Hitler did not personally sully his own hands directly with this dirty work. His function was not that of the slaughterhouse-worker, but of the planner and chief executive officer of the Holocaust. Or one might even say that he was so distant from its actual execution as to have been not its CEO but its Chairman. But in any case, as we shall show in his own words, he was extremely proud to be its planner, its source. Hitler appointed as the chief operating officer of the Holocaust Heinrich Himmler, who, unlike Hitler, actually visited the slaughterhouses. As might be expected, Himmler very much shared Hitler's cultural values that were expressed in the Holocaust. And as also might be expected, Himmler was wholeheartedly committed to the assignment, which he knew to be of supreme importance to the Fuhrer. 29

1: The Problem This seriousness and intensity of commitment to the Holocaust as a moral goal were well reflected in a speech that Himmler, on 4 October 1943 delivered to his subordinates, SS (SchutzStaffel, or Security Squad) leaders. Himmler spoke with passionat some times almost whispering, and at others shoutingabout the "Clearing out" or "Evacuation of the Jews," as the mutually agreed-upon euphemism for "the Final Solution to the Jewish Problem," in which he said (as reported in pages 145-6, document 1919-PS, in v. 29 of International Military Tribunal, Trial of The Major War Criminals, 1948; and pages 563-4, 1919-PS, v. 4, USGPO, Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression, 1946): I also want to speak to you here, in complete frankness, of a really grave chapter. Amongst ourselves, for once, it shall be said quite openly, but all the same we will never speak about it in public. I am referring here to the evacuation of the Jews, the extermination of the Jewish people. This is one of the things that is easily said: 'The Jewish people are going to be exterminated,' that's what every Party member says, 'sure, it's in our program, elimination of the Jews, exterminationit'll be done.' And then they all come along, the 80 million worthy Germans, and each one has his one decent Jew. Of course, the others are swine, but this one, he is a first-rate Jew. Of all those who talk like that, not one has seen it happen, not one has had to go through with it. Most of you men know what it is like to see 100 corpses side by side, or 500 or 1,000. To have stood fast through this andexcept for cases of human weaknessto have stayed decent, that has made us hard. This is an unwritten and never-tobe-written page of glory in our history. *** The wealth they possessed we took from them. I gave a strict order, which has been carried out by SS Obergruppenfuhrer Pohl, that this wealth will of course be turned over to the Reich in its entirety. We have taken none of it for ourselves. Individuals who have erred will be punished in accordance with the order given by me at the start, threatening that anyone who takes as much as a single Mark of this money is a dead man. A number of SS menthey are not very manycommitted this 30

1: The Problem offense, and they shall die. There will be no mercy. We had the moral right, we had the duty towards our people, to destroy this people that wanted to destroy us. But we do not have the right to enrich ourselves by so much as a fur, as a watch, by one Mark or a cigarette or anything else. We do not want, in the end, because we destroyed a bacillus, to be infected by this bacillus and to die. I will never stand by and watch while even a small rotten spot develops or takes hold. Wherever it may form we will together burn it away. All in all, however, we can say that we have carried out this most difficult of tasks in a spirit of love for our people. And we have suffered no harm to our inner being, our soul, our character. Himmler went into no detail about the Fuhrer's theory for the Holocaust; he didn't have to. It was enough simply that these men knew that they could trust that they were doing something noble, because it was the will of Hitler, and that meant it was also the will of God. Or, as Himmler two days later told another group of subordinates, Gauleiters and Reichsleiters (as quoted in Peter Padfield, Himmler, 1990, page 468), "Only once in 2,000 years is such a leader [as Hitler] sent to our people," meaning that just as God had sent Christ to God's People then, He has sent Hitler to God's People now. This idea of Hitler as Christ's successor was standard for Himmler. One finds it, for example, in the course he taught to the Wehrmacht, 15-23 January 1937 (USGPO, Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression, v. 4, 1946, p. 634), as part of his closing justification for the coming "extermination of the subhuman enemies of Germany as the nucleus of the Aryan race," God's Chosen People. Shortly before his having taught that course, Himmler had written the 1937 booklet (excerpted in Hier spricht Deutschland, v. 30, pp. 27-31, 1937, "Die Schutzstaffel als antibolschewistische Kampforganisation," from Zentralverlag der NSDAP/ Franz Eher, Munich) 50 Questions and Answers for the SS-Man, in which the first question is, "What is your oath?" The answer is, "We swear to you, Adolf Hitler, loyalty and bravery as leader and chancellor of the German Reich. We vow to you and to the principles laid down by you, obedience till death, so help us God!" Question Two is, "Do you therefore believe in God?" The answer is, "Yes, I believe in the Lord God." Third is, "What do you think of a person who does not believe in God?" Answer: "I consider him arrogant, stupid, and a megalomaniac. He is not suited to be one of us." Then Himmler continued in a more personal voice, "I have reminded you of these three questions and answers in order to make completely clear our attitude toward religion. Do not doubt that we could not be the men we are, bound by a solemn oath, if we did not have faith in 31

1: The Problem a Lord God who rules over us, who has created us and our Fatherland, our people and this earth, and who has sent us our Fuhrer. . . . Believe me, men with such convictions are anything but atheists." Further on in the booklet, it says, "We, the Schutzstaffel, have been formed and grown within our newly resurrected people on the command of the Fuhrer." Clearly, obedience itself, for these people, was enough of a reason, because this was obedience ultimately to the will of God. Only Hitler himself needed to know reasons beyond that, such as how he knew this to be God's will. Nor did Hitler expect his fighting forces and the masters of the death-factories to know more than that they were doing his will. In his Secret Conversations (1953) or Table-Talk (1988) in his war-bunker, Hitler on 21 October 1941 told his confidants, as we shall subsequently have occasion to quote again in other contexts, "By exterminating this pest [Jews], we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea." They did not know Hitler's full theory behind the Holocaust, because they had no need to; they had faith; Hitler's authority alone was sufficient reason to do it. But wethe world that has been left in Hitler's wake need to know, because we need to avoid a recurrence, not just of Hitler's genocide, but of any genocide, even of the ones that have followed after the Holocaust itself. Apparently, there are lessons the world has not yet learned because the Holocaust still remains not understood. And this brings us finally to Hitler himself, the manno longer merely the people surrounding him who carried out his orders.


2: Hitler the Mystery-Man

The eye of the hurricane was Adolf Hitler: if Hitler had not wanted the Holocaust to happen, then the Holocaust would not have happened. As a logician might put it, Hitler's wanting it to happen was a necessary but not sufficient condition in order for the Holocaust to occur. It was, in any case, a precondition. However, nobody knows why Hitler wanted the Holocaust to happen. The purpose of Part I of this book will be to answer that question beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the standard of proof required in a criminal trial. This is an appropriate standard because the Holocaust was itself a crimea massive crimewhose motive is unknown and is here to be established for the first time. A higher standard of proof, beyond any doubtor to an absolute 100% certaintyis reasonable in mathematics, but not in science; and a court of law deals with questions beyond those of mere mathematics, to address real-world mattersmatters of science. Therefore, the scientific standard of proof, which is beyond a reasonable doubt, applies in a criminal trial. Absolute certainty, it might be noted, is not the standard only in mathematics; it is also the standard in religious faith, where it is applied to certain real-world matters by labeling them as supernatural, supposedly beyond even the possibility of reach by science. A criminal court in a democratic society aims to exclude such mythological thinking, so as to come up with verdicts that are defensible scientifically, rather than religiously; and this will be the approach used here as well. The three requirements in order to produce a conviction for any crime are: (1) motive; (2) means; and (3) opportunity. In the case of the 33

2: Hitler the Mystery-Man Holocaust, both of the latter two have been well established according to the requisite standard of beyond a reasonable doubt; only the first, motive, has not been. The means of the Holocaust included such things as the gas chambers, which is the reason why the Nazis bombed those themselves just before the advancing Allied troops were able to get to them. The opportunity for the Holocaust consisted of all of the aspects of a desperate post-World-War-I Germany experiencing hyperinflation during the Great Depression, as well as the nation's cultural tolerance of anti-Semitism and of other forms of bigotry. And now, finally, the motive also will be established, and the crime thus, at last, solved. In the process of answering the question of why Hitler wanted the Holocaust to happen, we shall also address other aspects of the Holocaust's cause, such as why the German people found Hitler to be an acceptable leader. It will be shown that all these things are interconnected, and that in drawing these interconnections, we are coming to understand a culture the culture that produced the Holocaust. And it would be unrealistic to portray that hurricane without the eye at its center, Adolf Hitler. Scholars disagree on just about everything concerning the cause of the Holocaust. But on one thing they are unanimous: Adolf Hitler did not perpetrate the Holocaust on the basis of religiousand certainly not with Christian motivation or belief. But we shall document that on this single item of unanimity, the scholarsdespite their claimed expertise are unanimously wrong and are profoundly misleading the public. Ironically, the one cause of the Holocaust that scholars refuse even to consider was the actual cause of the Holocaust. A remarkableand stunningly ignoredgoldmine of evidence regarding why Hitler wanted the Holocaust to happen, exists in the voluminous verbal record he left, including private letters, notes to himself, transcribed conversations with his colleagues-in-arms, and speeches to his supporters. However, Hitler was a cunning man, and in order to accurately understand, decode, or interpret, any one of these statements, one must possess the decoding key, which is the correct understanding of Hitler's strategy and tactics of communication. The most basic component of this decoding key is that Hitler divided Mankind, and thus his intended audiences, into two fundamental categories: "us" and "them." He did not speakor writethe same way to both. When he was addressing "us," his supporters whom he accepted as fellow Aryans, his objective was to teach, inspire, educate, and empower with 34

2: Hitler the Mystery-Man Truth as he understood it or believed himself to understand it. These statements reflected his real convictions, which he delivered with intense passion. However, Hitler was cunning enough to recognize that knowledge is power, and that therefore he must never impart to any one personnot even to a supporterall of the Truth, or "the big picture"; for if he were to do that, then such an individual, empowered with as much understanding as the Fuhrer himself, could become a rival and topple and replace him. Hitler knew that in order for him to remain safely in command, and in control, no individual other than himself must know everything that he knew or, to be more precise, believed. (A great deal of what he "knew" was actually false.) Therefore, amongst all of the thousands of statements that Hitler left us that were directed either to himself or to people he thought at the time to be supporters, he presented his entire reason for the Holocaust. This reason was so detailed and so coherent that it constituted nothing less than Hitler's theory for the Holocaust. However, he tried to avoid making any single complete and coherent statement of it, because he wanted to avoid creating a rival as knowledgeable as himself. The closest he ever came to violating this nondisclosure rule was his sprinkling virtually the entire theory amongst the hundreds of chaotic pages of Mein Kampf. But even there he avoided so much as a single instance of crediting the book he had mastered in his childhood and which was the source for each part of the theory. By contrast, when Hitler was addressing individuals whom he considered to be not "us" but "them," he falsified. He led these people off the scent; it was important to Hitler that these people not be empowered with the Truth, and especially not with any true understanding of his real intentions. One famous example of Hitler's communications directed at "them" was the Munich Pactthat piece of paper Sir Neville Chamberlain in 1938 held up to the eyes of the world as "proof of Hitler's essentially defensive, peaceful, intentions. However, that was an example that is now widely recognized as reflecting Hitler's deceptions. Many other statements by Hitler that were also false, and also directed at "them," are still believed, even today, to have been sincere, and thus still remain decoys to his true understanding. These decoy-statements were specifically intended by him to lead his enemies off the scent of his intentions, and they succeed at doing so even now. Presenting Hitler's explanation, to himself and to those he considered supporters and fellow Aryans, laying out his theory for the Holocaust, will be the subject of subsequent chapters within Part I. The 35

2: Hitler the Mystery-Man aim of the present chapter will be to provide a portrait of the man himselfthe man behind this theory.

Adolf Hitler was, first and foremost, infamously intolerant. Everyone knows that this was so, but how did it come to be? And what made Jews such special targets of his bigotry? Hitler was also bigoted against Blacks, Gypsies, homosexuals, the disabled, and every other minorityeven against Slavs. But there was something special about his hatred of Jews, whom he referred to with fury, even in his expiring words, his "Political Testament" before his suicide, as "the poisoner of all nations, international Jewry," meaning Jews in all countries, for to him they were all the same, and all a mortal threat to Hitler's own "Aryan race." Yet even after all the decades that have passed since then, nobody knows what the source of this genocidal hatred was. It will be the first objective of the present book to answer this question: Hitler's own words will answer it in painstaking detail, with remarkable logical coherence, based on false "History" that he believed to be true because of its source, the "Monumental History of Mankind." He had thoroughly mastered this "History" in his childhood. (Our subsequent chapters will document this; we won't have to take Hitler's word for it, even though he did assert late in his life that as a child he had become "completely master" of this book of "history.") Hitler is a man of great mystery. One can read all the biographies that have been written of him and still be left with the question: how did these parts fit together? Did he make sense even to himself? Did he seek and obtain power for a purpose, or was power itself for him the only purpose? All these questions are the same, and all are unanswered. Some biographers don't even try to answer them; some have gone so far as to admit that the man still baffles them after all the years of study and of interviewing Hitler's acquaintances and poring over his voluminous writings, and scrutinizing his actions with care. One of the great unanswered questions is why Hitler singled out Jews for such special hatred. Even the question itself is debated: did Hitler actually single Jews out? Since at least the late 1970's, with the writings of historian David Irving and others, this has been challenged. Nowadays, however, virtually the only historians who continue to raise as a serious possibility the idea that Hitler merely drifted toward the Holocaust, or that Jews were not its special focus, are self-declared anti-Semites. The great historian of the Nazi era, Guenter Lewy, produced in 2000 his The Nazi Persecution of the Gypsies, exploring that particular aspect of the Holocaust, and even after all the tragic stories he had to tell, 36

2: Hitler the Mystery-Man Lewy concluded that the ferocity, focus, and systematic nature of the anti-Semitic Holocaust were different in kind, not merely in degree. Yet no one has explained why. Perhaps the biggest historical consensus that indeed has emerged is that Hitler did intend to exterminate "the Jews." How amazing it is that this was previously even in question. After all, as we have noted, Hitler, on 21 October 1941, in his Secret Conversations (Table-Talk) which have been widely available for decades, concluded a long tirade against Jews saying, "By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea." Here, in private, Hitler was proud to claim the Holocaustor as he otherwise put it, "the final solution to the Jewish problem"as his own; he would "do humanity a service," and even his own soldiers who carried out his war would "have no idea" how great that service was. But part of the mystery of Hitler is also that he was no common bigot, who would achieve gratification by simply going onto the street himself and attacking or murdering Jews or anyone else. Indeed, there was never an instance in which he did so. Furthermore, prior to the age of 30 (the year 1919) there was nothing whatsoever unusual or exceptional in Hitler's anti-Semitism; it was simply the common contempt for Jews that prevailed in Hitler's own rural Austrian lateNineteenth-Century culture. Up until that time, it seems that Hitler felt no personal reason to act upon the basis of that then-widespread Austrian bigotry. Indeed, Hitler's personal relations with the few Jews he knew in his youthhis mother's physician, his own art-dealer when he was a struggling artist in Vienna, and otherswere remarkably cordial. But if the beast of Hitler's bigotry did not then roar and attack with violence and bloodshed, then at least it leered quietly from the dark corners of Hitler's emerging mind, its eyes glowing with the cold, icy, stare of an animal of prey, with full belly for the time being, but deadly ultimate intent. The society into which Hitler was born, and which would shape him, was the twilight of an imperial Austria that was just beginning to emerge from the long sleep of medieval, church-centered, pre-industrial culture. Because Austria had ruled over an entire Austro-Hungarian Empire, there were a number of relative newcomers from the East, Slavs, who had come to settle in Austria; but nonetheless the vast majority of the people, especially outside the Imperial capital of Vienna, were natives with ancestral roots there that went back hundreds, if not thousands, of years. Adolf Hitler was born in 1889 in the rural north Austrian town of Braunau, on the Inn River, which formed the border separating Austria from Germany. His father, an Austrian Government customs-clerk who 37

2: Hitler the Mystery-Man was uniformly described as possessing an authoritarian temperament, was a follower of the Pan-Germanic movement, which favored a unification of the Germanic Reich into a single country, such as the younger Hitler ultimately brought about. This was a political sentiment that was then widely shared, especially in such border areas. Associated with this impulse was often an antipathy to the more cosmopolitan, eastward-looking, politics of Austria's own Imperial Government. Unification was to be instead with the NorthGermany. Both Hitler's father and mother came from long lines of Austrian peasant stock, solidly Catholic, and traditional in every wayincluding even the violations of "tradition," with out-of-wedlock births, such as Hitler's own father, whose actual biological father was never known to a certainty, and who himself had had illegitimate children and not only legitimate ones. Furthermore, Hitler's mother had been a lover of this man when he was married to her predecessor, and seems to have thought none the less of him for it. In any event, she was a very normal woman for her culture, and fit comfortably into the subordinate role in the marital relationship, as the mother/housewife that her society and era expected of her. The church was the central social institution of Hitler's youth, and his family were typical Austrian Catholics in every way. Austria in that era was an almost monolithically Roman Catholic culture; and especially in the small towns and rural areas, such as Hitler knew as a child, the signs of modernity were yet to appear. By the look of the countryside, one could hardly tell that the Medieval Age had passed, though the early stages of the industrial revolution such as the introduction of railroads and of steamboats as the first forms of mechanized transportationwere just beginning to shape the landscape. Science and technology were newcomers in what was otherwise a traditional, religious, virtually entirely Christian, culture. Outside of Vienna, which was Austria's only cosmopolitan city, the prevailing values and intellectual outlook were overwhelmingly conservative and backward-looking; minorities of any kind were viewed as unwelcome and inferior strangersand definitely as outsiders. Vienna was the only "melting-pot," but even in the Imperial Capital, inter-ethnic relations were hardly warm enough to melt anything. In any case, Vienna itself was to remain an unknown world to the provincial child, Adolf Hitler, until his eighteenth year, by which time his own personality was already set in cement. Hitler was born provincial, and he died provincial. In such a rural, small-town environmentnever knowing anything more cosmopolitan than the Upper-Austrian provincial capital of Linz Adolf grew to his young manhood as a Catholic in a Catholic country, a 38

2: Hitler the Mystery-Man native Austrian in Austria; and, in every other way, as a person to whom the experience of being a minority was as alien as the Martians landing. It is thus not surprising that Hitler, as an adult, viewed himself as a member of an Austrian/German, Christian, community, "people," "race," or Volk. Nor is it surprising that to the extent that he considered anyone as being not a member of this cultural community, he viewed that person as inferior. To be sure, not all of the individuals that Hitler knew as a child were prejudiced in this sense, but the exceptions were few, and Hitler was not one of them. Virtually the only minority individuals that he encounteredand only a fewwere Jews. Protestants, in a sense, were, too; but at least they were Christians; and in Germany nearby, they were the majority. Slavs also were a minority; but their background also was Christian, Eastern Orthodox, and they attended the same Roman Catholic Austrian churches as did Hitler himself. Only Jews were not Christian. And Jews, furthermore, weren't the majority even in the neighboring lands. Hitler's childhood friend, August Kubizek, in his 1953 Adolf Hitler, mein Jugendfreund (p. 94), recounts the young Hitler's saying as they passed a synagogue in Linz, "That does not belong here." To the boy Adolf Hitler, Jews clearly were not "us," but "them." However, he gave them little thought. Virtually everyone that he knew was Christian, just like himself. And as yet, he had no personal reason to think much about Jews. From his earliest years, Hitler's main knowledge of Jews was derived from the Bible; both through his own reading of it, and through his religious instructors in church, school, and home. In this sense, too, he was typical. As a child or very young person, if you don't know much about an ethnic group "in the flesh," but instead acquire almost all of your knowledge about them through incidental references in secondhand sources, such as the Bible and religious trainers who teach it, and such as statements by other adults who were similarly trained, then those secondhand sources will very likely come to mold and shape your views of that group. Hitler, as an adult, looked back with pride at the extent to which he knew the Bible as a child. In his Secret Conversations or Table-Talk, he bragged near the end of his life on the night of 8-9 January 1942, about how much he had absorbed as a child from his religious trainers at school who taught the Bible: "I was completely master of the material." And we know that this was no idle boastand not only because Hitler's personal secretaries, aides, and others who knew him well, were amazed at his "phenomenal memory," as his best psychobiographer, Robert G. L. Waite, referred to it in The Psychopathic God (1977, p. 56). We know it above 39

2: Hitler the Mystery-Man all because Hitler laced his common, everyday speech, conversations, and writings, as well as his most famous book, Mein Kampf, with hundreds of biblical references, even though he never identified them as such. He was, after all, not a clergyman whose aim was to teach the Bible, but rather a man of the world, a practical politician, who would have made a negative impression as a politician if he had cited chapter-and-verse of the Bible. But the numerous biblical references in Hitler's recorded statements nonetheless demonstrate, beyond a doubt, that he really was "master of the material." The Bible presents a very mixed image of Jews. In the specifically Jewish portion of it, the Old Testament, they are "God's Chosen People," who, however, disappoint God time and again. But in the distinctively Christian part of it, the New Testament, they are now (Matthew 23:31-8): . . . descendants of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up then the measure of your ancestors. You snakes, you children of snakes! How can you escape being sentenced to hell? . . . Upon you may come all the righteous blood that is shed on earth. ... This will happen even in the present generation. ... Jerusalem, Jerusalem! You are the city that kills the prophets. . . .Your house is left to you desolate. For I tell you, you will not see Me again until you say, 'Blessed is the One who comes in the name of the Lord.' Such was Hitler's first impression of Jews. It remained his last. For the child Hitler, the Bible carried a very special authoritythe Word of God. This particular passage is a good example of why that was the case: no less a personage than Jesus Christ is so quoted in Matthew, which virtually all scholars date as having been written after Rome sacked Jerusalem in 70 A.D. and slaughtered essentially all of its inhabitants for the rebellion of Jews against Rome's rule. This is what Christ is referring to here, saying, "Jerusalem, . . . your house is left to you desolate." This quote, in other words, was constructed after that event, and placed into Christ's mouth retrospectively. (A hoax, Eyewitness to Jesus, by Carsten Thiede in 1995, "documenting" an earlier composition-date for Matthew, has been exposed in Graham Stanton's 1995 Gospel Truth?, George Wells' 1999 The Jesus Myth, and articles by several scholars.) Likewise, when Christ here was quoted as predicting His own crucifixion by "the Jews" ("This will happen even in the present generation"), that too was retrospectively placed into His mouth. But Hitler was unaware of such facts. In private notes he scrawled in 1919 at the age of 30 (and which will 40

2: Hitler the Mystery-Man subseqeently be discussed), he referred to "The BibleMonumental History of Mankind." Hitler saw the Bible as "history," not myth or legend. Thus we shall see that on several occasions, Hitler referred to "the Jews" as "this international snake" or "the brood of vipers and adders," in line with Christ's supposed words: "You snakes, you children of snakes!" But later, after he had already formulated his life's goal of exterminating these "snakes" or "spawn of Satan" (see John 8:44, also allegedly quoting Christ), he confessed in a speech on 29 October 1937, to Nazi propaganda ministers in the wake of the Pope's 14 March 1937 encyclical "Mit brennender Sorge," reasserting church supremacy over the state on moral issues, that he had, "after an intense inner struggle, been freed from the still-current and childish imaginings of religion. . . . I feel myself now as free as a colt in the meadow." From then on, the Bible was "childish imaginings." But ever since the crib, he had come to his understanding of "the Jews" on the basis of that very same "Monumental History of Mankind." As we will show in subsequent chapters, Hitler after 1937 increasingly tried to cast his old biblical beliefs in scientific terms, so that instead of Jews carrying the blood of Satan, they carried blood that was "infected" by "the Jewish virus," which had to be eradicated. Old wine was simply poured into new bottles. The wine was still religious. And Hitler's passion for that wine remained, till the bitter end, of religious intensity. Thus, it is clear where Hitler got the belief expressed in 1924 in Mein Kampf (1939, p. 423; 1943, p. 307) concerning: ... the Jew himself. His life is really only of this world, and his spirit is as alien to true Christianity, for instance, as his nature was two thousand years ago to the Sublime Founder of the new doctrine. Of course, the latter made no secret of His disposition towards the Jewish people, and when necessary He even took to the whip in order to drive out of the Lord's temple this adversary of all humanity, who even then as always saw in religion only a means for his business existence. But for this, of course, Christ was crucified, while our present party Christianity disgraces itself by begging for Jewish votes in the elections and later tries to conduct political wirepulling with atheistic Jewish parties, and this against his own nation. This little passage was loaded (as will be shown later on) with five specific biblical references: one for "He even took to the whip in order to drive out of the Lord's temple"; another for "this adversary"; another for "all humanity"; another for "for this, of course, Christ was crucified"; and yet another applying this Deicide-guilt not only to ancient Jews, but to 41

2: Hitler the Mystery-Man Jews in subsequent generations such as Hitler's. Here, for example, is the passage that calls "the Jews" enemies not only of Jesus, but of "all humanity" (1 Thessalonians 2:15-6), speaking of "the Jews": . . . who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and drove us out; the Jews, who displease God and are adversaries of all humanity, hindering us from preaching to the non-Jews and bringing them salvation. All the while they have been filling up the full measure of their guilt, and now God's retribution has at last come down upon them. When Hitler used this passage, he did not know that it was actually written prior to Matthew 23:31-8, which we quoted earlier, and which virtually places into Jesus' mouth these words of Paul, that were written in 50 A.D., right after the Roman Emperor Claudius (according to his biographer Suetonius) had expelled all Jews from Rome on account of disturbances stirred up there by the followers of "Chrestus" (the common term then for Christ). Paul here celebrates a misfortune to Jews in 49 A.D.; his follower who wrote Matthew paraphrased Paul (as "Christ") decades later to celebrate a different misfortune to Jews in 70 A.D., Rome's destruction of Jerusalem. But what Hitler had learned of the Bible when he was very young (which is to say, when the learning came early enough to shape his personality), was that the words of the biblical Jesus preceded the words of Paul. He was unaware that they had been manufactured afterwards by Paul's followers, not really by Jesus'. (In Part Two, the reasons for this, and the source of Paul's hatred of Judaismand ultimately of Jewswill be explained; it was very personal, a grudge.) Of course, for the young boy Hitler, the Bible was not only the "Monumental History of Mankind"; it was the source of values, of right and wrong. However, there are conflicting images of what the Bible says. For example, on the one hand, Deuteronomy 5:17 says, "Do not commit murder," but only a few verses later, 7:2 says that these same people who must "not commit murder" must "put them all to death," referring to people, or races (for in the Bible a "people" was a "race"), who are not "God's People." Later, in verses 20:16-7, it makes absolutely clear, "kill everyone. Completely destroy all the people." Even Christ Himself, quoted by the Paul-follower who wrote Luke and Acts, closed a parable about a king, saying, in Luke 19:27, "As for those enemies of mine who do not want me to be their King, bring them here and kill them in my presence!" Of course, Jesus claimed, according to Mark 14:62, that he was "the Messiah," which meant that God Himself had anointed Him as the King of the Jews in 42

2: Hitler the Mystery-Man restoration of the Davidic dynasty. He was the One who would, as Jesus' own disciples expected in Acts 1:6, "establish once again the sovereignty (independence) of Israel." But the Jews that Hitler knew of as "Jews" were not the people who accepted Jesus as their King, but who rejected Him-just as the people in the parable who rejected their king, and whom the king ordered to be killed. Even "turn the other cheek" (Matthew 5:39; Luke 6:29) can be understood consistently with this, as applying only to how one should treat others of "God's People," not inferior races, and especially not children of the devil (John 8:44). Hitler was no different from many other people, including even nonChristians and non-Jews, in believing that he was one of "God's People." For him, as a Christian, the source of the idea can be found in any of the many epistles of the New Testament that open with greetings "to God's People," such as 1 Peter; which opens with greetings "to God's Chosen People ... chosen according to the purpose of God the Father... to obey Jesus Christ, and to be purified by His blood." Later (2:9), it says, "you are the Chosen Race, the Holy Nation." To Hitler, there was a need for only one word, which, since it is not in the Bible, would not make him come across as a religious fanatic. That word was "Aryan." This was "the Chosen Race, the Holy Nation." It was the People "purified by His blood," because these were the pureblooded Christians. Hitler had believed it since childhood. Although Jews were the archetypal, religiously defined "outsiders" to this categorization, there were, as previously mentioned, other "outsiders" as well, such as Slavs (associated with Eastern Orthodox cultures), and even Catholics in Protestant areas, or Protestants in Catholic regions. These differences could sometimes be seen as being between "peoples" or "races," but the moral authority of "the Holy Book" did not back them up. Nowhere was Christ quoted as calling say, Slavs, "children of the devil." Yet, even if less, such bigotry still was real. For example, Brigitte Hamann's 1999 Hitler s Vienna (p. 17), cites the following revealing incident regarding Hitler at about age 13: The question of whether someone was 'Germanic' or 'Slavic' played an important role even among the high-school students of Linz. According to a statement by his schoolmate Josef Keplinger, young Hitler diligently studied the alleged differences between races. One day he apparently told Keplinger, 'You are not Germanic, you have dark eyes and dark hair!' Another time he is said to have divided his classmates at the 43

2: Hitler the Mystery-Man entrance of their classroom into two groups left and right, 'Aryans and Non-Aryans,' according to purely external characteristics. What group the dark-haired Hitler joined we do not know. As a child, these beliefs and attitudes in Hitler did not stand out, because they were so commonplace, especially when the outcasts were Jews. Eugene Davidson's 1977 The Making of Adolf Hitler devotes the mid-section of its first chapter to an itemization of the anti-Semitic popular press, from daily newspapers to monthly magazines, that were the common reading throughout Austria during Hitler's childhood. Amongst the numerous examples: "Die Tiroler Post, a Christian Social paper, on March 7, 1903, told again the story of the murder of a Christian child by Jews in the fifteenth century [when ritual murders of Christians by Jews eager to drink their blood were part of the prevailing mythology, and Christian lynch-ings of Jews were commonplace] while at the same time warning its readers against the 'Jewification' of the Tyrol. This Catholic paper wrote what Hitler himself would often repeat, that the goal of the Jew was world domination, that he was the carrier of the bacillus of destruction, and it quoted the Linzer Post [serving the young Hitler's own area] approvingly for having written that anti-Semitism 'is no more than the healthy egoism of people to permit their self-preservation.'" To the people who wrote such things, and to many who would read them, these assertions must have seemed naturally to be true; after all, the New Testament, and even the Old, present Satan as seeking world domination, and as being a murderer. And did not Christ, in John 8:44, say of the Jews: "You are the children of your father the devil, and you want to carry out his wishes. He was a murderer from the very beginning"? And did not the Jews depicted by the Bible even accept this, even in the Deicide itself, saying in Matthew 27:25, "Let the guilt for his death fall on us and on our children"? To the young Adolf Hitler, these things came from the Bible, so they represented history; they must be true. It is not difficult to figure out how Hitler came to believe this way: Hitler had been raised not only as a Catholic, but as a devout one. His mother attended mass daily, and was declared by all who knew her to have been an exceptionally devout person. She probably took little Adolf with her most of the times that she herself went to church. The reason is that he was the darling of her eyes, and the very special bond was mutual between them. In fact, Hitler confessed as an adult that he had been brought to tears on only two occasions: one was Germany's defeat in World War 1: the other was the death of his mother. In the early pages of Mein Kampf, 44

2: Hitler the Mystery-Man Hitler mentions that as a child he had aspired to being a priest; his mother favored the impulse, but his father, who had once entertained the same goal for himself, was opposed and quashed it. The religious proclivity exhibited itself also subsequently, when the boy's inclinations drifted more and more toward the arts. He had a penchant for sketching, and in music became enamored with Richard Wagner's operas set to medieval Nordic and Christian themes. He claimed that as a child, Church architecture also enthralled him. The Christian influences in his childhood left a permanent impression on him as an adult. Throughout Hitler's life, the Church continued to hold a special place in his heart on account of the splendor and magnificence of its architecture and music. He also never lost his admiration for the disciplined selflessness that the Church demanded in its service. In Mein Kampf (1939, p. 610; 1943, p. 405), Hitler urged, "In the folkish state the folkish view of life has finally to succeed in bringing about that nobler era ... in which the one knowingly and silently renounces and the other gladly gives and sacrifices. That this is possible must not be denied in a world in which hundreds and hundreds of thousands of men voluntarily impose celibacy upon themselves, obliged and bound by nothing but a command of the Church." To Hitler, this was beautiful, and it remained so even after 1937 when the church/state power-struggle between the Nazis and the leadership of the various churches (which we shall discuss in Chapter Six) left him embittered and disillusioned regarding the real motivations of the clergy. It thus is also natural that after Hitler's artistic aspirations were dashed by his rejection at an entrance-exam for study at an art-institute in Vienna, Hitler was delighted to enter the military service when World War I broke out only a few years later. Instead of being a soldier for God, he became now one for Germany, serving "God's People" in a different capacity, but in a similarly disciplined and selfless type of organization. When the Nazis came to power in the 1930's, they carefully modeled not only the regular army, but even more so the SS, on religious organizational principles; the Jesuitical model especially was admired and followed. For Hitler, this selflessness was alien to Jews as Satan's children: they knew, and could understand, only self-interestprecisely the thing that Jesus in John 2:13-7 whipped "the Jews" for, removing the merchants and moneychangers from God's Temple, for which (Mark 11:18) Christ was crucified. Like so many in his culture, Hitler attributed such evil "Jewish traits" to constitutional, organic, causes"racial" causes: it must have been something about Satan's blood, he thought. After 1937, Hitler 45

2: Hitler the Mystery-Man increasingly identified the precise Satanic mechanism as a "Jewish virus'' or "Jewish bacillus" in their blood. It is impossible to overestimate the significance that "blood" had in Hitler's mind. There were deep cultural roots to this. Leviticus 17:11& 14, for example, state and repeat that, "The life of every living thing is in the blood"; 17:11 also says, "Blood, which is life, takes away sins." Ever since his childhood, Hitler was obsessed with his blood. As Robert Waite noted in his The Psychopathic God (pp. 128, 24), "Hitler's habit from childhood of having his own blood sucked out by leeches or later by . . . syringes suggests that he suspected there was something the matter with his blood. He wanted to get rid of it. ... He enjoyed telling his secretaries what fun it was to watch leaches [sp.] as they sucked it out. ... He also had his doctor, Morell, draw his blood and save it in test tubes so that he could gaze at it." Hitler's Mein Kampf and other writings and speeches ranted interminably about the threat to the people of "contaminated blood," "poisoned blood," and "impure blood." For example, "The people do not perish by lost wars, but by the loss of that force of resistance which is contained only in the pure blood," (Mein Kampf, 1939, p. 406). And Hitler always expressed privately a doubt that his own blood was "pure." These expressions were usually cast in the collective "we" form, which was perhaps natural for him, sincejust as in the Biblethe collectivity always preceded the individual in the way he approached things. This, in fact, is the consensus meaning for "socialism" that was accepted within National Socialism that held the Party together: the collective reality takes precedence over the particular individual or the specific case. In this sense, all Nazis considered themselves "socialists," even while rejecting communism as "Jewish atheistic bolshevism." Thus, Hitler said (Waite, p. 128), "All of us are suffering from the ailment of mixed, corrupted blood. How can we purify ourselves . . . ?" This is a very carefully crafted assertion/question: Hitler includes himself in a class, of people having "corrupted blood," which in his own system of values was very bad. "Race" and "blood" were identical for Hitler. In this statement, he is placing himself in a class of people that his own Nazis carted off to gas chambers. But he is here saying that "all of us" have this problem. That is an example of one of the mostfrequently made observations by Hitler-biographers: that he routinely filled his speech with references to himself and to events that he personally experienced, but cast them in abstract terms, with no overt self-reference. Hitler universalized his personal problems, and stated them as issues that must be addressed for the benefit of the broader society; he viewed himself, in a sense, as Everyman. This gave him a means of veiling 46

2: Hitler the Mystery-Man from the public his own, actually personal, motivations, by re-expressing these politically more acceptable, public-spirited comments. What, then, light have been the actual personal reference to Hitler's many statements about the need to protect the "purity of the blood"? Throughout Hitler's life, he was plagued by recurring, intermittent, bouts of vague malaise or unexplained symptoms, especially "bad stomach" and "the shakes." As Waite (p. 352) noted of the latter, "In 1923 his left arm and left leg had trembled, but the condition went away. Again after Stalingrad in 1943 the same symptom was observed, and then it disappeared. It came on strong in 1944, but was not apparent later that year." Virtually nothing certain is known of Hitler's health record prior to his having entered public service during World War I and later as a politician. However, Hitler's personal secretary considered him a hypochondriac, and Hitler's repeated references to his own "corrupted," "impure," or "poisoned" blood, at least raise the question whether it was this concern that led Hitler to have his blood drawn repeatedly, and to stare at it afterwards. Whatever the answer may be to that question, what is certainly important regarding Hitler's fears about his health is that his nagging symptoms never managed to be definitively diagnosed. Much as Hitler sought help for themand it is clear that throughout his life he didthese symptoms remained unexplained to his dying day. This fact alone has produced endless speculation, some of it fraudulent. For example, during the first few decades after the second world war, stories circulated that Hitler was mad; even that his brain had been rotting in his final years as a result of advancing syphilis, perhaps caught from a Jewish prostitute in the years just before World War I, when he had been living in Vienna. This story was given currency by a "Dr. Kurt Krueger" who had published a book claiming to tell about his own psychiatric treatment of Hitler. But, as Waite demonstrated in his appendix, "On Spurious Sources," that book was among the many that were hoaxes. What is true, however, is that Hitler undoubtedly did fear that he was suffering from syphilisa disease whose honors occupy page after page of Mein Kampf. During his last years, these fears led his physician at that time to order a Wasserman test in order to find out whether syphilis indeed was the cause of Hitler's symptoms; the test came back negative. Physicians simply never were able to tell Hitler what the source of his problem was. Why did Hitler fear syphilis in particular? Had he been with prostitutes (whom he in Mein Kampf associated with this "scourge")? The reality is that there is no evidence even suggesting that he ever had. And Hitler was a prudish man; his tirades in Mein Kampf against the 47

2: Hitler the Mystery-Man sinfulness of life in Vienna were consistent with everything that is authentically known about his beliefs. Furthermore, Hitler was no Lothario; he used his magnetic appeal to women in order to advance his political career, but Hitler never permitted any expression to pass from his lips countenancing adultery or even promiscuity. Waite's The Psychopathic Godwhich remains to the present day the single most informative carefully documented source on Hitler's personality concludes that Hitler was actually somewhat asexual, if not altogether impotent. It also presents a case that what sexuality he did exhibit with his few lovers was masochistic, and that some women who knew him intimately were repelled by what he wanted them to do to him, such as to urinate onto his face; but prudishness and sexual masochism are by no means an inconsistent combination. Because of Hitler's relative disinterest in sex, and because of his moralistic loathing of prostitutes, it is not particularly likely that his fears of his own possible syphilis came from his having visited prostitutes. But syphilis is not caught only by means of sexual intercourse; it can also be contracted in the womb, by the fetus, and Hitler was aware of this fact. Furthermore, to Hitler, syphilis appeared to be, essentially, a genetic disease, or otherwise one that can be passed down from generation to generation. Hitler's writings, including Mein Kampf, frequently confused such infectious ailments with authentically genetic ones. It is much likelier that his fears of his own possible syphilis reflected precisely such a "racial" curse. In Hitler's view, whatever the curse was, it could only have come from his father. As Waite well documented (as also did Fritz Redlich in his 1998 psychobiogrpahy, Hitler), Hitler was likely descended entirely from Christian "stock," but he was almost certainly convinced throughout his life, from early childhood on, that his father's father either probably or certainly had been "a Jew." (I refer the interested reader to Waite for the documentation; here, only the fact itself is relevant.) Hitler thought himself to have gotten "the Jewish infection" via his father. And he was proud to have diagnosed his condition, which no physician had succeeded at doing. In Hitler's Secret Conversations (Table-Talk), transcribed during the 1940's, he showed himself to be scientifically so naive that on 22 February 1942, he even bragged to Himmler, "The discovery of the Jewish virus is one of the greatest revolutions that have ever occurred. The battle in which we are engaged today is of the same sort as the one waged last century by Pasteur and Koch. How many diseases have their origin in the Jewish virus! . . . We shall regain health only by eliminating the Jew." In that moment, he explained the Holocaust against the Jews as essential for the public healtha public health measure comparable to a protection against 48

2: Hitler the Mystery-Man the deadliest of infectious diseases. To Hitler, the "blood poisoning" of "the Aryan" by "the Jew" was a "racial poisoning" by means of a "virus." Hitler recognized that exterminating the Jews would not remove this "virus" from his own "poisoned blood." But he was also concerned about future generations; Mein Kampf goes on at length about the sacrifices that the current generation must make in order to bring about a future "Paradise" after Man has obeyed God's "admonition finally to put an end to the permanently continuous original sin of a racepoisoning and to give the Almighty Creator beings as He Himself created them." In other words, exterminate the "virus" so as to restore "Paradise." (From here on, if page-reference in Mein Kampf is not specified, it will be found cited in Appendix 1.) For Hitler, throughout Mein Kampf and elsewhere, "Paradise" was above all a place where disease did not exist. And healthfulness was always a major social concern for Hitler, not merely a personal worry. (This was a reflection of his tendency to universalize his personal concerns.) Mein Kampf praises the healthy, vigorous body. This is even described as the foundation for a good spiritual life. Hitler always also praised "genius," but to him even "the man of genius" relied upon a healthy body. In Mein Kampf Hitler stated that the most important function of the state was precisely this physical one. Youths were to be made healthy and vigorous, and kept away from all "degenerate" influences; physical education was to precede the intellectual enhancement of "the spiritual material" so as "to give the Almighty Creator beings as He Himself created them." Hitler's conception of eugenics also was subordinated to this ultimate goal, and as Mein Kampf put it: "The folkish state has to make up for what is today neglected. ... It has to put the race into the center of life in general. It has to care for its preservation in perpetuity. It has to make the child the most precious possession of a people. It has to take care that only the healthy beget children; that there is only one disgrace: to be sick and to bring children into the world despite one's own deficiencies; but one highest honor: to renounce this." Hitler himself renounced it; this man who built a whole theory about "the child the most precious possession of a people," refrained from having children; he was committed to the future, restoring "Paradise," a disease-free world. To Hitler, all disease was "racial." He wanted to restore "Paradise," where ailments such as he suffered did not exist. And so he continued: "Thereby the State has to appear as the guardian of a thousand years' future, in the face of which the wish and the egoism of the individual appears as nothing and has to submit." The Holocaust was part of this long-term program: Hitler could not get "this curse," as he 49

2: Hitler the Mystery-Man called it, out of his own "blood," but he was going to do it for "my people," as the knight in shining armor rescuing "the Aryans" from this "virus." This meant that all individuals with "contaminated blood" would have to be exterminatedor, at least (as in his own case, since he knew that he possessed the will to carry this out), to refrain from having children. The middle ground was compulsory sterilization, which he also sponsored. The entire program was based on Hitler's self-diagnosis of his ailments. Hitler's physicians couldn't cure them, so he accepted that they were incurable; he was determined that his distant posterity wouldn't suffer as he did. The "virus" that he suffered, and all other "blood poisonings," had to be eradicated, so that "Paradise" would finally be restored. As Mein Kampf expressed the matter: "Precisely he who is folkishly oriented has the most sacred duty, each within his own denomination, to see to it that God's will is not simply talked about outwardly, but that God's will is also fulfilled and God's labor not ravished. Because God's will once gave men their form, their being, and their faculties. Who destroys His work thereby declares war on the creation of the Lord, the divine will." That is what Satan's people (see John 8:44) were doing to God's People (see 7 Peter 1:1-2 & 2:9) by intermarrying with them and poisoning their blood. Hitler was determined to strike back; in his mind this defensive war was required by God Himself. Where could he have gotten such an idea? One thing is certain: Hitler's eugenic plan (given in full here in Appendix 1) didn't have its source in any sort of scientific thinking, analysis or knowledge. If anything, it was the reverse: an application by Hitler of his own religious thinking a religious-based plan of eugenics. Hitler was, in fact, scientifically untrained; his only knowledge of science consisted of stereotypes that he acquired from the popular press, and he never had any interest in studying science. However, Hitler's religious training at home with his parents, at school with his religion-teachers who were priests, and at church, was both extensive and, evidently, formative. As will be amply documented in the coming pages, not only Hitler's theory for the Holocaust, but his entire approach to his mission in politics, were extensions of the man's religiosity. References by him to "the Almighty," "the Lord," "Providence," and "the Creator," appear frequently not only in his public writings and speeches, but also in his letters, and in his private notes to himself. Furthermore, the people who knew him best, including both his friends, and colleagues closest to him in the Nazi Party, were unanimous in their opinion that Hitler was deeply religious. As Martin Bormann interjected during Hitler's monologue (which is what his Secret 50

2: Hitler the Mystery-Man Conversations or Table-Talk actually were, and why one German edition of them even titles them Monologe) on the night of 12-13 January 1942, "You have always been very religious." Hitler did not deny it. But in fact, by that late a period, Hitler's previously unquestioning fundamentalist Christian Roman Catholic faith was no longer unquestioning. For him, it seems that "the straw that broke the camel's back" and turned him away from his formerly solid faith, was the Papal Encyclical, "Mit brennender Sorge," of 14 March 1937, which culminated for him a four-year-long power struggle with a number of Germany's Christian churches. The issue was: who is subordinate to whom? Did the State have the ultimate moral authority? Or did the churches? The sole focus of the encyclical was the reassertion of the supremacy of the Church over state authority. The Nazis insisted, to the contrary, that there could not be two separate final authorities, and that the churches were subject to the rule by the state. By the time of Hitler's 29 October 1937 speech to Nazi propagandists, in which he made the monumental confession that he had, "after an intense inner struggle, been freed from the still-current and childish imaginings of religion," so that "I feel myself now as free as a colt in the meadow," it must indeedconsidering how unquestioning, faithful, and even literal, had been his earlier beliefhave been for Hitler "an intense inner struggle" that caused him now to label that earlier faith as "childish imaginings." And Hitler's subsequent Secret Conversations (Table-Talk) do exhibit amply his attempts, at least on a conscious intellectual level, to put all that behind him and to be "as free as a colt in the meadow." But even so, Hitler was not "free"; deep inside, he remained unaffected. Throughout the Secret Conversations (Table-Talk), his numerous references to "science" as the basis for his views, constituted new clothing for his same old religious-based ideas. Hitler's rationalizations had changed, but the ideas themselvesbuilt into his personality by his childhood exposure to the Bible and to Christianitydid not change at all. Hitler now cast the very same viewpoints in the arguments of Ernst Haeckel and other quasi-scientific social-Darwinist German popularizers of Charles Darwin's theory ot evolution. In this "scientific" framework, Jews were no longer, as in the Christian myth (John 8:44) the children of Satan; instead they were an evil and inferior race, who must be overcome in their Darwinian competition against the stronger and superior race of the (Christian) Germans. Many of these "scientists," like Haeckel himself, held "science" to be, in essence, the True religion, the only path to Certainty (a goal that actual science repudiates as impossible, but that is the core of faith). The anti-Semitic Haeckel had been a devout Evangelical until his early twenties. As with 51

2: Hitler the Mystery-Man him, not only did all of Hitler's old Christian prejudices and stereotypes such as of Jewsremain in place unaffected by his new religious questioning and repudiations, but even the very beliefs that had given rise to them continued to surface again and again, right up to the very end. In a speech on 5 July 1944 to leaders of the armaments industry, Hitler, echoing his New Year's Proclamation of that year, declared himself as "pious" in his conviction "that whoever fights bravely in defense of the natural laws framed by God and never capitulates, will never be deserted by the Lawgiver, but will, in the end, receive the blessing of Providence." And in speeches on 10 September and 8 November 1943, and on 26 June 1944, Hitler made similar expressions, including the admission that, "deep down, I am a religious person all the same." And, as we earlier mentioned, he did not object when Bormann observed the same about him. In fact, Hitler always bragged that his personality was changeless. Some would consider such changelessness a flaw; but God was changeless, and God was Hitler's model; more specifically, Jesus Himself was. Hitler, after all, was not just "religious"; he was not just "pious"; he was Christian, through and through. He remained so, even after his power struggle with the churches. His personality really was changeless.



"The teachings of Christ have laid the foundations for the battle against Jews as the enemy of Mankind; the work that Christ began, I shall finish." Thus did Hitler summarize his mission, addressing his followers on 18 December 1926, in a speech to the Nazi Party (Barbel Dusik, ed., Hitler: Reden, Schriften, Anordnungen, v. 2, 1992, pp. 105-6). He was speaking to people he viewed as supporters, not as enemies; so it came from the heart, it expressed his true convictions. Similarly, prior to his power struggle with the churches culminating in 1937, Hitler felt that the Roman Catholic church, and the other Christian denominations, were "my people," not "outsiders," much less "the enemy." So it was with sincerity that Hitler, at the beginning of his reign, reassured Bishop Berning in conversation on 26 April 1933, "I am doing what the Church has done for 1,500 years. I am simply finishing the job." (Hans Muller, Katholische Kirche und Nationalsozialismus: Dokumente 1930-1935, 1963, pp. 118-9.) Hitler, in fact, had good reason to expect that the Catholic Church would support his policies in this regard. Already on 1 April 1933, Cardinal Bertram had specifically interceded in support of Hitler's anti-Semitic policies by issuing a decision not to oppose the Nazis' first official act against Germany's Jews, a boycott against Jewish-owned businesses. He gave (pp. 98-9) two primary reasons. First, he opposed "intervention in an area having little relevance to the episcopate's field of activity" (even though some of the boycott's targets were Catholics who had one or more Jewish grandparents, and the Cardinal was thereby implicitly here accepting the Nazis' racial concept of who was a "Jew"). And second, he held that, "the press, which is overwhelmingly owned by Jews, has consistently remained silent about 53

3: Bible the persecution of Catholics in foreign countries" (which latter charge he did not document so as to enable a reader to know what, if any, instances he was referring to, so as to judge whether the implicit accusation of an anti-Catholic bias on the part of Jews bore even minimal validity). Things were off to a flying start. As Waite's The Psychopathic God observes in its first chapter, of "Hitler as Religious Leader," documenting his view that "Hitler saw himself as a Messiah with a divine mission to save Germany from the incarnate evil of 'international Jewry,'" the real start, according to Hitler's repeated testimony twenty years later, such as in speeches on 10 February and 23 November 1939, had come in 1919, "when, after long internal struggles, I became a politician and took up the battle against my enemy." Hitler's private notes to himself in 1919 document the very moment of the Holocaust's likely conceptionthe first recorded statement by Hitler of what was to become, in fuller flower, Hitler's theory behind the Holocaust; the seed from which the Holocaust ultimately grew. He was sketching out notes for what he intended to be his first book, The Germanic Revolution, Volume Ia less biographical, more theoretical, work than his later, actually completed Mein Kampf. As Werner Maser observed of them in his 1973 Hitler's Letters and Notes, "What is remarkable about these notes is that they contain so many references to the Bible, a book to which Hitler paid scant attention in Mein Kampf." It is impossible to interpret these notes without examining Hitler's subsequent full exposition of his theory, where these notes are fleshed out (see especially Appendix 1 herein, and generally Part I of this book). The interpretation of them that will now be offered quoting directly from the notes themselvesis fully informed by Hitler's subsequent writings and statements to intimates. In a sense, then, this is a summary of Hitler's theory for the Holocaust that is presented in full in Appendix 1: On the basis of "The BibleMonumental History of Mankind," Hitler in these notes identifies the meaning of "original sin" as consisting of the "blood poisoning" of "the Aryan" or "Children of God" by "the Jew" via "miscegenation," violating "Racial purity the highest law," and so constituting "a terrible fact" that produces "misery forever." On this basis. Hitler asks, "Purification of the Biblewhat of its spirit remains?" What he is referring to here is the Garden of Eden; Paradise lost. Also a prerequisite in order to understand these momentous private notes of Hitler, is to understand the Roman Catholic concept of "original sin," which itself has its roots in the story of Adam and Eve in Genesis, in the Bible. 54

3: Bible As stated in Ronald Lawler et al's 1976 The Teaching of Christ: A Catholic Catechism for Adults (p. 84), "The sin of Adam was in him an actual sin. . . . His sin, however, has affected all his descendants, the whole human family. . . . Basing its teaching firmly on Scripture (esp. Romans 5:12-19), the Church teaches that from Adam original sin has been transmitted to all men. ... The original sin each person inherits is not an actual sin he personally commits." Furthermore, "We do not know the exact nature of the first human sin"; Hitler, first in outline in these notes, and then later on in Mein Kampf and his other writings and statements, filled in the blanks on that. The concept, however, of collective or inherited guilt was not Hitler's invention. It is prominent throughout the Bible, and the very basis of the concept of "original sin." In fact, both the New Testament and the Old endorse the concept of collective guilt, even in the contextwidespread in the Bibleof a "people" as, essentially, a race. It is very striking that in all of the many thousands of pages of writings left to us by Hitler, only once did he pay homage to the Bible, his source for knowing and understanding history; and that on that occasion, it occurred in his private notes, a communication only to himself. It is equally noteworthy that this occasion occurred at the very time that he ever afterward referred to as the time when "I became a politician and took up the battle against my enemy." Finally, it is remarkable that afterwards, he paraphrased passages from the Bible, but without attribution, when "justifying" the Holocaust. Did he formulate the Holocaust on the basis of the "Monumental History of Mankind"? Why would he do so? Hitler had been struggling all his life with his ailments, which he believed had their origins in some kind of "blood poisoning." The question gnawed at him whether the source of this "poisoning" was Jews, perhaps via his father's original sin of having been born from one and so inheriting and passing on the contamination. As we have mentioned, Waite quotes Hitler as having speculated to an associate, "All of us are suffering from the ailment of mixed, corrupted blood. How can we purify ourselves and make atonement?" In the same place (p. 128), Waite also has Hitler saying to another friend, "In the Gospels [Matthew 27:25] the Jews call to Pilate when Pilate hesitated to crucify Jesus: 'His blood comes over us and over our children.' I must perhaps fulfill this curse." Here Hitler was expressing his own, medically unexplained, persistent ailments and malaise, as a "curse," and asking "How can we purify ourselves and make atonement" for "the ailment of mixed, corrupted blood?" There are likewise numerous other occasions, some of them in Mein Kampf itself, in which Hitler makes references that are difficult if not impossible to interpret any other way 55

3: Bible than as expressions of his personal fear that he was contaminated with Jewish blood coursing through his veins (in accord with John 8:42&44: "Jesus said to the Jews, 'If God were your Father, you would love me. . . . You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning.'") For example, in Mein Kampf, he introduced a passage explaining how Jews "pollute the blood" of Aryans as Hitler might have imagined some Jewish grandfather of his own doing to Hitler himself, as follows: "For hours the black-haired Jew boy, diabolic joy in his face, waits in ambush for the unsuspecting girl whom he defiles with his blood and thus robs her from her people. By means of every device, he tries to destroy the racial foundations of the people to be enslaved." Hitler felt himself to be enslaved by ailments that never left him. But why did he view this as a "curse" constituting his own "original sin," for which he had to "make atonement"? To answer that question is to clarify how Hitler reached his self-diagnosis by means of his having relied upon the Bible as the Word of God, and as such, literally true. Hitler's self-diagnosis that caused the Holocaust was rooted in his fundamentalist Christianity. Here is how: In his momentous 1919 private notes penned at the very moment "when I became a politician and took up the battle against my enemy," Hitler made reference to "The BibleMonumental History of Mankind." This means that Hitler believed the Bible to be "history," not myth. That constitutes the core belief of fundamentalist Christianity; it, in fact, defines Christian fundamentalism, just as, say, Moslem fundamentalism is defined by one's taking the Koran to be the literal and infallible Truth. The belief is derived from the more basic one that the given Scripture is inerrant, infallible, the literal Word of God. Most people use the term "fundamentalism" in this way; there is a different definition, applying the term only to American Protestants who believed this way in the early Twentieth Century, but that is not our usage. Hitler was a Roman Catholic fundamentalist or believer in "The BibleMonumental History of Mankind." Consequently, when he later referred to "this curse" from the Gospel of Matthew, he meant that literally. And also, when John 8:44 refers to "the Jews" as the children ot the devil, Hitler took that literallyand he feared that this referred to himself. When Hitler learned the Bible as a child, he learned that "the Jews" were, as Christ was quoted in John 8:44 as calling them, children of the devil, who was "a murderer from the beginning," and also "the father of lies," so that Jews, likewise, were murderers and liars. Elsewhere in the New Testament, he learned that Jews were "snakes" or "vipers," which represented Satan in several places in the New Testament. 56

3: Bible Now we really enter Hitler's mental world, and especially his conception of "original sin," in which he did his best to fill in the blanks that the authors of the New Testament had left as blanks regarding "original sin." Hitler's main guiding principle seems to have been to accept the Bible as inerrant and as therefore containing no contradictions. Thus, he tried to fill in these blanks as logically consistently as possible with as much as possibleif not with everythingthat is in the Bible, meaning both the Old Testament and the New. Hitler was convinced that his ailments must constitute God's punishment of him for something, but for what? Original sin became his answer to this vexing question. Here is how: Clearly, his physical maladies stumped his physicians; medical science was unable to explain them. Hitler, who had faith in any event, was therefore that much more inclined to seek the cause of his ailments in religion, not in medical science. (Only later was Hitler to try to integrate the two, by his conviction that Satan's blood poisoning of Aryans worked by means of a "virus" or a "bacillus" that Jews carried.) Hitler, evidently, did not believe that God was punishing him for any sins that he had personally committed. He was one of "God's People," and always strove to follow God's will. Thus, his answer must lie elsewhere: it must lie in original sin itself. This is what God was punishing him for. Hitler therefore had a very practical need now to solve this great mystery of Christian theology. He went to its origins, as described in the Bible. Genesis 3 contained the solution: Original sin, for which God expelled Man from Paradise or the Garden of Eden and so ordained the Fall of Man, was caused by the snake. The very opening of Genesis 3 is: "Now, the snake (or serpent) was the most cunning animal that the Lord God had made." The diabolical nature of the snake was evidenced even at the start: the snake tempted Eve with the apple that God had forbidden to her; and the result was the Fall of Man. The snake or serpent was not specifically identified with Satan until the New Testament (e.g., Revelation 20:2), but this serpentine diabolicism was implicit all along, even as early as Genesis. What the New Testament did is to expose "the Jews" as not only no longer "God's Chosen People," but as actually the people of Satan. Precisely when this transformationif that is what it wastook place is not stated. In the Old Testament, Jews repeatedly disappointed God's expectations of them. But it was not until John 8:44 and other passages in the New Testament that "the Jews" were identified as today's incarnation 57

3: Bible of Satan. And in Matthew 23:33 and other New Testament passages, Christ was quoted as exposing them as "a brood of snakes" who are "sentenced to hell." Hitler had his answer; he received it from Christ Himself. Hitler was being punished for Satan's blood; Hitler's original sin was his own "blood poisoning." His physical ailmentsundiagnosable by medical sciencewere thus finally understandable to him. Christ was The Great Healer, who knew what the merely mortal human physicians did not and could not. In Luke 13:11 & 12& 16, Christ took a woman who had been crippled eighteen years by a demon, and He cured this person "whom Satan had bound for eighteen long years," just as Hitler himself was now. Hitler's disease therefore was revealed to him as the Jewish curse: Satan! Hitler referred on a number of key occasions to the "diabolical" nature of "the Jew." Each time, the biblical origin of the characterization including especially John 8:44is unambiguous. For example, near the end of Mein Kampf, under "Eastern Policy," Hitler placed Russia in the context of "Jewry's twentieth-century effort to take world dominion unto itself," by his asserting that "the international Jew today rules Russia absolutely," and that the Jew "continues to move farther on his fatal course, until another force opposes him and, in a mighty struggle, once more pitches the stormer of the heavens back to Lucifer." Hitler went on to refer to "the Jews" as "this international snake," and "this spawn of hell," after, respectively, passages such as Matthew 23:33 and Revelation 20:2 in which Satan and/or "the Jews" appear in the form of a snake; and John 8:44 calling "the Jews" the children of Satan. Hitler concluded the tirade with: "The struggle against Jewish bolshevization of the world requires a clear attitude towards Soviet Russia. You cannot drive out the Devil with Beelzebub." In other words, Lucifer, the Devil, or Beelzebub, represents or else is represented by "the international Jew," who can never be a partner with Germany (i.e., with German Christians) except by enslaving Christians in Germany just as Christians in Russia had been enslaved by this Satanic force. Earlier, in the book's most important chapter, Chapter 11 on "Nation and Race," Hitler demonized Jews in not just one, but four different contexts. Sixty percent of the way through the Chapter, he said that princes who became "allied" with Jews found themselves allied with Satan and "ultimately discovering that they were in Satan's embrace by permitting themselves to be entangled in the net of the Jew." Seventy percent of the way through, Hitler wound up his explanation of why "the Jew" had "invented" "the Marxist doctrine," by asserting that 58

3: Bible "this Great Master of Lies [taken straight from John 8:44, which refers to Satan as "the father of lies" and also as the father of "the Jews"] knows how to appear as the 'pure' one and throw the guilt onto others." The phrases "the 'pure' one" and "throw the guilt" in turn are reminiscent of 2 Corinthians 11:13-4, which refers to Jews who are "false apostles, who lie about their work and disguise themselves as real apostles of Christ. Well, no wonder! Even Satan can disguise himself to look like an angel of light!" Eighty-five percent of the way through, Hitler supportively cited "our people" on the matter: "One really cannot be surprised if in the view of our people the Jew appears as the living incarnation of Satan." And shortly after that, Hitler launched into the previously mentioned "For hours the black-haired Jew boy, diabolic joy in his face, . . ." In many statements and writings by Hitler, such as his 12 April 1922 Munich speech referring to Jesus whipping "the brood of vipers" or snakes out of the Temple (Luke 19:45-7; John 2:13-22), "the Jew" is referred to as a "snake" or "serpent," which is a common New Testament form of reference for Satan (e.g., Matthew 12:34; Revelation 12:9). Another example of this anti-Semitic demonization in Mein Kampf refers to Hitler's most traumatic period, Germany's loss in World War I, which the annotator to the 1939 English edition described by saying that the German people "were utterly stunned by the suddenness of their defeat, for which nothing had prepared them" (p. 312). Hitler (pp. 312-3; 1943, pp. 231-2) attributed this military loss to Jewish "moral poisoning" of Germany, and described the press accounts of the military failures of Germany's wartime leadership as having been nothing but another example of the "bottomless lying of Jewry," who "have been nailed down forever, in an eternally correct sentence of fundamental truth, by one of the greatest minds of mankind; he called them 'the great masters of lying,'" paraphrasing Christ's reference to the devil in John 8:44. It is therefore not at all surprising that a 24 February 1943 speech by Hitler that promised to exterminate all Jews in Europe pointed to "the devilish plot of the Jewish global criminals," and vowed to "wreck" the plot, presumably by means of this extermination. In a theoretical vein, Hitler said in a speech in May 1923 at the Circus Krone in Munich, "The Jews are undoubtedly a race, but not human. They cannot be human in the sense of being in the image of God, the Eternal. Instead, the Jews are in the image of the devil." A remarkably similar assertion is alleged by Hermann Rauschning, in his Hitler Speaks, 1939 (The Voice of Destruction, 1940), p. 238 (p. 241), where he states that during 1932-3 he had the following verbal exchange with Hitler: "There cannot be two Chosen People. We are God's 59

3: Bible People. Docs not that fully answer the question?" "That is to be understood symbolically?" Again he banged the table. "Symbolically? No! It's the sheer simple undiluted truth. Two worlds face one anotherthe men of God and the men of Satan! The Jew is the anti-man, the creature of another god. He must have come from another root of the human race. I set the Aryan and the Jew over against each other; and if I call one of them a human being I must call the other something else. The two are as widely separated as man and beast. The view expressed in all of these passages comes straight out of John 8:42&4: "Jesus said to the Jews, 'If God were your Father, you would love me. .. . You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, and is not rooted in the truth; ... for he is a liar and the father of lies.'" These words do not come from Fichte, Plato, or some other abstruse philosopher that the boy Hitler was never exposed to, but instead from the very "Word of God," the Bible itself, which he had mastered as a child. Furthermore, many children are first exposed to the Bible in a red-letter edition, and these are red-letter words, not black-letter ones. To Hitler, this was not inspired by God; it was God speaking. In Mein Kampf, Hitler based a passage on this portion of John and also on John 2:13-22 describing Jesus taking the whip to beat "the Jews" out of the temple for having been changing money and selling goods there: Hitler referred to "the Sublime Founder of the new doctrine. Of course, the latter made no secret of His disposition towards the Jewish people, and when necessary He even took to the whip in order to drive out of the Lord's temple this adversary [as 'children of Satan' would be] of all humanity, who even then as always saw in religion only a means for his business existence. But for this, of course, Christ was crucified," which actually combines also Mark 11:18, Matthew 27:25, and 1 Thessalonians 2:15-6. So this Hitler-statement drew on five New-Testament passages. Hitler's Munich speech of 12 April 1922 drew indirectly from these and other passages when it said, "Watch the Oberammergau Passion Plays [which are based on these passages] this summer, and see who have the time and leisure and money to enjoy nature and the spectacle of Christ's sufferings." Such anti-Semitic passages were deeply rooted in the whole culture. Where, then, would Hitler have gotten his idea that "the Aryan" or pureblooded Christian constituted "the Men of God"? About one-third ot 60

3: Bible the epistles in the New Testament open with greetings to "God's People," such as 1 Peter, "To God's Chosen People, . . . chosen according to the purpose of God the Father... to obey Jesus Christ and be purified by His blood," which for Hitler was Aryan blood, the blood of God's People. Or, as 1 Peter 2:9 put it, "You are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God." Hitler's culture took this belief for granted. Given Hitler's devout Catholic upbringing, his equation of "blood," "people," and "race," can even be viewed as a direct extension from his culture. The performance of the Eucharist sacrament at the mass includes the breadwafer, representing Christ's body, and the red wine as Christ's blood. The earliest-written surviving record of the sacrament, 1 Corinthians 11:23-30, even asserts that failure to honor the sacrament "is why many among you are weak and sick," which might have had special resonance for the little boy Hitler, who thought he suffered from a disease of the blood. The other, later-written, references to the symbolic sacrificial purification of the believer by Christ's blood (represented by wine), at the Last Supper (Matthew 26:27-9, Mark 14:23-5, and Luke 22:17-8), backed up in Hitler's experience every time he took communion, can only have reinforced for Hitler the spiritual significance of "the blood." In Romans 3:25, Paul said, "God presented Him as a sacrifice of atonement through faith in His blood," and a few verses later, 5:9, "we have now been justified by His blood." (A few of the Protestant bibles mistranslate the Greek term for blood by a supposed synonym, such as "death," but Hitler was a Catholic.) It is understandable that the blood of Satan would have terrified the young Hitler. Hitler's theory behind the Holocaust, then, was based on his own answer to the question that the Catholic catechism could not answer: "We do not know the exact nature of the first human sin." Hitler's answer was based on John 8:44 and Matthew 27:25: Jews are the children of Satan, and the blood of Jesus is upon them as a curse for their being so; Jewish blood is Satan's blood, and because Jews cany this blood within their veins they killed Jesus for His having whipped them for their greed and evil. When Hitler's 1919 notes mentioned "miscegenation," this referred to Hitler's interpretation of the meaning of "original sin." And this was the "original sin" for which Hitler himself had to "atone," and suffered his ailments. Hitler's literalist, fundamentalist Christian, theology retrojected or readback into the ancient Jewish Old Testament account of Man's Fall, the distinctively New Testament equation of snake=Satan=Jew, thus implicitly 61

3: Bible explaining why it was that in the Old Testament the Jews repeatedly disappointed God. According to Hitler's theological interpretation, there was a constitutional defect in the Jewish people, which came to a climax in the Deicide, as reflected in passages such as John 8:44, Matthew 23:33 and 27:25, and Luke 19:27, which Hitler seems to have understood as Godly authorization for the Holocaust, as a new-dispensation version of such Old Testament instructions or commands from God as Deuteronomy 7:1-3 and 20:16-8 (only now, "God's People" were Christians, not Jews), Hitler would "atone" for his own "curse" of his personal "original sin" of his "blood poisoning." He passionately meant it when he said in Mein Kampf that he would heed God's (Deut.7:1-3) "admonition finally to put an end to the permanently continuous original sin of a race poisoning and to give the Almighty Creator beings as He Himself created them. ... Because God's will once gave men their form, their being, and their faculties. Who destroys His work thereby declares war on the creation of the Lord, the divine will.... The sin against the blood and the degradation of the race are the hereditary sin of this world and the end of a mankind surrendering to them. . . . The Aryan gave up the purity of his blood and therefore he lost his place in the Paradise which he had created for himself. He became submerged in the race-mixture, he gradually lost his cultural ability more and more, till at last not only mentally but physically he began to resemble more and more the subjected and aborigines than his ancestors." Diseases such as Hitler complained of were, in his view, the consequence of such a "race poisoning"from the worst of all sources, "the people of the devil." The Holocaust was Hitler's "atonement" for his own "original sin." The leeches and doctors had failed, so Hitler relied upon the Bible. Hitler recognized, however, that there were certain aspects of his antiSemitic theory that were of too personal a nature to himself for them to be suitable for expressing either outside his own circle of followers, or else in mixed company such as to religious liberals, some of whom might have taken exception to Hitler's literal interpretation of anti-Semitic biblical passages. Especially John 8:44 and Matthew 21:25 had to be suppressed when addressing such audiences. Yet nonetheless, sometimes glints even of such "blood" passages appeared through, even in such addresses, as the following in Munich, on 12 April 1922, seeking to convert a religiously liberal legislator: I would like here to appeal to a greater than I, Count Lerchenfeld. He said in the last session of the Landtag that his feeling 'as a man and a Christian' prevented him from being an anti-Semite. I say: my feeling as a Christian points me to my 62

3: Bible Lord and Saviour as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to the fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as sufferer but as fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and of adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice. And as a man I have the duty to see to it that human society does not suffer the same catastrophic collapse as did the civilization of the ancient world some two thousand years agoa civilization which was driven to its ruin through this same Jewish people. Then indeed when Rome collapsed there were endless streams of new German bands flowing into the Empire from the North; but, if Germany collapses today, who is there to come after us? German blood upon this earth is on the way to gradual exhaustion unless we pull ourselves together and make ourselves free! And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly, it is the distress which daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people. And when I look on my people I see it work and work and toil and labor, and at the end of the week it has only for its wage, wretchedness and misery. When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom today this poor people is plundered and exploited. And through the distress there is no doubt that the people has been aroused. Externally perhaps apathetic, but within there is ferment. And many may say, 'It is an accursed crime to stir up passions in the people.' And then I say to myself: Passion is already stirred through the rising tide of distress, and one day this passion will break out in one way or another: and now I would ask those who today call us 'agitators': 'What then have you to give to the people as a faith to which it might cling?' Nothing at all, for you yourselves have no faith in 63

3: Bible your own prescriptions. That is the mightiest thing which our Movement must create: for these widespread, seeking and straying masses a new Faith which will not fail them in this hour of confusion, to which they can pledge themselves, on which they can build so that they may at last find once again a place which may bring calm to their hearts. Two thousand years ago a man was similarly denounced by this particular race which today denounces and blasphemes all over the place, by a race which agitates everywhere and which regards any opposition to it as an accursed crime. That man was dragged before a court and they said: He is arousing the people! So He, too, was an agitator! And against whom? Against 'God,' they cried. Indeed, He is agitating against the 'god' of the Jews, because that 'god' is nothing more than money. Hitler suffered from disease. And he believed that Christ "was greatest not as sufferer but as fighter." Hitler determined: he too would be greatest not as sufferer but as fighter. And, in his mind, against the very same enemy. The Jews as "vipers" or snakes or serpents, biblical symbols of Satan, is also found in Mat. 3:7 and 12:34. The biblical account of Jesus driving the merchants and moneychangers out of the temple appears in all four of the Gospels (Mat. 21:12 3; Mark 11:15-8; Luke 19:45-8; John 2:13-22), and Hitler's speech could have been referring to all or any of thesebut definitely included Mark and/or Luke, the only ones to link this incident directly to Jesus' crucifixion. However, little over a year later, Hitler again drew upon this story, only now emphasizing Jesus' specific use of the whip to drive the money-changers away; and a whip appears only in the John version. As recounted by Hitler's friend, Dr. Ernst Hanfstaengel, in his 1957 Unheard Witness (p. 86), Hitler and his buddies were bantering one evening at a Berchtesgaden inn, when the poet, Dietrich Eckart, . . . unburdened himself for hours about Hitler: 'You know, Hanfstaengl,' I remember him saying, 'something has gone completely wrong with Adolf. The man is developing an incurable case of folie de grandeur. Last week he was striding up and down in the courtyard here with that damned whip of his and shouting, "I must enter Berlin like Christ in the Temple at Jerusalem and drive out the moneylenders," and more nonsense of that sort. I tell you if he lets this Messiah complex run away 64

3: Bible with him he will ruin us all.' Shortly thereafter, Hitler wrote into Mein Kampf (as previously noted) another, but passing, reference to the version in which the whip appears. And according to Wolfgang Treher (Hitler; Steiner, Schreber, 1966, p. 126), Hitler carried a whip with him at all times from 1923 to 1934. Hitler even posed for photographs holding a whip. (Maser reproduces one of them on page 160 of his book cited.) No one has ever commented that in doing so, Hitler's model was the Jesus of the Gospel of Johnbut it was: the whip symbolized what Jesus did to "the Jews" in John. Hitler felt so passionate about that as to make Jesus' having "seized the scourge" (or whip) central to his 12 April 1922 speech, and to have exhibited his "Messiah complex" with this same image a year later: Hitler as "Christ" carrying the whip. Further exposition of his interpretation of various biblical passages is presented in the 1985 (1978) Hitler: Memoirs of a Confidant, by Otto Wagener, who, as a friend during the years 1930-33, had discussed with Hitler issues ranging from the books of Moses through the New Testament, including the Sermon on the Mount, and the supreme requirement, as Hitler saw it, for all followers of Christ to have love, compassion, and forgiveness toward one another. Max Domarus also gives detailed biblical origins of Hitler's rhetoric in his commentaries accompanying his edition of Hitler's speeches of 30 January and 11 September 1936. Whereas some of Hitler's statementssuch as the one we cited from Mein Kampf about "the Sublime Founder of the new doctrine" who "even took to the whip in order to drive out of the Lord's temple this adversary of all humanity"contain easily identifiable specific biblical roots, others are more generally rooted in the Bible, with less specific biblical references or origins. One example of the latter type is the 1926 quote that started this chapter, "The teachings of Christ have laid the foundations for the battle against Jews as the enemy of Mankind; the work that Christ began, I shall finish." What did Hitler mean by "The teachings of Christ"? Of course, retrospectively, the Holocaust itself provides an answer to that question. However, there are innumerable passages in the New Testament that Hitler might have had in mind that could have, in his view, warranted the Holocaust as "the final solution." (John 8:44, Matthew 27:25, and Luke 19:27, are certainly strong candidates; particularly the first two of these, which represent the Deicidal Jews as being in the state of most extreme violation of Christ's First Commandment, Matthew 22:37-8 and Mark 12:30, "Love the Lord.") By contrast, Hitler's phrase in this 1926 quote, "the enemy of Mankind," reiterates the phrase "this adversary of all 65

3: Bible humanity," in Mein Kampf, that we cited in Chapter 1 as having been, essentially, lifted straight out of 1 Thessalonians 2:15, or plagiarized from the Bible. Hitler did not possess originality. All of these anti-Semitic biblically based statements from Hitler occurred in the wake of Hitler's having in 1919 honored in his private notes "The BibleMonumental History of Mankind." That seems to have been, for him, a turning-point. Might there have been a particular event in his life that precipitated this searching for the meaning of "original sin," at this crucial moment? After all, his physical ailments had been of long standing, and were not disabling in any case. This question brings us to biographical speculation about the man. My guess here is that Hitler's hospitalization for war-wounds, during which on 10 November 1918 he was shocked into psychologically induced blindness and raging sobs at the wholly unexpected announcement of Germany's World War I capitulation (Mein Kampf, 1939, pp. 264-5). followed by the attacks in the German press against General Ludendorff's stewardship of the failed war effort (pp. 312-3), set Hitler toward searching and crisis. He had given his all for the war, twice being awarded the Iron Cross for valour; and to him, Ludendorff was a demigod. (Ludendorff, a rabid anti-Semite, reciprocated by becoming a Nazi during the 1920's.) I think that Hitler was just as bewildered at Germany's war loss as he had always bcen at his physical symptoms, and sought the answer to both in "original sin" and the Bible. Regarding, then, at least the Holocaust against the Jews, if not Hitler's whole approach to politics, the signs are evident, and unmistakable, of the religious training, rituals, iconography, and biblical tales and readings, to which Hitler had been exposed during his childhood. Hitler's medical condition could not be diagnosed; but as a Christian fundamentalista believer in "The Bible Monumental History of Mankind" Hitler looked up to an even higher source than medical science to find "Truth." The Bible supplied him the answers that the doctors could not. To Hitler, "Truth" was a deeper truth. And it gave him a mission.


4: Mission

"Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding in his hand the key of the abyss and a heavy chain. He seized the dragonthat ancient serpent, Satanand chained him up for a thousand years. . . . Then I saw thrones, and those who sat on them were given the power to judge. ... They shall be priests of God and of Christ, and they will rule with Him for a thousand years." Revelation 20:1&2&4&6 (Compare 1 Corinthians 6:2-3) *** "[Christ concluded a parable with] 'As for those enemies of mine who did not want me to be their King, bring them here and kill them in my presence!'" Luke 19:27 (compare:Mat.10:14-5&33; 12:30-1; Mark 3:28-9; Luke 12:9)

"The hour will come when the worst enemy in the world will have finished his part for at least a thousand years to come." Hitler speech, 30 January 1942 67

4: Mission

Hitler's religious sense of mission was by no means restricted solely to the Holocaust, such as his expression in Mein Kampf (1939, p. 84; 1943, p. 65) that, "by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." Instead, it pervaded his entire world-view, and profoundly shaped a wide range of aspects of both the style and the substance of his governance, as will now be discussed. Throughout Hitler's political career, he asserted that he was guided by "Providence," "the Lord," "the Almighty," or some other (essentially) synonymous reference to God, as a "sleepwalker" doing God's bidding, and under His protectionsuch as in his Munich speech of 14 March 1936, in which he said, "I proceed as Providence dictates, confident as a sleepwalker." And this frequent reference to what Hitler believed to be his own special relationship to, and protection by, God, preceded his political career all the way back to his earliest records, and is found in his private communications, not only public ones. When a fundamentalist makes such references to God, these are not mere figures of speech: the commitment to "The BibleMonumental History of Mankind," as Hitler expressed it in his private notes upon the beginning of his political career, entails, as we previously noted, the literal reality of God, not just a metaphorical referencesomething that, in any event, was virtually alien to Hitler's verbal constructions, and that is even alien to fundamentalism itself. It can therefore be expected, for example, that Hitler would have expressed his gratitude and joy of service to God on any occasion in which he was commemorating what he felt to be an achievement in that service. And examples of this are abundant. Typical was Hitler's conclusion of his speech to the German people on 1 May 1933, about what he felt to be the successful start of his reign: "Lord, you see, we have changed. The German people is no longer the people without honor, of disgrace, tearing itself apart, faint-hearted, and weak in faith. No, Lord, the Gentian people is strong again in its will-strong in its steadfastness, strong in its endurance of all sacrifices. Lord. we do not desert you. Now we bless our fight for our freedom, and thereby our German people and Fatherland." This prayer was specifically perhaps a continuation of Hitler's prayer in Mein Kampf (1939, p. 921; 1943, p. 633): "Almighty God, bless our arms; be just as thou always wert; judge now whether we deserve freedom; Lord, bless our battle!" And here is how he interpreted to the nation of his birth his 68

4: Mission Anschluss swallowing-up of Austria, 9 April 1938: I believe that it was God's will to send a youth from here into the Reich, to let him grow up, to raise him to be the leader of the nation so as to enable him to lead back his homeland into the Reich. There is a higher ordering and we all are nothing else than its agents. When on March 9 Herr Schuschnigg broke his agreement, then in that second I felt that now the call of Providence had come to me. And that which then took place in three days was only conceivable as the fulfillment of the wish and the will of this Providence. In three days the Lord has smitten them! ... And to me the grace was given on the day of the betrayal to be able to unite my homeland with the Reich! ... I would now give thanks to Him who let me return to my homeland in order that I might now lead it into my German Reich! Tomorrow may every German recognize the hour and measure its important and bow in humility before the Almighty, who in a few weeks had wrought a miracle upon us! In the same mode, Hitler on 11 December 1941 declared war on the United States in response to the U.S.' declaration of war against Japan for the Pearl Harbor attack, saying, "I can only be grateful to Providence that it entrusted me with the leadership in this historic struggle which, for the next five hundred or a thousand years, will be described as decisive, not only for the history of Germany, but for the whole of Europe and indeed the whole world.... A historical revision on a unique scale has been imposed on us by the Creator." Hitler was eager to carry his blood-purge of "Satan's people" worldwide if possible. Similarly, at times of Hitler's survival of conditions of physical threat to himself, he expressed his gratitude to "the Lord." One example is a letter of 4 December 1914which of course was prior to his having entered politicsthat Hitler wrote from the battlefield to a friend. He reported his joy at having been awarded the Iron Cross for valour, and said that he intended to keep the memento "as a keepsake if the Lord should spare my life" (Maser, 1973, p. 57). It was probably also this same belief on his part that enabled him to continue with the observation that, "Most of my comrades who deserved it [the Iron Cross] just as much as I, are now dead," as if to suggest his own divine election. Already, it seems, Hitler was "sleepwalking." During the final crises of his life, a similar conviction was expressed, 69

4: Mission such as Waite noted (p. 28): After the failure of the bomb plot of 20 July 1944 he told a naval aide, 'Now the Almighty has stayed their [assassins'] hands once more. Don't you agree that I should consider it as a nod of Fate that it intends to preserve me for my assigned task.' His valet remembers that Hitler was very calm, saying, That is new proof that I have been selected from among other men by Providence to lead greater Germany to victory.' And again, 'Because I have been saved while others had to die, it is clearer than ever that the fate of Germany lies in my hands.' When the Fuhrer announced that the weather had been good and had produced a record crop, he did not try to claim the credit for that: it was "by the grace of God." And on 13 September 1937, he announced that even Germany's defeat in World War I showed God's wisdom, because in retrospect, "victory would probably have had grievous consequences.. . . We would have gradually yielded to the poisonous decay of the Volk.. . . Providence shows its deepest love for its creatures in an act of punishment!" Nazis, for their part, looked to Hitler not as a priest who would admonish his faithful about right and wrong, but rather as himself divinely inspired and carrying out or executing God's authority. As Saint Paul had put the matter, in Romans 13:1-5 (and with additional support in 1 Peter 2:13 and Titus 3:1): "Everyone must obey state authorities, because no authority exists without God's permission, and the existing authorities have been placed there by God. Whoever opposes the existing authority opposes what God has commanded; and anyone who does so will bring His punishment upon himself. Rulers are not to be feared by those who do good, but only by those who do evil. Do you wish to have no fear of the man in authority? Then do what is good, and he will praise you, for he is God's servant and carries out God's punishment on those who do evil." Martin Luther, one of Saint Paul's great admirers, concurred in his Treatise on Good Works, going so far as to state that, "The princes of this world are gods, the common people are Satan, through whom God sometimes... makes rebellion as a punishment for the people's sin. ... I would rather suffer a prince doing wrong than a people doing right." The religious model was decidedly not democratic. Like Hitler himself, Nazis had been trained as children that God dictates what is right because He is Himself almighty or all-powerful. In the religious view of things, "the Almighty" and moral perfection or authority 70

4: Mission go hand-in-hand; the two are inseparable. And Nazis recognized in Hitler aleader like none other in his abilities in this regard; his boldness in the use of power was unprecedented, his effectiveness stunning. The German people themselvesall of whom had been likewise raised with a worship of "the Almighty"could not fail to have been impressed with the Fuhrer's evident mastery: It was frightening to behold, just as, in the Bible, is God's. And just as the Bible recounted numerous examples of God's awesome and terrifying powerincluding even His commanding "God's People" to commit genocides against Canaanites and some other peoples (Deuteronomy 20:10-17, 7:2&5, 2:32 to 3:7; Joshua 6:21,8:26,10:28-40, and 11:11-15) and these terrifying commands were followed and were met with God's approvalthe Gentians were likewise left with little doubt that they (in accord with 1 Peter 2:9, etc.) were the new "God's People," and that in our time as in ancient times, "God's People" can sometimes be called upon to do terrifying things. The devout Himmler himself vomited to see at Auschwitz the carrying out of his instructions. But like most of the leading Nazis, he continued to do his duty as a "soldier for God." He was killing, and that was wrongbut not necessarily wrong, for God Himself had often commanded the death-penalty, and for crimes far less than Deicide. And was not God at war with Satan? Besides, not only was genocide not a sin, but neither was bigotry. (Every Catholic knew that neither was amongst the Sevenor "Cardinal" sins.) And did not both the Bible in Romans and Luther as well, assert that the ruler is God's agent, feared only by the evil ones? In the eyes of the Nazi, what was there to feel guilty about? God's will must be done; that's all there was to it. As Hitler had said in a speech on 13 April 1923, "In the sight of God and of the world, the stronger always has the right to execute his plans." This is fully in accord with the Bible, such as in Romans 13:1-5 and 1 Peter 2:18. Extending the principle to God's People's rule over the rest of the world, Hitler instructed one of his elite corps on the night of 11 March 1939, "The organization of a State normally requires rule by a Master-Race, while a subordinate mass, of non-dominating people, prostrate themselves to their leadership." This is in accord with Genesis 47:21-5; Joshua 9:23-7; 1 Kings 9:20; Deuteronomy 20:11; 7 Timothy 6:2; etc. Although outside of Hitler's own entourage, and beyond the circle of his close comrades-in-arms, it was necessary for Hitler to avoid projecting a biblical fundamentalism that would have appeared a cultural throwback in an age of rising science, the religious view of the Fuhrer on the part of his own coterie of supporters was unmistakable. For example, Dr. Hermann Goring, in his 1934 Germany Reborn 71

4: Mission (pp. 79-80), stated, "Just as the Roman Catholic considers the Pope infallible, ... for us the Fuhrer ... is simply infallible." Though Papal infallibility is not a necessary component of a Christian fundamentalist view, it is consistent with such a view, and the belief in such infallibility is itself an extension of the most essential conviction of a fundamentalist: that infallibility exists-that inerrancy, by virtue of representing the Word of God, is not itself a fiction. While science is impossible on the basis of an acceptance that any Scripture, or any statement from any Pope or anyone elseeven from a great scientist such as Albert Einstein himselfcould possibly be viewed as infallible, and in science all assertions from all sources must instead be viewed with the systematic skepticism that characterizes science itself, Goring's statement here bases itself on the contrary epistemological outlook, that of faith, which in its purest form constitutes fundamentalism. Goring is here asserting Naziism as a new religion modelled on Catholicism. Furthermore, Gregor Strasser, the early Party leader who had first brought both Goebbels and Himmler into the Party and who helped mastermind the Nazi electoral victory, described Nazis in a letter of 12 August 1932 (Bundesarchive Koblenz, NS22/348) as "an entirely new type of preacher-soldier" who evangelized the new faith to the Volk; and in his "thoughts about the Tasks of the Future," in NS-Briefe, 15 June 1926, he emphasized that, "besides giving support to all truly religious endeavors, the sense of honor must be made central in the spiritual life." And in the Party's 25 Points, or "The Program of the NSDAP," distributed and widely published in several places in 1920 and 1921, appears, "The Party endorses a positive Christianity of no specific denomination, and opposes Jewish materialism." The early Party philosopher and organizer, Dietrich Eckart, who died in 1923 after forming a very close friendship in which Hitler idolized Eckart as his "polar star," said in the first issue of his magazine Auf Gut Deutsch, 7 December 1918: I call a man substantial when he is so deeply anchored in essentialsthat is, in spiritual mattersthat he can never entirely submerge himself in worldly affairs; that he consequently also cannot fall victim to a lust for power. Beside the spiritual man there stands the one who is pious, or totally inward; but so long as he is merely thus he is and can only be totally apolitical. His means of transcending such a condition is introspection. Only if he comes out of himself can he become able to do something for the common good; the deeds of such a man will be as valuable as his passion is strong, but only to the extent that this passion is restrained by a controlling spirituality. 72

4: Mission Though the Nazis insisted that the churches must be subject to Nazi commands, rather than the other way around, the Nazis respected religion deeply, and it was specifically the Christian religion that Nazis respected in this way; because of their respect for religion, they could not even accept that Judaism was a religion; instead, all of the old Christian stereotypes of Jewish materialism, greed, and usury, defined Judaism for Nazis-as, indeed, for perhaps the majority of the Gentian population. To the Nazis, "the Jew" was materialistic and "worldly," while the Nazi was "spiritual"; the problem was to find a leader who "comes out of himself" despite his being "spiritual." They saw Hitler as being such a man, this "entirely new type of preacher-soldier," who proclaimed in a Nuremburg speech, 2 August 1926, that "Pacifism is merely undisguised cowardice" much like the warlike attributions to "the Prince of Peace" Himself in places such as Mat. 10:34-5 and Luke 12:49-53 & 22:36. However, Hitler, in his Secret Conversations (Table-Talk), also revealed his disgust at the Jewish origins of Christianity; this was a source of evident ambivalence for him. But even this ambivalence is authentic to the Bible, not just in regards to Jesus, but concerning for example his fellow-Jew evangelist Paul, writing in I Thessalonians 2:15-6 of "the Jews, the people who put the Lord Jesus to death, and the prophets too. And now they have been persecuting us, and acting in a way that cannot please God and that makes them the enemies of the whole human race, because they are hindering us from preaching to the pagans and trying to save them. They never stop trying to finish off the sins they have begun, but retribution is overtaking them at last." Hitler took seriously such statements as this of Paul's; after all, it is found in "The BibleMonumental History of Mankind"it is "history," no mere myth. (Yet even more ironically, Hitler condemned Paul himself for being a Jew.) And Paul's views, which Hitler had had access to as a child any time he read his Bible, had continuity right into the early Church fathers, such as Origen, the renowned Bishop of Alexandria, quoted in the 1979 Anti-Semitism by Paul E. Grosser and E.G. Halperin, as saying in 200 A.D., "We may assert with utter confidence that the Jews will not return to their earlier situation, for they have committed the most abominable of crimes, in forming the conspiracy against the Savior of the human race... Hence the city where Jesus suffered was necessarily destroyed, the Jewish nation was driven from its country, and another people was called by God to the blessed election." Such sentiments about "the Jews" and their "conspiracy"and about "the blessed election" of Christians as the next "People of God"were imbibed by Hitler as a little boy from the Bible and other sources, via his church, mother, school, classmates, and 73

4: Mission culture generally; they formed him. When Hitler said near the end of the fourth chapter of Mein Kampf (1943, p. 152; 1939, p. 200) that "a man does not die for business, but only for ideals," he saw himself as drawing a line against "Jewish materialism," the very thing that he had railed against in his 12 April 1922 Munich speech, saying of "the Jews" that their "'god' is nothing more than money." He agreed with his friend Eckart that Aryans were more "spiritual." However a conservative might appear to certain others, it is normal that he respect religion, and that he see himself as "spiritual" in precisely that sense. Indeed the conservative typically views religion as the foundation of morality itself. Thus, Hitler reflected well the underlying conviction of the German people as a whole, when he said in speeches on 26 April 1933 and 30 January 1939, that "an instruction in morality that lacks a religious foundation is built on air," and that "all character training and religion must be derived from faith." And for Hitler, this is something that Jews lacked: he said in Mein Kampf that Jews are a race, not actually a religion at all, so that the concerns of Jews "are not at all ethical" but merely economic, "which makes this kind of 'religion' appear even odious from Aryan viewpoints." And on these grounds, he concluded of "the Jew himself that "his life is really only of this world," just as Christ had condemned in John 2:13-22, taking the whip to "the Jews" in the temple. Consequently, Hitler felt no compunction saying, in a radio-address to the German nation on 1 February 1933, that his Government would impose "Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of racial and political life." Little more than a month later, on 23 March, he brought together the issues of religion, Christianity, and atheism, as follows: The Government, being resolved to undertake the political and moral purification of our public life, is creating and securing the conditions necessary for a really profound revival of religious life. The advantages of a personal and political nature that might arise from compromising with atheistic organizations would not outweigh the consequences which would become apparent in the destruction of general moral basic values. The national Government regards the two Christian confessions as the weightiest factors for the maintenance of our nationality. Hitler was thus a typical politicized religious fundamentalist in that he based morality upon religion, held his own (Christian) religion to be the only proper basis for the nation's laws, and thus favored theocracy rather than democracy (the latter basing the laws constitutionally upon the people, 74

4: Mission not upon God). And also like the typical politicized religious fundamentalist, he asserted, within this theocratic context, "the family as the basis of racial and political life"he was a "family-values" type of politician. In his Christian theocracy, Jews especially were excluded from the national (or Volk) life, as being "only of this world." Or, as Mein Kampf had said of "the Jews," they possess no "spiritual achievement" at all, because the potential "for spiritual achievement lies in the racial quality of the given human material," and their "racial quality" was nil. This is why Hitler was convinced that "Judaism is not a religion": only people of high "racial quality" can be religious. This was consistent with passages such as 1 Peter 1:1-2 portraying Christians as the new "God's Chosen People," and passages such as John 8:44, Matthew 27:25, Luke 19:27, and 1 Thessalonians 2:15-6, condemning "the Jews." In Philippians 3:8, Saint Paul concluded a recitation of his own earlier studies and practises in Judaism by calling it all "rubbish," "garbage," or "excrement," which is not far from Hitler's own "odious." Hitler's racism, however, did not rely only on passages such as John 8:44 and Matthew 27:25, but actually went back to the Old Testament (Genesis 28:1&6; Deuteronomy 7:1-13; Ezra 9:2; and Nehemiah 13:23&25-7), prohibiting what Hitler would call "race-mixing" or "miscegenation" of "God's People" with "inferior races." (In passages such as Deut. 20:16-7, God further commands that the latter peoples be exterminated.) Some Nazis, such as the Party philosopher Alfred Rosenberg, wanted to dispense with the Old Testament as purely Jewish; Hitler disagreed, and this is one of the reasons Hitler came to repudiate Rosenberg's ideas. Hitler's own writings and statements were sometimes based on direct references to the Old Testament; for example, when writing of syphilis in Mein Kampf, Hitler attacked this "racial" curse by referring to "those of whom it is said, with terrible correctness, that the sins of the fathers are visited upon the tenth generation," and the specification here of "the tenth generation" comes from Deut. 23:2-3. Such practise on his part was not done carelessly or thoughtlessly, either; Hitler was aware of this problem, and made a conscious decision about it. He even made specific note of the matter in Mein Kampf (1939, p. 675; 1943, p. 454), saying, "Now one may very well raise the objection that with such phenomena in world history one has mostly to do with those of specifically Jewish ways of thinking. ... This may be right a thousand times, and one may well regret this fact deeply,... yet this does not change the fact that this condition does exist today.... A view of life . . . will be broken only by a new idea that is driven forward by a similar spirit, is fought for with the same strongest will, but is 75

4: Mission pure and genuine throughout." In other words: fight fire with fire; but this will be God's new fire. (Hitler's specific reference in that passage, incidentally, was to the genocidal passages in the Old Testament, such as Dent. 20:16-7; and, as always, he avoided mention not only of chapter-and-verse, but even of the Bible itself.) Like other Christians, Hitler respected the entire Bible; prior to 1937 as a fundamentalist, he even considered it to be the "Monumental History of Mankind." In this regard, too, he was in accord with what all Christian Germans had been taught since the crib and had had repeated to them every day through their culture. Reflecting this spirit (if a picture-caption in John Toland's 1976 Adolf Hitler is to be believed), Adolf's half-sister Angela Hitler, who had been raised along with Adolf by the same two parents, and whose daughter Geli Raubal was subsequently to become the dearest woman in Hitler's adult life, wrote joyfully to a relative after having visited and spoken for a half-hour with Adolf at Landsberg Prison, saying, "The goal, victory, is just a matter of time. God grant that it be soon." Thus, Hitler was in a culturally supportive environment as regards his vision of himself and of his mission, and his bond of shared culture with his people was authentic when he told the Reichstag on 30 January 1937, "How could a man shoulder this burden if he had not faith in his mission and the consent of Him who stands above us?" and also when he earlier declared in Mein Kampf that he was "fighting for the work of the Lord." Of course, he would never state in so public a forum as these, that by his doing so he would "atone" for anything; that was solely between himself and God, and he was answerable, in his own mind, not to Man but to God. As he expressed it in a speech on 15 February 1942, "I am boundlessly proud that I was blessed by Providence with the permission to lead this battle." He pointedly had not been granted this authorization by the people. Hitler always expressed his contempt for democracy; he never held himself to be accountable to the German peoplenot even to those who had elected him for his was, in his own mind a higher calling. Yet nonetheless, Hitler considered himself to be God's agent serving the long-term best interests of "God's People." As he had put it in Mein Kampf "The State has to appear as the guardian of a thousand years' future," in bringing about a restoration of "Paradise," in which there would no longer be any "blood poisoning" and instead of "degeneracy" only health would prevail. Concluding a long tirade against Jews in his Secret Conversations (Table-Talk) on 21 October 1941, Hitler said, "By exterminating this pest [the Jews], we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea." In a Munich speech on 20 April 1923, he urged, "We want to prevent 76

4: Mission our Germany from suffering, as Another did, the death upon the Cross." To Hitler, Jews not only had murdered God, but were at war against His People, by "poisoning" their "blood." Hitler's last words, his Political Testament right before his suicide, concluded with an impassioned call for the German people, after his death, to carry on to victory the war against the only one, single, enemy: "the poisoner of all nations, international Jewry." That statement is universalistic rather than merely nationalistic, in two ways at once. It is directed against the poisoner of "all" nations, not just of the Gentian nation; and it is directed against "international" Jewry, not against merely German Jews. Unlike other genocides, Hitler was not restricting his genocidal aims to merely his own country. In fact, about 96% of the Jews that Hitler slaughtered did not come from Germany but from foreign countries; only about 210,000 of the nearly six million had been Germans. (Those 210,000 represented virtually all the Jews in Germany at the Holocaust's start on 1 September 1939.) The very universality of Hitler's moralistic aim was itself a sign of its religious sourcea source transcending even national boundaries. Hitler was a nationalistic Germanthat is truebut above all, he was a Christian. His concept of a German didn't even include non-Christians. Jews specifically were excluded, no matter how many generations their families had been German. The bigotry was more religious than nationalistic, though it was both. Hitler used the German nation as a power-base to achieve his Christian Utopia, free of "the people of Satan." But he also saw things in a Millennial context, his "Thousand-Year Reich," in which the only safe way to avoid a recurrence of the Fall of Man, was to exterminate totally "the men of Satan." To Hitler, the only "final solution" was the eradication of "the Jewish virus" that is carried in Satan's blood, inborn to Satan's children. The goal of total extermination developed probably at the same time as his theory of the Holocaust itself did (represented in his 1919 notes for his projected-but-neverwritten theoretical work, The Germanic Revolution, Volume I). At about the same time in 1919, Hitler sent a letter, dated 16 September 1919, to an individual, Adolf Gemlich, who had inquired about "the Jewish question." This letter is widely regarded as Hitler's first Political act. In it, he wrote that the ultimate goal had to be the "elimination" of the Jews altogether. By the time of a speech on 13 August 1920, Hitler already was indicating killing as the likely form of "elimination." And as reported by Gerald Fleming in his 1984 Hitler and the Final Solution, p. 17, Hitler in 1922 told a journalist, Joseph Hell, "Once I am in power, my first and foremost task will be the annihilation of the Jews. As soon as I have the power to do so, I will have gallows built in rowsas many as 77

4: Mission traffic allows. Then the Jews will be hanging indiscriminately, and they will remain hanging until they stink. . . . As soon as they have been untied, the next batch will be strung up, and so on, . . . until all Germany has been cleaned of Jews."1 Little over a year later, Hitler wrote into Mem Kampf (1939, p. 946; 1943, p. 651) that the "elimination" of Jews must be "by the sword" and "bloody." However, Hitler was a practical man; he knew that leadership was not so simple as merely issuing Fuhrer-decrees; on 29 April 1937, in a secret address to district leaders, he said: "The final aim of our policy is crystal clear to all of us. . . . I always go as far as I dare and never further. It is vital to have a sixth sense that tells you what you can do and what you cannot. Fighting an enemy, ... I use my intelligence to maneuver him into a corner from which he cannot escape; then I deliver the thrust into his heart that finishes him off." Only during the Holocaust did it become manifest that this applied to Jews outside, not only inside, Germany. To the extent that the German people supported Hitler in this, it was because they shared the same myths he did; myths he radiated. However, Hitler evidently hoped not to discuss the Holocaust publicly until after it was complete, if for no other reason than that the cheapest way to do it was by maintaining for the victims the myth that stepping into cattle-cars was not the signing of their deathwarrant: the slaughterhouse-operator does not want a stampede. But Hitler represented to the Germans myths they shared. One reason why his intensity of the anti-Semitic myths in particular was so exceptional, is indicated by a fascinating psychological experiment that was done on a different form of bigotry (though likewise one promoted by the Bible): homophobia. The study, by Henry F. Adams et al in the August 1996 Journal of Abnormal Psychology, found that the most-homophobic men were those who, though not openly gay themselves, nonetheless had the strongest homosexual urges, as measured by their penile circumference when being exposed to homosexual films. The circumference of their penises on such occasions was twice that of the normal (less-homophobic) male. On the other hand, heterosexual films aroused them about 10% less (again as measured by circumference) than normal men. What this suggests is that if one happens to be bigoted against a particular group (in this case, gays), then that bigotry is intensified by one's belief that one is or might be oneself a member of that group. If the homophobic and anti-Semitic bigotries follow the same natural laws, then in Hitler's case his belief that he was or might have been "part-Jewish" would have intensified any pre-existing antiSemitism he had from having been raised with Christianity's powerful anti78

4: Mission Semitic myths. His hatred and fear of Jewswhich would not have existed at all if he had not been anti-Semitic to begin withwould have been enormously enhanced or intensified by his belief that he was, or might have been, "a Jew." This possibility is given further support by the observation that at least two other historically exceptional anti-Semites were as well, people who like Hitler, feared or believed that they were, themselves, "Jews": Reinhard Heydrich, the Holocaust's chief, who had always been taunted that his grandmother was Jewish (which caused his boss Himmler to believe that Heydrich was perfect for the job because those taunts would make Heydrich even more fanatical); and Richard Wagner, who had been alleged to have descended from a Jewish actor, and who became one of Hitler's heroes partially on account of Wagner's own intense anti-Semitism. The consensus of historians is that none of these three actually had any Jewish ancestors. But what is important is not that: it is the belief or fear the individual himself held. This fear was the decisive reality, regardless what its factuality was; the fear, not the reality, shaped their behavior (contrary to cultural materialist and structuralist theories, such as Ian Kershaw's in the opening of his 1999 biography of Hitler dismissing the entire question regarding Hitler's alleged Jewish grandfather on the grounds that no such Jewish ancestor actually existedas if whether or not Hitler actually "had Jewish blood" were even relevant to understanding Hitler's behavior, which only a racist such as Hitler, or perhaps Kershaw, would believe). The core of Robert Waite's theory about the source of Hitler's antiSemitism is that it resulted from Hitler's belief that he might himself have been "a Jew." We reject that "explanation" (and will soon indicate that it, too, is inherently anti-Semitic, though for different reasons than Kershaw's), because it begs the real issue, which is: why did Hitler fear such a possibility to begin with? In other words, why was Hitler anti-Semitic? He wouldn't have feared this possibility if he hadn't already, on other grounds, loathed Jews. Waite fails to explain that antiSemitism. Indeed, if his theory did explain it, then everyone who is Jewish would also be an anti-Semite (which, again, is itself anti-Semitic to assume, just as Kershaw's contrary assumption isthough for a different reason). In any case, it is absurd. On the other hand, the experiment by Adams et al, and the historical examples of Hitler, Wagner, and Heydrich, provide good grounds to believe that Hitler's own pre-existing anti-Semitism was vastly intensified by his belief that he had a Jewish ancestor. As opposed to Waite's theory about the cause of Hitler's anti-Semitism, the theory presented and documented here is that Christianity caused it, just as it caused that of the people who elected 79

4: Mission him and who carried out the genocide. Hitler's Christian mission seems to have been profoundly shared especially by many of his leading subordinates. For example, there is every reason to believe that Hermann Goring was sincere when he once famously beamed of Hitler, "God gave the savior to the German people. We have faith, deep and unshakable faith, that he was sent to us by God." Similarly, Julius Streicher meant it when he hailed Hitler's December 1924 release from Landsberg Prison as a "gift from God." And Rudolf Hess was also speaking from the heart when he wrote in a student-essay that the kind of man Germany needed as its leader was one as unyielding in his wrath as God Himself: "The Lawgiver proceeds with terrible hardness." And Joseph Goebbels meant it when he noted in his diary on 14 October 1925 that Hitler must be either Christ Himself or else John The Baptist. It has already been noted that Heinrich Himmler had no doubt: Hitler was the successor to Christ, no less than that. These people can be considered to have been sincere in these views not only because in some instances (such as Goebbels' diary-entry) the comment itself was private, but also because such comments reflected the values and myths with which these people had been raised since infancy. Streicher was the son of a Catholic primary school teacher, who taught the Bible. Hess' fundamentalist parents sent him at the age of 12 to the Evangelical school. Goebbels' pious Catholic parents sent him to Catholic school; he received Catholic scholarships for university-studies, and was trained by Jesuits. Rudolf Hess' pious Catholic father was happy that his son planned to become a priest. Heydrich was brought up as a believing Catholic. Himmler's parents took the children regularly to Catholic massa practise that Heinrich himself chose to continue on his own as an adult. And so it was that, when Streicher, for example, in the 1940's wrote anti-Semitic diatribes in his Nuremberg newspaper, Der Sturmer, they could as well have come from Hitler's own pen, such as when Streicher wrote, "If the danger of the reproduction of the curse of God in the Jewish blood is finally to come to an end, then there is only one waythe extermination of the people whose father is the devil," which appeared in the Christmas issue of 1941. Personally dearer to Hitler than any of these important subordinates was the early Nazi Party activist and theoretician, Dietrich Eckart, the poet and revered friend of Hitler's, who died before the Nazis won power, and whom Hitler eulogised as follows as the closing words of Mein Kampf: "I want to bring before the eyes of our adherents and of the crusaders for our doctrine those eighteen heroes who most consciously sacrificed themselves for all of us. Their inspiration serves as a model for those of 80

4: Mission weaker faith, for they adhered to duty despite all consequences. And I especially count among them he who, as one of the best, by words, thoughts, and deeds, dedicated his life to the awakening of our nation: Dietrich Eckart." Besides being a poet and Nazi founder, Eckart wrote articles of Christian theology. Here is one of Eckart's poems, from Der Hammer, September 1914: "Father in Heaven, resolved to the death / Kneel we before Thee, O answeer us, then! / Does aught other people Thine awful command / More loyally follow than we Germans do? / Is there one such? Then, Eternal One, send / Laurel and victory to it, mighty with Fate. / Father, thou smilest? O joy without end! / Up! and onward, to the holy crusade." Hitler's beliefs were widely shared not only within the Nazi Party, but within the broader cultureand this not only the broader German and Austrian Culture, but the broader Christian, and even more generally religious, culture; but especially the culture of the Christian faith itself, which, after all, was based upon an acceptance of the Bible, in its entirety, as the "Monumental History of Mankind," which was the foundational belief upon which Hitler constructed and carried out his political career. Hitler's beliefs were widely shared also for another reason: he hewed to the old, traditional, fundamentalist or literal, understanding of that "History," which, prior to fundamentalism's or religion's corrosion as a result of the onslaughts of science in the Renaissance with Galileo and others, encompassed virtually all religious belief, so that it would have been redundant then to apply a separate term such as "fundamentalism" to itit was quite enough simply to say of the believer that he was a believer: "a Christian." In modern times, one has to make that distinction, but previously no such distinction existed. And in his own time and culture, Hitler was part of what in his time still represented the traditional mainstream. When he sought to comprehend his personal problems, and God's plan for his life, in terms of that "History," what set him apart from the millions of his countrymen was not the understanding of what that "History" was, but rather was Hitler's personal problems and situation. Part of that personal situation, quite evidently, was an exceptional ability to lead men. And it appears that key in this context among what Hitler's personal problems were, was his never-diagnosed medical maladies, and also his belief that he either was or might be, himself, "part Jewish," and thus, in the fundamentalist view of that "History," himself a bearer of blood-guilt for the Deicide, in accord with John 8:42&4 and Matthew 27:25, and the passages that support them. Can one imagine a more potent hatred of "a people" than that they killed God because they were born of Satan? Of course, for Hitler, it was 81

4: Mission not just that; but that was still the basis for all the rest. It was in his environment from infancy on, and it was the foundation on which all else relied. If Hitler had believed that he was a Jew, but didn't think that Jews were Satanic, then he would not have felt that being Jewish is something for which he had to "atone." Notes 1 The context in which this remarkable statement was made by Hitler provides the archetypal example of Hitler's brilliance at controlling who would understanding his intentions and who would be led astray about them. It was one of the keys to his cunning, that he would reveal his real self only to individuals he considered to be "our people," and put on a very different appearance to mislead "the enemy." The statement as quoted was intended strictly for "us," not at all for "them." Hitler met journalist Hell at a public event, and was sufficiently confident that Hell was a sympathetic Aryan as to then agree to meet alone with him for an interview, perhaps with the expectation of winning a potentially useful future ally in the press. As Hell described the event in his notes, Hitler in private launched immediately into a stunningly impassioned anti-Semitic tirade, which included the statement here quoted. But then Hell responded with a question that exhibited clearly his own disapproval of what he had just heard, and Hitler's demeanor promptly transformed: he became quiet, measured, and suddenly a paradigm of "self-control" (which he had actually been even before). To understand what happened from here on, you have to know how Hitler viewed liberalssuch as he now viewed the obviously anti-anti-Semitic Hell to be: To Hitler, liberals were people who were blind to the things of the spirit and who could understand only material incentives and private gainessentially. Jews, as he saw them. Hitler, for example, despised the "Jewish" socialism of Karl Marx, as being based upon the purely financial or economic contest between a self-interested economic class of proletariats on the one hand, and equally selfishly motivated bourgeoisie on the other. To Hitler, liberals could understand only private gain, of power or money, and had no "Volkisch" sense of selfless sacrifice for the benefit of the community, such as the more virtuous "God's People" had. Mr. Hell, Hitler now realized, was a liberal (as Hitler saw him), and this meant two things: First, unless Hitler now was able to persuade Hell that what he had just seen and heard was merely an act, no sincere display, it was dangerously possible that this journalist would help publicize, to "the enemy," the reality of Hitler's aims. And second, the way to achieve this necessary deception was clear: Hitler would have to now present his anti-Semitic tirade as merely a demagogic 82

4: Mission politician's display intended to win votes. Hell, Hitler figured, would understand that (since Hell was a liberal and thus thoroughly unprincipled, as Hitler saw him) and so wouldn't report the "feigned" event; indeed, Hell, as a liberal, might even refrain from reporting it specifically in order to spite the vote-seeking conservative in front of him, so as to deny Hitler the "benefit" of using Hell to win votes. Hitler's act, as the purely calculating, vote-seeking, politician, had its desired effect: Hell did not report Hitler's earlier tirade. He simply remarked in his notes that, when Hitler was challenged on his comments, Hitler immediately stopped his prior (supposed) pretense and showed himself to be the professional politiciancalculating, perhaps, but no real danger. And thus, whatever one may think of the evaluative content of Hitler's opinion of liberals in general and of Hell in particular, at least the factual content turned out to be effective, if not indeed true: Hell mistook what was the "act" and what the real Hitler, and had no opportunity to disabuse himself of his being duped, until after Hitler won power and it was too late to do anything about the matter anyway. This is why, in my writing of this book, I am careful to quote Hitler only in the statements that he was not directing at "the enemy," but that were either private to himself or supporters, or else public but directed to an audience of supporters. Methodological Note: This is directed at any reformist (i.e., scientific) historians that might exist: In executing the methodological plan stated at the end of the Preface, of searching through a social movement's founder's own statements to find the motivation that was that movement's seed, a key methodological principle has to be to interpret all statements being analyzed for this purpose, strictly in the light of whom the intended audience for each such statement was, and of what effect the given founder can most reasonably be assumed to have been seeking from his/her audience at the time the utterance was made. As will be seen in the coming analysis of the writings of Saint Paulthe founder of Christianitythis methodological principle can produce revolutionary historiographical advances. The present instance, regarding the Hell quote, is perhaps the most-striking example of the application of this methodological device in Part I, because at the start the audience (Mr. Hell) was "us"; but then it suddenly transformed to "them," in the speaker's mind; and thus the incident in its entirety reveals clearly a tactic of Hitler's communications. 83

5: Collateral Damage

Hitler's Christian fundamentalism was not only behind the anti-Semitic thrust that defined the Holocaust; it also explained what might be called the Holocaust's collateral damages, such as its programs to murder homosexuals, disabled persons, Gypsies, and even (for purposes of expanding the Lebensraum for God's People, Germany/Austria's native pureblooded Christians) Slavs who failed to flee eastward fast enough to clear the land for the Aryan master-race to move in and settle. Murder was just as final, even for victims for whom it was not intended as an end-in-itself, but rather as a means of terrorizing others and thus clearing the land. In a sense, all victimized groups actually shared, in an incidental or reflected (even if reduced) way, the damnation of "the Jews": none were "God's People." Hitler's Mein Kampf said that a world in which any such imperfect beings were permitted to continue to live would offer "only a few images of God [i.e., pureblooded Aryans], without deliberately [i.e., by permitting such imperfects to continue to exist] insulting the All Highest." The full impact of this fundamentalist religious perfectionism cannot be understood merely by reference to its consequences for "the men of Satan," who according to John 8:44, etc., were "the Jews." What about individuals who were neither "God's People" nor "Satan's people"? Here it is necessary to make explicit the role that God's perfection itself plays as a model and ideal for the faithbeliever, and especially its impact upon that third category of people who were neither of God nor of Satan, but just in between. Furthermore, this fundamentalist perfectionism is a way of life: the Nazis' censorship of books, culture, and the arts, was driven by this same fundamentalist aspiration to attain the perfection of God, and thus 84

5: Collateral Damage itself constituted yet another collateral damage from the Nazis' fundamentalist perfectionism. Adolf Hitler's intolerance was not merely any kind of perfectionism; it was a precise type, which is here to be described: Hitler's mission was founded upon a religious conception of perfection: the ideal was God Himself, who defined perfection itself. God was seen as all-powerful, flawless, and infallible. Indeed, given that God was, before anything else, "the Almighty," and given that what is right and good are whatever "the Almighty" says to be right and good, God can only be infallible; what He says is right and good is always what is right and good. For a fundamentalist such as Hitler, God defined perfection. And since Christ was God-become-man, human perfection was defined by Jesus, the model man. Jesus, however, was known to Hitler only through the New Testament accounts, especially the canonical four Gospels. It used to be simply assumed that the Gospels were the most authentic of all the New Testament accounts of Jesus and of what He said and did. The Gospels were believed to have been written by four of the twelve disciples of Jesus, recounting what these people had themselves seen and heard from Jesus. Hitler had been taught this, and he accepted it. But it is now virtually universally recognized by scholars that this old belief is false, and that the four Gospel-authors, whoever they really were, were not disciples of Jesus, and had, in fact, never even met Jesus, because they lived and wrote at far too late dates to have done so; Jesus was already dead by the time the Gospel-writers were bom; the common attribution of the Gospel-accounts to disciples was a Church-encouraged (perhaps even a Church-sponsored) hoax. Hitler never knew this; he swallowed the hoax. In fact, even late in Hitler's life, when he started to question the veracity of the Bible (because of a contest for power with the churches), he had no inkling of this; he still accepted the Gospelaccounts as the most authentic parts of the New Testament. And even at that late period, Hitler continued to believe, as he had before, that Jesusthe model man, the very paradigm of "the men of God"was an "Aryan," no Jew at all. To Hitler, Christ's statement in John 8:42&44, saying of and to "the Jews" that, "If God were your Father, you would love me. . . . You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning" this statement did not refer to Christ Himself, and it would be absurd to think otherwise. To Hitler, even toward his later years, when his fundamentalism was behind him on an intellectual level (though not on an emotional one; his personality had, after all, been formed by it), "Jesus was 85

5: Collateral Damage not a Jew." As he explained in his Secret Conversations (Table-Talk) of 21 October 1941, "He must be regarded as a popular leader who took up His position against Jewry [just as Hitler, of course, proudly was himself, so that this statement reaffirms again that Jesus was Hitler's model, even after 1937]. Galilee was a colony where the Romans had probably installed Gallic legionaries, and it's certain that Jesus was not a Jew." In other words, to Hitler, Jesus' non-Jewishness was "certain," but His Gallic racial origin can only "probably" be asserted. Hitler went on, that "the Galilean's object was to liberate his country from Jewishness [as Hitler took his own aim to be, such as when he asserted, "the work that Christ began, I shall finish"],.. . and this is the reason why the Jews killed Him." Hitler's ideas about Jesus' non-Jewishness were a New-Testament interpretation that was common. To name one example, the Kantian philosopher, Johann Gottlieb Fichte, citing John, said in his 1804 Foundations of the Present Era, "It is doubtful whether Jesus was of Jewish origin." Nor were any of Hitler's antiSemitic views original with Hitler: for example, Immanuel Kant himself, in his Religion Within the Limits of Reason Alone (1960, pp. 116-7), presaged Hitler by saying, "Judaism is not really a religion at all, ... All its commands . .. relate merely to external acts. .. . They do not demand a moral disposition." And in his Anthropologie, Kant further anticipated Hitler with, "[The Jews, that is,] the Palestinians living amongst us are, since their exile, renowned for their deceitfulness, ... a pure commercialism. . . lacking in honor." But Hitler did not get his ideas from Fichte or Kant. He got them from the same source they did the Bible itself, during childhood. And that's the same source from which Jesus' "Aryan" origins, and other anti-Semitic beliefs, originate for today s neo-Nazi Christian fundamentalists, such as Aryan Nations, White Aryan Resistance, World Church of the Creator, Posse Comitatus, Imperial Klans of America, The Order, and Phineas Priesthood (which groups we shall discuss in more depth later on), who likewise are convinced that Jews are (in accord with Jesus' alleged statement in John 8:44) "spawn of Satan" (the common phrase they use for Jews), and that when the New Testament frequently refers to Jesus' followers as "the People of God," Satan's children are not included. Like Hitler himself, today's neo-Nazis recognize, based on the Bible, three categories of people: God's People, to whom God gave the world; Satan's people, who are the cause of all evil; and other races. Satan's people are to be exterminated; and God's People are to enslave the other races, who were placed on Earth by God specifically to serve God's People. (Slavery is considered morally unobjectionable in the Bible. Typical on this subject are 1 Peter 2:18, Ephesians 6:5, Colossians 86

5: Collateral Damage 3:22, 1 Timothy 6:1, and Titus 2:9, all of which state that a slave is morally obliged to obey its master, regardless how harsh. However, the bowdlerized King James translation of "slave" is "servant"part of the linguistic purging of objectionable terms that King James' scholars performed.) And, just as Hitler in Mein Kampf had charged Jews with trying to "pollute" "God's People" with the blood of "inferior races" such as Blacks by means of "race-mixing," today's neo-Nazi organizations likewise maintain that racial integration is part of the scheme of "the spawn of Satan." All are agreed: the ultimate ruler of the pureblooded Christians, White Aryans, is God, the White Aryan Christ Himself. However, perhaps Hitler did, after all, feel a need to cover himselfas a good Catholic who would not want to do anything that Jesus would disapprove ofjust in case Hitler's theory of the "Gallic" racial origins of Jesus might not be true. (Incidentally, the confusion of "Galilean," meaning from the Galilee north of Israel, with "Gallic," meaning from "Gaul," the Latin term for France, was in Hitler's own German.) John Toland, in his 1976 Adolf Hitler, ended the first part of Chapter 18 with a discussion of Hitler's softening in midNovember 1938, less than a year prior to the start of the Holocaust, of the definition of precisely who was "a Jew," and thus of who would be slaughtered. This amendment to the Nuremburg Laws on race was called the First Regulation to the Reich Citizenship Law, and introduced the concept of the "second-degree Mischling" or approved Aryan of mixed race. Previously, and up till the infamous Krystallnacht pogrom on the nights of 8 and 9 November 1938, one Jewish grandparent sufficed for an individual to be categorized as "a Jew" and so to suffer state-imposed bigotry. But, under the new regulation, as Toland put it: A Jew was defined as anyone descended from at least three Jewish grandparents, or an individual with two Jewish grandparents who also belonged to the Jewish religious community or was married to a Jew. Then came a curious category: the Mischlinge (halfbreeds), those descended from only one Jewish grandparent, or those with two Jewish grandparents who neither practiced the Jewish religion nor were married to a Jew. In practice this split non-Aryans into two distinct groups with the Mischlinge no longer subject to repressive measures. With one bureaucratic stroke Hitler made it possible for a substantial portion of the hated enemy to escape his wrath. Was his resolve to exterminate Jews truly weakening or, again, was he merely waiting for a more suitable time to act decisively? Or was this a conscious or 87

5: Collateral Damage even unconscious attempt to save himself, since there was still the possibility that one of his own grandfathers was Jewish? The Mischlinge regulation also saved Jesus, who by Hitler's argument, being the son of God, had but two Jewish grandparents; neither did he practice the Jewish religion, nor was he married to a Jew. Subsequently, at the 20 January 1942 Wannsee Conference that established the bureaucratic rules for implementing the final solution, the attendees were further instructed that such a "second-degree Mischling" would, after all, be subject to slaughter, but only if he/she possessed an "especially unfavorable appearance in racial terms." Evidently, during the interim, Hitler had concluded that Christ (and Hitler himself) did not. As we shall soon see, this conclusion regarding specifically Jesus, would have been a reasonable one for Hitler to draw, given Hitler's assumptions about the actual identity of Jesus. As God-become man, Christ, we noted, is viewed as the model of human perfection. In keeping with this, disease is considered a condition alien to Jesus, who was the Great Healer Himself, and who therefore never suffered disease Himself. When Hitler told Himmler on 22 February 1942 (when the Holocaust was already well under way), "We shall regain health only by eliminating the Jew," Hitler was not only reaffirming the Holocaust as his people's medication; he was reasserting Jesus as his personal model. Hitler, and everyone, would become more Christlike by "regaining health." Christ, as human perfection, was also the model of physical beauty. Thus, disabled people too must be excluded from Aryan nations; and not only Hitler tried to do this; some members of neoNazi groups have left those groups as a result of their refusal to kill their own disabled infants. Not all fundamentalists are "right-to-lifers"; there is a strain of fundamentalism that, while equally absolutist, stands at the very opposite extreme as regards disabled infants, and Hitler was of that category. But he was still a "right-to-lifer" in the sense that he was opposed to abortion. In accord with Genesis 1:28 and 9:7, he clamped down against it, requiring all doctors to report to the government the circumstances of all miscarriages. The Nazi penalty for any Aryan woman who had an abortion was hard labor for the first offense; death for the second. Adolf Hitler was determined to breed as many "Aryans" as possible; he was an anti-abortion fundamentalist Christian. Christ, likewise, was a male, not a femalejust as was God Himself. For Nazis, therefore, what was effeminate or weak was "bad," and what was masculine or strong was "good." 1 Timothy 2:11-5 says, 88

5: Collateral Damage "Women should learn in silence and all humility. I do not allow them to teach or to have authority over men. For Adam was created first, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and broke God's law. But a woman will be saved through having children." Hitler's policies on women's issues were consistent with this. For example, journalist William L. Shirer's 1984 memoir, The Nightmare Years: 1930-1940 (pp. 135-6) records Hitler's addressing as follows a group of his female followers: The German woman does not need to be emancipated. She has always possessed what nature has bestowed on her. . . . Her world is her husband, her family, her children and her home. Where would the great world [of men] be if the small world [of women] was not looked after? Providence has confided to women the care of their own world, on which the world of men can be built. These two worlds do not stand against each other. They complement each other, they belong together, as men and women belong to each other. We hold it wrong for the woman to invade the world of men. We feel it only natural that both worlds remain separated.

Once a woman said to me: 'You must see to it that women can enter Parliamentbecause they alone can improve it.' 'I do not believe,' I answered her, 'that mankind can improve what is so bad in itself. It would harm women.' And I explained to her that I did not want to leave to women what I was taking away from men. Shirer observes in a footnote: "The Nazis had been the only party in the Reichstag that had no women among its members. Now that Hitler himself selected its deputies, there were none in the entire body." Of course, another prominent feature of Naziism was its censorship of the arts, in all forms of expression; and this, too, was related to the fundamentalist program. After all, fundamentalism itself consists of literalism in Scriptural interpretation, the idea of "The BibleMonumental History of Mankind," as Hitler put it in his 1919 private notes first outlining his theory for the Holocaust. The extension of such literalism to the arts results in censorship because the literal features of an expression are then considered as themselves constituting the expression and the artwork itself, by which the art is judged. 89

5: Collateral Damage Therefore, one can expect that, as a frustrated professional painter himself, Hitler would have reflected such literalism of religious sentiment in his own aesthetic dictates as Fuhrer; and this expectation too is borne out: For example, Stephanie Barron, in her 1991 "Degenerate Art": The Fate of the Avant-Garde in Nazi Germany (p. 204), observes of the Nazis' banning of the paintingsespecially of the crucifixionby the great Max Beckmann: "The malformed, emaciated, figure of Christ that dominates the Kreuzabnahme exemplified to the authorities a heinous disregard for the sanctity of the solemn moment depicted. Concomitantly, the subject of Christ forgiving an adultress was deemed an unfit topic: the breaking of the marriage contract and the undermining of the family were not in keeping with National Socialist ideology, which stressed the family as central in the rebuilding of Germany." The moralistic literalism of fundamentalist aesthetics is not a phenomenon merely of "family values" conservative political circles. (For example, when the American Catholic fundamentalist Patrick Buchanan saw a Black African Catholic's portrayal at the Brooklyn Museum of the Virgin Mary in which the African fertility-symbol of elephant-dung was part of the painting, his comment quoted in the New York Times, 6 November 1999, was that it was "disgusting, sacrilegious, blasphemous and an insult to the mother of God.") Hitler and the Nazi Party shared it. And like the rest of Hitler's personality that had been irrevocably formed from this base even after Hitler had on merely an intellectual level abandoned Christianity in 1937, such fundamentalist aesthetics stayed with him to the end: on the night of 23-4 December 1941 he observed in his Secret Conversations (Table-Talk) that, "The Jew was able to say to himself These Germans, who accept perverse pictures of the crucified Christ, are capable of swallowing other horrors, too, if one can persuade them that these horrors are beautiful!'" The rage that Hitler expressed here was not merely anti-Semitic, though it certainly was that: it was also his gut fury against the very extremity of sacrilege, the misrepresentation of the Perfect; namely, of Christ. Whether these sacrilegious images of Him were intended as mocking, or as whatever else, it amounted to the same thing in Hitler's eyes: Satanic expression. Hitler was here coming to the rescue of the Perfect One. As Saint Paul said in 2 Corinthians 4:4, "the god of this world" down below, who is presumably Satan himself, "has blinded the unbelievers from seeing the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is God's image," which is to say, perfect. To a liberal, this censorship by Hitler might seem to have been a violation of people's rights to free expression. However, for so 90

5: Collateral Damage conservative a man as Hitler, what was at stake was nothing less than holy: God's image is not to be trifled with. Hitler was proud that not only would he himself do no such thing; he would permit no one else to do so. For Hitler, God's perfection established an uncompromising standard, and he was determined to pursue this standard as his goal. In Mein Kampf, he passionately condemned the prevailing laxity of public morality, using fire-breathing, hellfire-and-brimstone rhetoric worthy of any fundamentalist minister at the peak of his sermon, saying: "Our entire public life today resembles a hothouse of sexual conceptions and stimulants. One has only to look at the posters on our movie houses, vaudevilles, and theaters; and one can hardly deny that, above all, this is no fare fit for young people. In shop windows and on billboards, the basest means are used in order to attract the attention of the masses. That this is bound to lead to serious damage to youths is probably clear to everyone who has not lost the ability to imagine himself from the standpoint of a young person's soul. This sultry sensual atmosphere leads to ideas and stimulations such as no boy should be expected to be able to deal with." Hitler went on to charge that one way that a boy might respond to such stimulations was by committing crimes, and another was by seeking sexual release with prostitutes and so subjecting himself and others to syphilis. Hitler then concluded: "He who wants to attack prostitution must, first of all, help to abolish the mental presupposition for it. He must clear away the filth and moral contamination of the 'culture' of our big cities, and this ruthlessly and without hesitating, despite all the clamors and lamentations that will thereby be let loose. . . . This cleaning-up of our culture must extend to nearly all domains. Theater, art, literature, movies, the press, posters and window displays, will have to be cleaned of the symptoms of a rotting world and placed into the service of a moral idea of State and culture. Public life has to be freed from the suffocating perfume of our modern eroticism, as also from all unmanly, insincere, prudishness. In all these things, the goal and the way have to be focused on the care and preservation of our people's health in body and soul." For Hitler, in other words, there was a unity between what is morally wholesome and what is in the interests of (as he went on to refer to it) "the duty of the preservation of the race" of Aryans, the pureblooded Christians. God's People must do God's bidding. The aesthetic side of this literalism had major ramifications in Hitler's case far beyond his finding repellent such "ugly" portrayals of the Christ-figure as appeared in the paintings of Beckmann or of other "degenerate" artists. The purely physical image of God was itself an important concept within Hitler's racial theory: this perfection of God was 91

5: Collateral Damage for Hitler by no means merely abstract; if anything, it was above all a physical perfection. As Mein Kampf stated: It is essential to follow God's "admonition finally to put an end to the permanently continuous original sin of a race poisoning and to give the Almighty Creator beings as He Himself created them. . . . The State has to appear as the guardian of a thousand years' future, in the face of which the wish and the egoism of the individual appears as nothing and has to submit. It has to put the most modern medical means at the service of this knowledge. It has to declare unfit for propagation everybody who is visibly ill and has inherited a disease and it has to carry this out in practice. . . . Just as in general the presumption for spiritual achievement lies in the racial quality of the given human material, thus also the individual's education has to focus upon and to promote first of all physical health. .. . The folkish State, through this realization, has to direct its entire education primarily not at pumping in mere knowledge, but at the breeding of absolutely healthy bodies. . . . Precisely he who is folkishly oriented has the most scared duty, . . . to see to it that God's will is not simply talked about outwardly, but that God's will is also fulfilled and God's labor not ravished. Because God's will once gave men their form, their being, and their faculties. Who destroys His work thereby declares war on the creation of the Lord, the divine will." This goes straight back to Genesis; but then, so too does original sin itselfand it was, after all, original sin that had gotten Hitler started. In Paradise, before illnesses such as plagued Hitler, all that existed was man created in the image of Godperfect. And this is how Hitler's vision of physical beauty which was actually culturally derived, and specific to the culture in which he had been raisedended up becoming for him a thoroughly concrete criterion for membership in "God's People." And this is why, in his Secret Conversations (Table-Talk) on 24 April 1942, Hitler reported that he had vetoed many of his soldiers' selections of brides because "most of the women concerned are either malformed or ugly, and from the racial standpoint thus not good." All whom Hitler found physically unattractive, including disabled people, were not in God's image, not "Aryans," but instead (as Mein Kampf had called such people) "deliberately insulting the All-Highest." And this is why Hitler felt that God's call to him was not just for the extermination of Jews, but of all he saw as ugly. Killing Jews was the main thing, but Hitler threw the disabled in as God's dessert: the Holocaust's collateral damage. To Hitler, Jews were not merely not "God's People," they were "the men of Satan"; but Hitler required more than simply the extermination 92

5: Collateral Damage of Satan's people; he wanted to "purify" the world, in some manner or another, of all who were not "God's People" and "beings as He Himself created them." As Mein Kampf had put the matter, "The Aryan gave up the purity of his blood and therefore he also lost his place in the Paradise which he had created for himself by original sin. "He became submerged in the race-mixture, he gradually lost his cultural ability more and more, till at last not only mentally but also physically he began to resemble more and more the subjected and aborigines than his ancestors," Adam and Eve prior to original sin. To Hitler, Jesus was God's return to earth for the purpose of overcoming Satan and restoring "Paradise," which Aryans had made for themselves by retaining their racial purity, and which they later lost as they "became submerged in the race-mixture." Hitler aimed to maintain the same standard of uncompromising perfection as had his model, Jesus Christ: Hitler would not tolerate anyone "deliberately insulting the All-Highest." Hitler's God would smile upon his great service in carrying out upon all of them the Lord's wrath. As Romans 13:4 had expressed Hitler's divine authorization as Fuhrer: The ruler "is God's servant who carries out the Lord's punishment on those who do evil." Hitler intended precisely this. At the same time, however, he kept the focus of the Holocaust on "the final solution to the Jewish problem"; that is to say, on the extermination of "Satan's people." The world consisted of God's People, Satan's people, and other races; and the latter were not the meal that Hitler was serving up to God, but only the dessert; the meal itself was the "final solution." For example, regarding specifically the Gypsies, Guenter Lewy showed In his 2000 The Nazi Persecution of the Gypsies, that despite the horrors the Nazis perpetrated against Gypsies, there was no systematic program of exterminating them that was analogous to the 'final solution' against Jews. The difference, however, was only a matter of degree. As Henry Friedlander observed at the start of the fourth chapter of his 1995 The Origins of Nazi Genocide, concerning the treatment specifically of handicapped adults, "Although the murder of handicapped adults was both unnecessary and senseless because they were already sterilized and thus unable to produce descendants, for the killers a logical Progression led from exclusion to extermination, . . . and it had become customary to refer to them as 'life unworthy of life.'" Hitler meant it when he said such things as, "I am fighting for the work of the Lord," and "How could a man shoulder this burden if he had not faith in his mission and the consent of Him who stands above us?" Imperfections did not exist in the Garden of Eden; Hitler was going to restore that, in order to "atone" for his 93

5: Collateral Damage own "original sin," so as to assure his own salvation. Hitler's atonement for his own original sin drove him to become, as he felt, a super-Christian, one uncompromising in his service to the Lord as Hitler found that expressed in John 8:44, Matthew 27:25, and other key biblical passages. Immediately upon his coming to power in 1933, he had sexual deviates rounded up and thrown into prison; the prosecutions especially against homosexuality ("worthy of death," according to Romans 1:27&32) soared. In his Secret Conversations (Table-Talk) of 22 May 1942, he emphasized that all sexual deviants were threats to "public decency" who must suffer "the strongest possible punishment." (Similarly, Benjamin Matthew Williams, who murdered a homosexual couple in Redding, California, on 1 July 1999, asserted, "I'm not guilty of murder. ... I'm guilty of obeying the laws of the Creator. ... So many people claim to be Christians and complain about all these things their religion says arc a sin, but they're not willing to do anything about it." In his own eyes, he, too, was a super-Christian. And also as with Hitler, he hated not only homosexuals but also Jews, having set fire to three synagogues two weeks earlier. And also as with Hitler, the source of the laws that he respected and was aiming to carry out was not the constitution, nor the legislature in a democracy, representing the will of the people; it was the Lord Himself, in a theocracy, whose laws and commands are written in the Bible. And also as with Hitler, he was raised by devoutly religious parents.) If Hitler felt that his own original sin had made him, indeed, in accord with John 8:44 and Matthew 27:25, one of those who were themselves guilty of the Deicide, which in his view was the greatest crime that could even be imagined, then it becomes understandable why he would have been willing to "shoulder this burden," and to commit everything to the effort. After all, how else could a descendant of Satan, and a person with the guilt of Deicide upon himself, otherwise find his salvation?


6: Church Response

In a sense, Hitler was naive: he expected all of the Christian churches to be so supportive that they would recognize immediately that they could entrust him, as the Fuhrer of God's People, with unlimited moral authority. After all, what more could pureblooded Christians even hope for than a Fuhrer who was not only entirely supportive of God's will as that is stated in the Bible, but who was determined to act upon that willno longer merely to spout it verbally; no longer merely to preach it. Hitler was a man of action. He had pondered the Bible carefully; the Bible was a call to arms for the People of God against those of Satan; Hitler was a man willing to "shoulder this burden"; any churchman claiming to represent God's People could only be delighted that, at last, the burden would be shouldered. But Hitler found, to his disappointment, and to his disillusionment in late 1937, that, no, there were some churchmen who wanted more than this: They wanted power. Hitler was outraged. This was a multifaceted power-struggle; there were many issues. A minor one was the Holocaust; however, in retrospect, today's churches often suggest or imply that the Holocaust was a major, or even the chief, source of the conflict, which was clearly not the case: the main conflict was over whether the State had supreme authority, including moral authority, or whether the churches held supreme moral authority. The church-state issue, which is of ancient vintage, was the core of the disagreement between the Nazis and the churches. As previously mentioned, Hitler's disillusionment with the churches came not long after the Pope's 14 March 1937 Encyclical, "Mit brennender Sorge," reasserting the Pope's supreme moral authority over that of the 95

6: Church Response State. It did not even mention Hitler's anti-Semitic campaign. Not even the Nazis' persecutions of Catholics of Jewish descent raised any objection from the Pope. The sole concern of the Encyclical was the Nazi challenge to the powers and prerogatives of the Church's own bureaucracy. But this seems to have been enough to have precipitated from Hitler a disillusionment with the churches, such as he began expressing to propagandists on 29 October of that same year. The conflict with the churches, in fact, little concerned the Nazis' antiSemitism, which was overwhelmingly endorsed by the clergy. There were exceptions, to be sure, such as the great Protestant theologian, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who was executed for having joined in an assassination-attempt against Hitler; or the Catholic priest, Bemhard Lichtenberg, who stood alone amongst his colleagues in opposing Nazi anti-Semitism, and died on his way to Dachau. The courage of these rare and exceptional clergymen was all the greater by virtue of their own isolation from their fellow-clergy, whose unanimity in supporting antiSemitism was near 100%. Some of those clergy did, however, disagree with the Nazis as to what constituted a correct reason for hating Jews; the Nazis' racial reasons were rejected by some clergy. The source of this dispute was historical: Both the Protestant and Catholic churches had always had a tradition of trying to convert Jews to Christianitysometimes upon pain of death for their not complying. Thus, much as they hated Jews as "Christ-killers," etc., it went against at least Christianity's overt teachings to make a genetic, racial, case for their damnation (despite such hereditarian biblical passages as Matthew 27:25 and John 8:44). The upshot was that the churches were conflicted about Hitler's eugenic reasons for hating Jews. Christianity had itself laid the foundations for this hatred, and had even referred to Jews in a hereditarian way that was to become the precursor to "scientific" racism after the advent of biology. But overt racism against Jews was another thing. For this reason, there was some opposition by certain members of the clergy against the racism of Nazi anti-Semitism, as detailed in the article by Klaus Scholder in (1987) O.D. Kulka and P. Mendes-Flohr, eds., Judaism and Christianity under the Impact of National Socialism. Scholder argues that this clerical resistance to Hitler's particular type of anti-Semitism led Hitler to become increasingly hostile to Christianity itself from 1937 onward. This is partially true, but of course there was that other reason for these church-state frictions having nothing to do with "the Jewish question," namely the issue of whether the churches should continue being independent of state control. Furthermore, Scholder writes merely 96

6: Church Response as a Christian apologist when he makes statements such as, "Christianity, however dividedly, steadfastly held to its Jewish roots," which sugar-coats the reality, and which outright contradicts the predominant clerical reaction to Naziism reported in Robert P. Ericksen, Theologians under Hitler (1985); Wolfgang Gerlach, Als die Zeugen schweigen (1993); Richard Gutteridge, The German Evangelical Church and the Jews (1976); and Guenter Lewy, The Catholic Church and Nazi Germany (1964); but nonetheless, the churches' response to Hitler's racialist anti-Semitism was "divided," as Scholder claims it was. (For a well-balanced discussion of both the church-state issue and the clerical reception of racialist anti-Semitism, see Chapters 4-6 in Ian Kershaw's 1983 Popular Opinion and Political Dissent in the Third Reich.) One prominent example of clerical dissent against Naziism was the Protestant minister, Martin Niemoeller, whom the Nazis arrested in 1937. His 1937 Here Stand I! presents some of his sermons from that period, including one (p. 195) that likens the extreme right-wing parties (such as the Nazis) to the Jews, as responsible not just for "the blood of Jesus and the blood of all His messengers," but for "the blood of all the righteous men who were ever murdered" as standing against "tyrannical human will." In this sermon, he told his parishioners about "the 'eternal Jew,'" a "people" that, "whatever it takes up becomes poisoned, and all that it ever reaps is contempt and hatred because ever and anon the world notices the deception and avenges itself in its own way." Nor were Niemoeller's views unusual for that small percentage of German clerics who were anti-Nazi. For example, Karl Barth wasalong with Niemoellerone of the anti-Nazi church leaders; his Advent sermon of 1933 called Jews "an obstinate and evil people," lending fuel to Hitler's fire; and his 5 September 1967 letter in his Letters: 19611968 (1981) admits, "I am decidedly not a philosemite. ... I have always had to suppress a totally irrational aversion [to Jews, which] could have had a retrogressive effect on my doctrine." The attitudes of such theologians helped give rise to Naziism, even in the rare instances where the churchman himself opposed Naziism. Christianity holding "steadfastly its Jewish roots" this was not. Nevertheless, Hitler had expected "better" from clerics. As we've already noted, he grew increasingly cynical about Christianity as a result, so that by 29 October 1937, he even made the admission that he had, "after an intense inner struggle, been freed from the still-current and childish imaginings of religion. ... I feel myself now as free as a colt in the meadow." Yet, his adjutant Gerhard Engel in his 1974 Heeresadjutant bei Hitler 1938-1943 reported Hitler to have promised (p. 31), "I shall always 97

6: Church Response remain a Catholic as I have always been." Hitler never did leave the Roman Catholic faith into which he had been born and all of whose sacraments he received, and he died as a Catholic in good standing with his Church and his Pope. And, as we also noted previously, Hitler's new-found intellectual "freedom" was superficial and did not change his personality. Though he now rejected the authority of the Church, and some of its mythology, he retained its anti-Semitic mythology, and above all, Christianity's Jew-hatred that he had learned since the crib via the Gospel and other New Testament accountseven as he was now concluding that the New Testament itself was part of the "Jewish conspiracy." By 1941, in his Secret Conversations (Table-Talk), he was condemning Christianitybut still not Jesus Himself. And Hitler still claimed Jesusthe "real" Jesusas his model. But now, he was against the churches as superstitious, favoring his own racialist antiSemitism as "scientific"; and Hitler's old longstanding, traditional Christian fundamentalist, condemnation of sinful acts as being violations against both God and nature, appeared now to him as violations only against nature. But he still closed his monologue of the night of 28-9 January 1942 with, "faith is at the bottom of everything." And even a Christian apologist such as Scholder, writing in the 25 October 1980 Frankfurter Algemeine Zeitung concerning the "solemn requiem mass" that the Church "held in commemoration of the Fuhrer," and which according to Church law "may be celebrated only for a believing member of the Church and only on an important occasion and if it is in the public interest of the Church," could not deny that when the Church sent Hitler to heaven after his suicide, he was travelling there as a first-class Catholic. No less a figure, in fact, than Cardinal Bertramthe presiding prelate of Germany and authorized representative from the Holy See-had instructed his priests to hold a Memorial Mass (6 May 1945), notwithstanding that the Cardinal and the Pope were well aware of the Holocaust. (Daniel Goldhagen's discussion of the matter in footnote 86 to Chapter 16 of his Hitler's Willing Executioners, captures well the moral monstrosity of this entirely gratuitous Catholic honor to Hitler.) In fact, as we previously noted, Cardinal Bertram had specifically interceded in support of Hitler's anti-Semitic policies right at their start, when Bertram issued a decision on 1 April 1933 not to oppose the Nazis' first official act against Germany's Jews, a boycott against Jewish-owned businesses. And as John Loftus and Mark Aarons documented in detail in their 1991 Unholy Trinity, the Catholic Church after the war virtually ran the operation to spirit Nazi war criminals off to safe refuge in Argentina and other countries. According to a feature-article in U.S. News & World Report on 30 March 1998, the 98

6: Church Response Church ended the Century/Millennium still obstructing efforts to restore to Holocaust-survivors vast sums in loot that had been stolen from them. "Steadfast," indeed! After Holocaust-chief Reinhardt Heydrich was assassinated, Hitler noted in his Secret Conversations 7 June 1942, "the Bishop of Bohemia and Moravia begged permission to hold a Requiem Mass for SS Obergruppenfuhrer Heydrich." Hitler himself was never excommunicated by his Church, nor even condemned; and though the Church has banned numerous books, Mein Kampf was never one of them. The official belt-buckle worn by Nazi soldiers emblazoned "GOTT MIT UNS" ("GOD WITH US") atop the swastika, as these soldiers murdered Jews; clergy issued no objection. Not until July of 2000 did the Roman Catholic Church finally agree to pay restitution to surviving slaves it had used in Germany, given it by the Nazis. The major Protestant denominations had settled these lawsuits from their former slaves a little earlier. There is no question that the churches during the Nazi era were providing moral guidance; this was, in fact, their claimed purpose. The question is what kind of moral guidance? The answer is clear: it was Christians who were slaughtering Jews by the ditchload, and they were doing it with the backing of their churches; but if the slaughtered included Christians who had some Jewish ancestors, then some churches opposed that. If slaughtering Jews was holding 'steadfastly ... to its Jewish roots," then the churches were steadfast.


7: Historical Background

Hitler on many occasions tried to distinguish his anti-Semitic policies from the pogroms, or religiously inspired mass-murders against Jews, of earlier eras; he referred to those previous incidents of mob violence against Jews contemptuously, and asserted that his own anti-Semitism, by contrast, was reasoned, and even "scientific" (the latter term coming into increasing use by him after his 1937 disillusionment with the churches). In Mem Kampf, he tried to present his antiSemitism as having had nothing to do with anything that he had learned or experienced as a child, but rather as having originated during his early adult years in Viennathat is, as having been a product of cool rationality and mature observation of the world he saw around him. (Many of Hitler's biographers take these statements at face-value; for example, Waite, both in his The Psychopathic God and in his personal communication to me, attributes the source of Hitler's racialist views of Jews to "the anti-Semitic pamphlets he read during his youth in Viennamost notably those of Lanz von Liebenfels and Theodor Fritsch." Hitler moved to Vienna in 1907, at the age of 18. Yet, as Eugene Davidson in 1977 pointed out in The Making of Adolf Hitler, p. 10, "Hitler was anti-Semitic long before he reached Vienna." As previously noted, Brigitte Hamann, in her 1999 Hitler's Vienna, p. 18, recorded that Hitler at about age 13 in Linz, prior to Vienna, had separated classmates into two groups. "Aryans and Non-Aryans." That seems to have been Hitler's earliest reported racist action. But in any case, those notorious pamphlets that Hitler devoured in his garret and in the cafes of Vienna as a young man-and which Waite believes caused Hitler's anti-Semitism, would probably have held far less authority for Hitler if they had not reinforced what he 100

7: Historical Background had already learnt from the Bible which he knew so well and respected so highly. The real question, therefore, is why Hitler was receptive to the anti-Semitic stereotypes that were promoted in this hate-literature. And one might even ask from what influence these pamphleteers had themselves derived their own antiSemitism; for example, Liebenfels had been a Cistercian monk at the Heiligenkreuz Monastery prior to pamphleteering, and Fritsch's famous work was The Anti-Semites' Catechism presenting his "Ten German Commandments." Hitler certainly wanted to believe his anti-Semitism to be rational, rather than of essentially infantile origins; and he always believed what he wanted to believe. But is it asking too much of Hitler's biographers to expect them to know better than to accept unquestioningly Hitler's self-image in this regard?) Therefore, notwithstanding Hitler's emphatic denials of the historical origins of his anti-Semitic policies, and his assertions that he relied only upon the Bible for his historical instructions in this matter, Hitler's anti-Semitic Holocaust was indeed also part of a historical tradition of post-biblical vintage: the long, biblically inspired, history of Christian pogroms against Jews. Hitler may have felt, as he frequently expressed, that his anti-Semitic policies were distinctively modern, but they were actually anything but that. He may have enjoyed the conceit that his anti-Semitic inspiration had leapfrogged from the Word of God recorded twothousand years earlier, directly to his brilliant mind in modern times, but this was hardly the case. His anti-Semitism was shaped not only by the direct influence of the Bible, but also by the indirect influence of the Holy Book: the anti-Semitic culture to which it gave rise. This culture consisted not only of the numerous antiSemitic political influences of Hitler's youth (such as we've just made passing mention of), but also of the long history of pogroms or anti-Semitic massacres, especially during the Middle Ages. Furthermore, this very same historical tradition had also profoundly shaped German and Austrian culture, as a proud national political model, constantly fed and reinforced by the Bible from which it sprang. Paul E. Grosser and Edwin Halperin, in their 1979 Anti-Semitism, cataloguing year-by-year since the beginnings of the Christian Church, the major anti-Semitic outbreaks, provides the full documentation of this tradition. The following extract from their account describes, essentially, highlights of the medieval origins of the Holocaust, and the historical tradition that Hitler was destined to climax: 1021 A.D.: Pope Benedict VIII, inspired by the biblical image of 101

7: Historical Background the Satanic Jew, identified a number of Jews as the cause of a hurricane and earthquake that had struck Rome on Good Friday. The Jews were arrested, tortured till they confessed, and burned alive at the stake. 1095-1099 A.D.: Godfrey de Bouillon, Duke of Lorrain, spread the rumor that in gathering an army for the Crusades, he would avenge the death of Christ with the blood of the Jews. Crusaders massacred Jews in Lorraine who refused baptism. Thousands of Jews in France, Germany, and Bohemia were slaughtered on the Duke's way to the Holy Land, where Duke Godfrey rounded up Jerusalem Jews into their synagogue and burnt them alive. 1140 A.D.: A Cistercian monk preaching a Crusade in Germany attacked the Jews and urged the people to attack them, precipitating massacres of Jews in many cities. His superior opposed these pogroms, while asserting that Jews are bestial descendants of Satan and murderers since time began. 1190 A.D.: A Jewish ghetto in Norfolk, England, was torched and the inhabitants burnt alive. At York, 1,500 Jews were slaughtered; credit-records were burnt. (Lending at interest, a "sin," was outlawed to all but Jews, who were prohibited from entering most of the lawful professions.) 1212 A.D.: In France, Christians were prohibited from assisting Jewish women in labor; violators bringing "Satan's brood" into the world would be excommunicated. 1218 A.D.: King Henry III, enforcing a decree of the Fourth Lateran Council, ordered all Jews in England to wear prominently on their garments a Jewish badge. 1231 A.D.: Pope Gregory IX established the Inquisition as Dominican and Franciscan friars punishing Jews and other heretics with burning at the stakea "compassionate" treatment because it avoided the shedding of blood. 1233 A.D.: Pope Gregory IX complained to Germany's bishops that German Jews were living too well, since God had condemned them to utter wretchedness. 1236 A.D.: Pope Gregory IX called for a Crusade against Jews, as a consequence of which thousands of Jews who refused to convert to Christianity were massacred along with their children. The Pope then admonished the local clergy in those areas for their failure to have prevented the massacres. 1254, 1306, and 1315 A.D.: Various French kings dispossessed 102

7: Historical Background and expelled all Jews from France; but finally Jews were permitted to return so long as they laid no claim to their former property, and wore a Jewish badge. 1262 A.D.: The Jewish ghetto in London was sacked by a mob. 1267 A.D.: The Council of Vienna required all Jews to wear horned hats as signs that they were Satan's children. Many Christians came to believe that actual Satanic horns were hidden under these Jewish hats. 1270 A.D.: Upon the death of Germany's King Frederick II, Jews were massacred in many cities; in Sinzig on the Sabbath, they were burned alive in the synagogue. 1279 A.D.: In Poland, anti-Semitic laws were promulgated: Christians were prohibited from all intercourse with Jews, who were required to wear badges. This Church-sponsored legislation was introduced because the Church declared that Jews were living too well. 1290 A.D.: Jews were ordered expelled from England. 1298 A.D.: Jewish ghettos in over 140 German towns were exterminated. 1320 A.D.: 120 Jewish ghettos in southern France and northern Spain were exterminated. 1328 A.D.: A mendicant friar's preaching stirred a mob to massacre the Jews in Estella, Spain. 1347-1350 A.D.: The Black Death (bubonic plague) spread by rats and returning Crusaders from the East, killed one-third of Europeans. Throughout Europe, Jews were accused of it; they supposedly poisoned the wells. Some churchmen demanded the extermination of Jews; other churchmen opposed it. Jewish ghettos were slaughtered in many cities in Switzerland, Germany, Austria, France, and Spain. Most were burned alive. ************ Nor was there any softening of this with the advent of Protestantism. After Martin Luther failed to convert Jews to Christianity, he wrote books and pamphlets of rabid anti-Semitism, such as On the Jews and their Lies in 1542, and Of the Unknowable Name in 1543, saying that "the Jews got what they deserved," when "they were punished in the most gruesome manner so that the streets ran with their blood," and that "this brood of snakes" must be eliminated from all Christian lands, and all synagogues set aflame. Luther was a champion hater, who penned 103

7: Historical Background murderous tracts also against Catholics, and against serfs who rebelled against tyrannous princes. For all that Hitler denied his own inspiration by this tradition, he nonetheless commented approvingly upon it in Chapter 11 of Mein Kampf, in "(d)" under "The Development of Judaism," saying, "the aversion against him [i.e., 'the Jew'] finally grows into open hatred. His blood-sucking tyranny becomes so great that riots against him occur. Now one begins to look more and more closely at the stranger and one discovers more and more new repellent features and characteristics in him, till the chasm becomes insurmountable. In times of most bitter distress the wrath against him finally breaks out, and the exploited and ruined masses take up self-defense in order to ward off the scourge of God. ... They experience his mere existence as the plague." Hitler's interpretation was that the medieval anti-Semitic assaults were in self-defense; his would be, too. Throughout the medieval period, official Church policy toward Jews was for their conversion to Christianity; and the line between anti-Semitism against the Jewish religion, and anti-Semitism against Jews as a "race," was vague at best, and not consistently maintained, not even from a purely doctrinal standpoint. Clearly, the anti-Semitism was racial against French Jews in 1212 A.D. when anyone who assisted a Jewish woman in labor bringing "Satan's brood" into the world was himself excommunicated. But many other edicts by the Church were non-racial. On some occasions, Jews were exterminated, essentially racially, as children of Satan. On others, the Church merely tortured them to convert to God's People. As in the Nazi era, and even within the Nazi Party itself, the culturally pervasive underlying Christian hatred of Jews expressed itself in different ways, and even with different rationalizations. However, as Benzion Netanyahu exhaustively demonstrated in his massive 1995 The Origins of the Inquisition in Fifteenth Century Spain, a purely racial anti-Semitism finally broke through during the late 1400's in Spain, sponsored by the Church, but also on occasion condemned by the Church. Five hundred years before the advent of genetics, or even of biologyor even of science itself in Spainthe Spanish Inquisition already exhibited full-blown racial anti-Semitism within Christian culture; and the Catholic Church was just as tornand ultimately just as capitulationisttoward it then, as it turned out to be centuries later in Nazi Germany. Netanyahu's painstakingly detailed reconstruction of Christianity's earliestdocumented mini-dress-rehearsal for the Holocaust, showed that Spanish Christians who had descended in whole or part from Jews and who were slaughtered by Spanish mobs during the Inquisition, were, in 104

7: Historical Background fact overwhelmingly believing and devout Christians, whose only "crime" was their "Jewish blood." These Jewish-descendent Christianscalled "conversos" for their having had ancestors who had been forcibly converted to Christianitywere subjected to pogroms for a Jewish faith they had never had and knew next-to-nothing about. Here are some highlights (pp. 918-20, 922, 925, and 1047) from Netanyahu's account: In Seville the anti-converso agitation was led by the Dominicans, who by then had taken over the advocacy of the Inquisition from the Observantine Franciscans. Indubitably, their anti-converso campaign made use of social and racial arguments, but as in the case of Espina and his followers, centered primarily on religious accusations and presented the Inquisition as the only solution to the converso religious problem. Rejecting the charges leveled against them as highly exaggerated or viciously made up, the conversos fiercely denied the need for the erection of inquisitional tribunals. They must have challenged their opponents for proof of their claims; and the Dominicans, like the Franciscans before them, found it hard to offer evidence. This, however, did not diminish the volume, extremism, and ferocity of their assertions. Chief agitator of the Dominican camp was Alonso de Hojeda, prior of the convent of San Pablo in Seville. Both contemporary sources and modern historians of the Inquisition present him as the main influence that moved the sovereigns to adoptafter much reluctancethe inquisitional solution. *** Thus, hostility to the conversos, which the sovereigns saw growing in all the urban centers of Andalusia, including the great cities of Cordova and Seville, and the rising anti-converso fever in Toledo and its archbishopric, were no doubt the main factors that prompted the Kings to adopt the inquisitional solution. It was probably in June or July 1478 that they petitioned the Pope for authorization to establish inquisitional tribunals in Castile; and it was on November 1 of that year that he granted their request in his bull Exigit sincere devotionis. *** Accordingly, several Old Christian fraternities adopted special statutes that excluded all conversos, purely on grounds 105

7: Historical Background of race, from their offices and membership. Their activity soon prompted imitation; and in the course of 1479 the groups and organizations committed to their principle mushroomed in all towns of the Toledan archbishopric. It was no doubt in response to urgent pleas of the conversos, who must have been concerned about that development, that Archbishop Carrillo convened in Alcala, in early 1481, a special synod which condemned the movement of racial discrimination. It proclaimed all the statutes, rulings and regulations adopted by organizations that shared that movement's views as clearly anti-Christian, and therefore null and void, prohibiting their application on pain of excommunication. Regardless of the impact of this proclamation (and that impact, we presume, must have been small), the events that prompted it could only strengthen the resolve of both sovereigns to go ahead with their inquisitional solution. *** In the Cortes of Toledo, therefore, it was decided that the Jews (and Moors) be transferred to localities completely separated from Christian neighborhoods. This was the first link in a long chain of actions, supposedly taken for a 'religious' purpose, that made the sovereigns earn, after the expulsion of the Jews, the honorific title of 'the Catholic Kings.' *** What emerges from our survey is that the Spanish Inquisition was by no means the result of a fortuitous concourse of circumstances and events. It was the product of a movement that called for its creation and labored for decades to bring it abouta movement that reflected the will, the feelings and the attitudes of the majority of Spain's Christian population. Perhaps it was awareness of these facts that led Menendez y Pelayo to say that the Inquisition was a genuine expression of the soul of the Spanish people. ** * Things began to change radically, however, when in the middle of the 15th century the great current of Spain's anti-Marranism was joined by another flow of hostility which burst forth at that time. We refer to the enmity produced by the campaign charging the conversos with a Judaic heresya charge hurled into the pubic domain with overwhelming force 106

7: Historical Background by the rebels of '49. It must have occurred to some foes of the conversos, perhaps for some time before 1449, that a campaign based on such an accusation was likely to have a powerful effect, as it might deny the conversos their protective shield i.e., their Christian identity. But it was only during the Toledan rebellion that the idea found attentive ears. Looking for excuses that might justify the crimes they had perpetrated against the Toledan New Christians, the rebels thought it helpful to seize on the rumor that some conversos still practiced Jewish rites; and demonstrating unsurpassed insolence and readiness to go all the way with the employment of 'big lies,' they labeled all conversos 'heretics' and 'Judaizers' who actively sought the destruction of Christendom. No doubt the rebels' success in combining this wild accusation with their racist postulates contributed to their rapid acceptance. In any case, the accusation caught fire, steadily gaining both in following and in credence. Thus the conversos were now attacked from every angle: socially, economically, politically, racially, morally, and religiously. But the religious chargei.e., that of heresywas of special significance. It is hardly conceivable that without this charge the monastic orders would have joined in the attack, and it is certainly inconceivable that, without its wide dissemination, anyone could have proposed the establishment of the Inquisition. Therefore, the Church, which by means of its mythology demonizing "the Jews," had over centuries built up a hatred against Jews on the basis of a combination of hereditarian and individual-belief grounds, was at odds with itself when mobs outside the cloisters started murdering its own followers who just happened to have descended from Jews. The same phenomenon happened during both the Spanish Inquisition and the Nazi era. Hitler, the churches, and the German people during the Third Reich, were mindlessly replaying an old script on a technologically modern stage. The churches had never really made up their minds whether their war against Judaism was in fact inevitably a war against Jews. What was the status of someone born a Jew who converted to Christianity? John 8:44 and Matthew 27:25 were clear-cut in favor of Hitler's view that it was a war against Jews. But the churches wanted to do two things with Jews, and couldn't do both at once: convert them, and kill them. Killing unconverted Jews was solid policy, but Hitler and the Spanish Inquisitionists were at war against Jews and not merely against Judaism; both times, the churches split on that before finally yielding to the genocidists. 107

8: Hitler's Medievalism

To the right is the official 1938 portrait of the Fuhrer, which Hitler himself selected: a picture of a medieval knight in shining armor, mounted on a horse, and bearing the national banner. Hitler's self-image, as portrayed here, is clearly medieval, patterned, in fact, after the Crusades. To Robert Waite, the picture shows "a Wagnerian hero," perhaps from the opera Lohengrin, which was Hitler's own favorite. The opera's title-hero is a knight of the Holy Grail, the son of Parsifal, who was the title-hero of Wagner's final opera and the King of the Grail. Both operas focus around the protection of the "Grail" or cup from which Christ drank wine at the Last 108

8: Hitler's Medievalism Supper. (In this context, it is worth reiterating the symbolic significance of the wine at the Christian mass: It is Christ's blood, shed by "the Jews.") Like almost all Wagner operas, these are based on medieval Nordic Christian legends. Hitler's passion for the operas of Wagner was lifelong and intense. This was not only on account of Wagner's anti-Semitic writings, such as a his famous essay, "Judaism in Music," in which he asked, "How shall we explain the automatic repugnance we feel for the nature and personality of Jews" (what even the anti-Nazi SwissGerman theologian, Karl Barth referred to, in his own case, as "a totally irrational aversion, . . . this in some sense allergic aversion of mine" toward "Jews, even Jewish Christians")? Wagner's answer to the question he posed, made no mention of the Bible, nor of the religious rituals stemming from it, condemning Jews for Satanic blood-guilt in Jesus' crucifixionthe original mythology of his own childhood. Instead, like with Hitler, Wagner's answer was biblical: the source of this problem lay in "Jewish blood." After all, was it not "Jewish blood" that Hitler had said Christ to have been taking the whip against, when Hitler spoke in Munich on 12 April 1922? Of course, that speech was given at the beginning of the period of more than a decade when Hitler's self-image was as Christ Himself carrying the whip to beat "the Jews," and when Hitler posed for photographs with whips. But now, in 1938, the new, "scientific," Hitler saw himself, instead, as a medieval knight in shining armor. How appropriate a solution for an individual who was steeped not merely in the Bible, but in the cultural outlook of the Middle Ages, which was based upon biblical myths. The new, "scientific," Hitler, who prided himself on his being "hard" and rigid, even closed-minded, took as his model a medieval character who embodied in an extreme form these same actually anti-scientific traits, during that age which culminated religious culture immediately prior to the birth of science in the Renaissance. (Jorg Haider, the Hitler-admirer, proud son of proud former-Nazis, and rising star of current Austrian politics, evidently knows his Hitler well: his office as Governor of the Province of Klagenfurt displays a print of a German knight on horseback.) The Austria and Germany in which Hitler grew to young manhood were strikingly medieval, though the overlay of industrial smokestack technology was beginning to transform the prince/lord/serf rural culture, and craft-guild cities, into the newer nationalistic/militaristic forms, of which knighthood itself was an early symbol. Less than a century prior to Hitler's birth, the serfs were freedfirst in Austria, then in Prussia/Germany only to become subject to compulsory military service, in armies run by the old hereditary nobility; the caste-system, authorized and ordained by the 109

8: Hitler's Medievalism churches, continued. Gentian philosophyHegel, Fichte, Nietzsche, Kant, Marx, etc.accepted castes, even where (as in Marx's case) the master-slave relationships were to be reversed. The German-speaking world known up to Hitler's time possessed no democrats of the stature of Jefferson, Paine, Franklin, Washington, Adams, Madison, or Mason, in America's founding generation, and certainly no Lincoln. In the German-speaking world, it was accepted with little, if any, question, that a small hereditary class of men was born and ordained to lead, and that everyone else was born and ordained to follow without any thought other than the performance of the duties thus assigned. The fealty that a knight formerly owed to his lord, was now due from the newly freed serf to the nobleman in whose employ or army he served. This medievalism had some exceptions, to be sure, but virtually none in the rural areas and villages, such as where Adolf Hitler grew up. The fit, therefore, between the mythology and fantasy life of the young Hitler, on the one hand, and the medieval operas of Wagner, on the other, was good. Another indication of how good it was is provided by Waite's observation (p. 102) that, as a teen-ager, Hitler's two favorite books were an architecture volume (reflecting his personal career-aspiration at the time) and a work titled Legends of Gods and Heroes, based on medieval tales. This medievalism of outlook had a profound impact on Hitler's political program, not only in terms of establishing Hitler's absolutist vision of the rights of the Emperor/Pope he saw himself to be as Fuhrer, but also in terms of the selfless and unquestioning service expected of everyone under his command, as well as in regard to the policies Hitler pursued as Fuhrer, including his anti-Semitic policies. Hitler's private notes to himself, his speeches to supporters, his letters, his statements in conversation with his colleagues, and his books, all reflect this medievalism. One example is a key passage in Mein Kampf the end of which we have already cited in several contexts, but which we shall now quote in full, to give a sense for the medievalism of Hitler's vision expressed here: In the folkish State the folkish view of life has finally to succeed in bringing about that nobler era when men see their care no longer in the better breeding of dogs, horses and cats, but rather in the uplifting of mankind itself, an era in which the one knowingly and silently renounces, and the other gladly gives and sacrifices. That this is possible must not be denied in a world in which hundreds and hundreds of thousands of men voluntarily 110

8: Hitler's Medievalism impose celibacy upon themselves, obliged and bound by nothing but a command of the Church. Should not the same renunciation be possible if it is replaced by the admonition finally to put an end to the permanently continuous original sin of a race poisoning and to give the Almighty Creator beings as He Himself created them? Seen in its complete context, the religious origin of Hitler's statement at the end is brought out in high relief. "That nobler era" of knighthood, "an era in which the one knowingly and silently renounces, and the other gladly gives and sacrifices," not only continues today in monasteries, but Hitler here calls for its restoration by the State itself in order to fulfill God's "admonition." If Hitler had stated outright that he was determined to carry out God's admonition, that would have appeared to his more cosmopolitan countrymen as unseemly: this, after all, was "the age of science," wasn't it? But Hitler still left little doubt as to who could even possibly be the source of this "admonition." God's "admonition" here is "finally" (as in "final solution") "to put an end to the permanently continuous original sin," which is "a race poisoning" that must be ended. This hearkens back to Hitler's 1919 private notes, about "Racial purity the highest law." Hitler's concept of "the Volk" was inseparable from that of "a people," which constituted "a race" sharing all a common fate in God's will. This is more medieval than nationalistic in the industrial age sense. The basic concept is that of "a people," rather than of a nation legally constituted by Man. Hitler's Volk was created by God; little, if anything, separated it from the medieval, and really biblical, concept of ethnic identification. Hitler's "Aryan" was authentically a medieval/biblical concept, not a nationalistic one in the modern sense. Medieval life was, like that of the churchly "renunciation" Hitler here praised, focussed around God and the afterlife. It was harsh, and thus quite suitable for the Nazi ideal of "hardness." Life was "nasty, brutish, and short"to borrow Hobbes' terminology describing "the state of nature." Thus, the supernatural, and the beyond, seemed vastly more appealing. The Church held the most-valuable keys, because it held the keys to heaven; no earthly keys could compete with that. Fear was pervasive over the things of this world, and hope was placed on the beyond. This was because thievery, violence, and disease were routine, and poverty was the norm. This was the world of Hitler's fantasy life appropriately fantasized for "God's People." The reality was that the vast hereditary medieval manors, ruled by local lords who traveled off on Churchstate Crusades as knights in the service of the king and of the Pope, passed season after season in 111

8: Hitler's Medievalism quiet terror and desperation, surviving barely on the margin for the multitude of serfs who remained ingloriously behind in their huts, vulnerable to the predations of roving highwaymen and the throes of disease. Death was no distant prospect but instead an up-front and common reality. And borders were ever shifting; claims to land were always answerable ultimately to the force of arms; law served more to institutionalize the results of wars than to establish ownership in the first place. In fact, it was illegal to sell land; acquisition was only by two available means: inheritance and war. Medieval life, in sum, was devout, agrarian, desperate, and rigidly structured into hereditary castes. A paradigm for Naziism. The Nazis represented the values of medieval life, and this entailed the reassertion of castes and the romanticization of the master/slave relationship. Just as the Bible honors not only the master but also the obedient slave, so too did the Nazis honor not only the elite but also the obedient mass. Not only were the Fuhrer and the leadership honored, but all of the lowlies who unquestioningly accepted and obeyed that leadership were also honoredif only symbolically. It was the Nazi concept of the "national community," patterned upon the medieval model. Hitler reflected this in both of his "Political Testament" documents, 1925 and 1945 (both in Maser, 1973; the 1925 one is also in Mein Kampf, 1939, p. 964), in the earlier saying, "Never forget that the most sacred right on this earth is a man's right to what soil he can till with his own hands, and the most sacred sacrifice the blood he sheds for that soil," and in the latter, "I die with a joyful heart in the knowledge of the immeasurable deeds and achievements of our peasants and workers" these statements issuing from the leader of a technologically advanced nation during the Twentieth Century. In a speech on 15 February 1933, he said, "We are convinced that the restoration to health of our people [hearkening to his own never-diagnosed maladies] must start from the restoration to health of the body politic itself, and we are persuaded of the truth that the future of our people, now as in the past, lies first of all with the German peasant. If he perishes, our end has come; if he survives, then Germany will never succumb. Therein lies the strength, and the source, of our people's life the source of our renewal. The towns would not exist at all if the peasant did not fill them with his blood. He who lives in the countryside may be primitive, but he is healthy." This emphasis on peasants, soil, blood, and health occurred not really in the Twentieth-Century context, but perhaps in the Twelfth-Century one. Furthermore, Hitler's Secret Book or Second Book of 1928 develops at length his Lebensraum theory, which is based on medieval romanticization of the soil. 112

8: Hitler's Medievalism Hitler's political program was based on two theories he developed: first, his theory of eugenics, originally outlined in his 1919 notes for The Germanic RevolutionVolume I, and expressed in its complete form in Mein Kampf (in the passages presented herein in Appendix 1); and second, his Lebensraum theory, outlined in Mein Kampf, but fully expressed only later, in his Secret Book or Second Book (starting with its second chapter, which sets forth Hitler's case for Lebensraum-expansion as a means of avoiding a people's ultimate "spiritual collapse"), and which Hitler laid out to his generals in speeches on 3 February 1933 and 5 November 1937 as the basis for Germany to conquer Russia. Taken together, these two theories constituted Hitler's reasons for initiating a Second World War. Both theories were medieval. The first one appears to have been Hitler's initial inspiration for entering politics, and is the central focus of the present work because the Holocaust resulted from it. However, during the interval between Mein Kampf in 1924 and Hitler's 1928 book, it seems that the idea occurred to him that an expansion of German territory in a new World War would be required in order to achieve his original objective. Though there was nothing new in either of Hitler's two theories, they are nonetheless important for historical reasons, since the Holocaust resulted from the first, and World War II resulted from the second. However, both theories can actually be considered as one, in that even WWII would not have happened in the absence of Hitler's theory for the Holocaust: the second theory is actually an extension of the first. It just adds some additional medieval concepts. Whereas, the first theory was based upon the medieval concept of "the blood" (such as a person being "of noble blood," or "of German blood"), the second was based upon the medieval concept of "the soil," which is tied to "the blood" since the "right" to "the soil" was based upon "blood," "people," "race," or Volk; i.e., ancestry. In other words, Lebensraum was based upon Volk. This is clearly the case in the Bible. For example, in Deuteronomy 7:1-3, the "right" of "God's People" to other peoples' lands was indicated in 7:3 as being raciala "blood right." Not only were both of Hitler's theories derived from the Bible, but even their mutual logical dependency, or logical order, was also faithful to the Bible. Hitler was not at all a creative thinker.


8: Hitler's Medievalism

ALL THE LITTLE HITLERS Both "blood" and "soil" remain part of the intellectual landscape shaping political debate today. For example, within the past month as this is written, "blood and soil" political leader Jorg Haider in Austria, and Christoph Blocher in Switzerland, both won about a quarter of all votes cast in national elections in their two respective nations. Nor is such political appeal an influence only in German-speaking countries. At around the same time, the U.S. Presidential candidate, Nixonian/Reaganaut fundamentalist Catholic Patrick Buchanan, in his 1999 book A Republic, Not an Empire, argued that even subsequent to the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor, and Hitler a few days later declaring war on the United States, the U.S. ought not to have gone to war against Hitler, because "Hitler made no overt move to threaten U.S. vital interests," and really "Hitler had not wanted war with the West." Buchanan's fellow conservative, the Jewish Reaganaut Bill Kristol, was then quoted in the New York Times of 13 October as retorting of Buchanan, "He looks to blood and soil as our [American] identifying characteristic, not to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution." The charge was true; Buchanan's political outlook indeed is medieval, if not outright fascist (though Buchanan, like both Blocher in Switzerland and Haider in Austria, denies the "fascist" label). Nonetheless, the charge does sound disingenuous coming from Kristol as a conservative Jew who honors the Old Testament. Blood and soil are just as much a Jewish/OldTestament concept as they are a Christian/New-Testament one; Israel's own Likud and other conservative parties are constantly reminding the world of this. It is not only Germans, and not only Christians, who believe themselves to be "God's Chosen People." Kristol, who himself attributes the Holocaust to modernity, if not specifically to science, was actually reflecting in this comment more of a partisan ethnic attack than of an authentically political or philosophical one. The medieval blood-and-soil mentality can come from any religious denomination; it was hardly unique to Hitler, nor even to Hitler and Buchanan, nor to Germans, nor even to German Christians. There are conservatives, actually, of every ethnic stripe. Such instances as this, of pots-calling-the-kettle-black are, in fact, common for so-called "political" disputes amongst conservatives, since all consider themselves to be some kind of "God's Chosen People," only they may come from different "God's Chosen People." Conservatives, whether Hitler, Buchanan, Kristol, or any other, do not get their values, after all, from secular sourcesnot from the U.S. Constitution or any other. Typically, they get their values from the Bible or some other Scripture that asserts "God's People" not just by belief but by ethnicity, by "blood," having a God-given right to "their soil."


8: Hitler's Medievalism Mein Kampf as Hitler's fullest expression of his theory of "the blood" (or race, or eugenics in a racist pre-scientific sense), is obsessed with health; and even this is presented in a medieval conceptual framework, in which Hitler reaches his self-diagnostic solution to his problem of "poisoned blood." As has been previously mentioned, he believed his father to be the source of his own "blood poisoning" or "original sin." Extended passages in Mein Kampf deal with what he considered to be infected blood especially syphilis, which he seems to have feared in his own case that he had inherited from his father, via his father's presumed Jewish father, whom Hitler evidently supposed had been a libertine whose Jewish libertinism had "cursed" Adolf with his ailments. As Mein Kampf put it (quoting now at more length a passage whose opening was cited earlier): For hours the black-haired Jew boy, diabolic joy in his face, waits in ambush for the unsuspecting girl whom he defiles with his blood and thus robs her from her people. With the aid of all means he tries to ruin the racial foundations of the people to be enslaved. Exactly as he himself systematically demoralizes women and girls, he is not scared from pulling down the barriers of blood and race for others on a large scale. It was and is the Jews who bring the negro to the Rhine, always with the same concealed thought and the clear goal of destroying, by the bastardization which would necessarily set in, the white race which they hate, to throw it down from its cultural and political height and in turn to rise personally to the position of master. For a racially pure people, conscious of its blood, can never be enslaved by the Jew. It will forever only be the master of bastards in this world. Thus he systematically tries to lower the racial level by a permanent poisoning of the individual. Mein Kampf asserts a number of ways by which "the Jews" carry out this "poisoning," one being the spreading of syphilis, by "the prostitution of love," or "The Judaization of our spiritual life and the mammonization [sp.] of our mating impulse." Mein Kampf presents Hitler ranting like a Bible-thumping priest or minister against those of "God's People" or "Aryans" who tolerate such a situation: The fact that the population of our big cities is prostituted more and more in its love life, and that just through this it falls victim to syphilis in more and wider circles, cannot 115

8: Hitler's Medievalism just be abolished by denying it; it is there. The most obvious results of this mass contagion can be found on the one hand in the lunatic asylums, and on the other, unfortunately, in our -children. These especially are the sad certificates of misery of the irresistibly advancing tainting of our sexual life; in the diseases of the children the vices of the parents are revealed. Now there are different ways to reconcile oneself with this disagreeable, even terrible fact: some do not see anything at all, or rather they do not want to see anything: this is of course by far the most simple and cheapest 'attitude'; others wrap themselves in a saintly cloak of prudishness that is as ridiculous as it is also mendacious; they only talk of this entire domain as if it were a great sin, and, above all, in the presence of every sinner caught in the act, they express their deeply felt inner indignation in order then to close their eyes in pious disgust towards this vicious disease and to ask God (if possible after their own death) to rain fire and brimstone upon this Sodom and Gomorrah in order once again to make an elevating example of this disgraceful mankind; a third group see very well the terrible consequences which this disease is bound to, and will, bring with it, but nevertheless they only shrug their shoulders, convinced that they can do nothing against this danger, anyhow, so that one has to let things go as they are going. *** However, the question is then all the more which nation first and by itself is able to master this plague, and which nations cannot help perishing. That is what matters in the end. This also is only a touchstone for the value of a race, and that race which does not pass the test will die and make room for races healthier or at least tougher and of greater resistance. For, since this question primarily concerns the coming generation, it belongs to those of whom it is said, with terrible correctness, that the sins of the fathers are visited upon the tenth generation. But this is valid only for the sins against blood and race. The sin against the blood and the degradation of the race are the hereditary sin of this world and the end of a mankind surrendering to them. Hitler, the knight in shining armor, was determined not to "surrender." Hitler's imagery of syphilis presented in Mein Kampf has strong 116

8: Hitler's Medievalism resonances of the medieval bubonic plague, suggesting that he had been taught about this ancient European catastrophe, perhaps from his childhood historyteacher, Leopold Poetsch, whom Hitler in Mein Kampf cited as the only teacher he had ever had who made a lasting impact upon him. (According to Eugene Davidson's 1977 The Making of Adolf Hitler, p. 11, Poetsch was a committed anti-Semite.) In any event, it seems clear that when Hitler as a young man moved to the great city of Vienna, the change for this rural Austrian, who after having been born in Braunau had moved several times to other small villages, never experiencing anything more cosmopolitan than the upper-Austrian provincial capital of Linz, was shocking, almost like his being transported via a timemachine from the Middle Ages right into the Twentieth Century. This shock was exhibited not only in his descriptions of Vienna and of big cities generally in Mein Kampf ("Our entire public life today resembles a hothouse of sexual conceptions and stimulants," etc.), but in speeches of the early 1920's in Berlin, where he also preached hellfire-and-brimstone against the sinfulness of the life he saw around him there. Indeed, Hitler's statement to Eckart at Berchtesgaden shortly afterwards, "I must enter Berlin like Christ in the Temple at Jerusalem and drive out the moneylenders," can best be understood against the background of this fundamentalist moral outrage. Hitler idolized "the Volk" largely in this idealized agrarian way, closer to the soil, and to the biblical "Paradise," than to any big city such as Vienna or Berlin. Furthermore, this was a 20th-Century Vienna whose mayor, Dr. Karl Lueger, himself reflected the medieval anti-Semitism that Hitler carried with him. All around the bewildered Hitler was a cosmopolitanism that challenged his own rural culture and value-system, rooted in the Middle Ages. Thus, Hitler fused into his emerging theory of eugenics the medieval terrors of the plague, in its thencurrent big-city embodiment, which was syphilis. When Hitler, in Mein Kampf describes the plague of syphilis that he there poses as the ultimate test for determining "which nation first and by itself is able to master this plague," his references are medieval, not really contemporary. His understanding is religious, not really scientific. Here, from Laurie Garrett's 1994 The Coming Plague (p. 247), is a scientific account of the origins of the syphilis that Hitler now saw around him: Following the Black Death of the fourteenth century, most of Europe experienced two or three generations of disarray and lawlessness. Death had taken a toll on the cities' power structures and, in many areas, the worst of the survivorsthe 117

8: Hitler's Medievalism most avaricious and corruptswept in to fill the vacuums. 'The crime rate soared; blasphemy and sacrilege was a commonplace; the Riles of sexual morality were flouted; the pursuit of money became the be-all and end-all of people's lives,' Philip Ziegler wrote. The world was suddenly full of widows, widowers, and adolescent orphans; none felt bound by the strictures of the recent past. Godliness had failed their dead friends and relatives; indeed, the highest percentage of deaths had occurred among priests. Europe, by all accounts, remained disrupted for decades. One could hypothesize the following scenario for the emergence of syphilis: the spirochete was endemic worldwide since ancient times, usually producing yaws in children. But on rare occasionsagain, since prehistoryit was passed sexually, causing syphilis. These events were so unusual that they never received a correct diagnosis and may well have been mistaken for other crippling ailments, such as leprosy. But amid the chaos and comparative wantonness that followed the Black Death, that necessary critical mass of multiple-partner sex was reached in European cities, allowing the organism to emerge within two or three human generations on a massive scale in the form of syphilis. And, just as Jews had been blamed as the cause of the otherwise incomprehensible contagion of the Black Death, the medieval Hitler blamed them too for having sown this newer plague. Even though science now existed, and microbes were then known, the same biblical prejudices, learned in the crib, ruled his mind, and so produced in him a similar explanation, with the only difference being that he now had to accommodate in it such scientifically known facts about syphilis as had become public knowledge. The way that Hitler did this is characteristic of the highly superstitious medieval mindset of associative thinking guided by little else than biblically inspired prejudices. Here is Hitler's explanation, from Mein Kantpf. Parallel with the political and moral infection of the people went a no less terrible poisoning of the health of the national body. Syphilis began to spread more and more, especially in the great cities, while tuberculosis was steadily reaping its harvest of death almost throughout the entire country. ***


8: Hitler's Medievalism The cause, however, lies primarily in our prostitution of love. Even if the result of this were not this terrible disease, yet it would still be of deepest danger for the people, for the moral devastation which this depravity brings with it are sufficient to destroy a people slowly but surely. The Judaization of our spiritual life and the mammonization [sic] of our mating impulse sooner or later befouls our entire new generation, for instead of vigorous children of natural feeling, only the miserable specimens of financial expedience come forth. *** [When I lived in Vienna,] the life in the street gave some really evil demonstrations. In no other city of western Europe could the relationship between Jewry and prostitution, and even now the white slave traffic, be studied better than in Vienna, with the possible exception of the seaports of Southern France. When walking at night through the streets and alleys of the Leopoldsstadt, with every step one could witness things which were unknown to the greater part of the German nation until the war gave the soldiers on the Eastern Front an opportunity to see similar things, or rather forced them to see them. An icy shudder ran down my spine when seeing for the first time the Jew as a cool, shameless, and calculating manager of this shocking vice, the outcome of the scum of the big city. But then my indignation flared up. Now I did not evade the discussion of the Jewish question any longer; no, I sought it out. As I learned to look for the Jew in every field of our cultural and artistic life, I suddenly bumped against him in a place where I had never suspected. The scales dropped from my eyes when I found the Jew as the leader of Social Democracy. This put an end to a long internal struggle. In line with Hitler's equation of political, moral, and physical infection" (entailing some sort of biological microbe, and so being at least quasiscientific), Hitler starts by speaking of the "prostitution of love," and the "mammonization of the our mating impulse" by "the Jew" such as Hitler asserts, on the basis of his dubious inferences from his own anecdotal "demonstrations," to have been "the cause" of this latest "harvest of death" by the "the Jew." He then proceeds to proclaim that, "then my indignation flared up," at his discovery, following which "the scales dropped from my 119

8: Hitler's Medievalism eyes" about "the Jew" in politics. This is a string of associative thoughts guided by the Biblearchetypally medieval. And so too it was that Hitler came up with his theory for the Holocaust, of which this passage from Mein Kampf was a portion.


9: Anti-Science

Hitler's early religious training left a profound impact upon him, which lasted until his dying day, and shaped his political views. Even when he tried to escape from its overwhelming influence, as he clearly attempted to do after 1937 and especially in his Secret Conversations (Table-Talk) from 1941 on, he failed; he did not know how. After all, his personality had already been formed; it was too late for him to do anything about this. His attitude toward Jews had gotten beyond the merely intellectual or cognitive level of Jews supposedly having killed Christ as children of Satan, etc., and had long since formed his emotional response toward Jews, which is to say his motivations. Thus, no matter how much he struggled after 1937 to change his ideas (e.g., Jews were now carriers of a dangerous "virus," even if they weren't children of Satan), his feelings toward Jews remained unaffected. Hitler's reasons remained biblical, even if his rationalizations no longer were. Furthermore, even prior to 1937, Hitler knew that it would have been politically stupid for him to rationalize publicly about "the Jews" or anything else on the basis of explicitly citing biblical chapters and verses by number. Even when he referred to "Christ" in Mein Kampf, he avoided saying from where in the Bible he had gotten his "information." Hitler wanted to be a political leader, not a religious one; he wanted to be an agent of God's will, not merely its teacher. He was a man of action, not of mere mouthings. Hitler always expressed pride in the unchangeableness of his personality, character, and views; he must have felt quite conflicted about his intentions now, in his maturity, to make so basic a change, toward "science," and away from religion. He even remained proud, to the very 121

9: Anti-Science end, that he continued to be religious "at bottom." And he remained steadfast to the end in regards to the anti-Semitic goal upon which he had entered politics, and which he was resolutely determinedas a consequence of his early religious indoctrinationto carry out and to leave as his shining legacy of a "Jew-free" world. Only he now had to find a new rationalization for ita rationalization that he could present as, and himself believe to be, superior to his former "childish imaginings of religion." This rationalization was ready at hand: "science," specifically biological "science" in the form of a corruption of Darwinian evolution. Social Darwinism and the "crackpot "eugenic" proposals that were based upon it, in fact constituted "scientific" orthodoxy at the start of the 19th Century, and reigned supreme especially in the (misnamed) social "sciences" such as political theory. In one prominent example, Vilfredo Pareto in 1916 published his Treatise of General Sociology (The Mind and Society), setting forth the most"scientific" statement to-date advocating social Darwinism and control of the state by elites emerging from continuous conflicts for power: "The use of force is indispensable to society; and when the higher classes are averse to using force, ... it becomes necessary, if society is to prosper, that they be replaced by others willing and able. .. . The principles from which humanitarianism derives violate the facts." (Sections 1858-9.) Pareto, eulogised by Italy's Benito Mussolini, came to be known as "the Karl Marx of fascism"; today, he is remembered only as a founder of modern economics, into which he introduced (in 1906) the formula for "optimality" or "efficiency." (Translate this as "goodness.") This standard economic measure for economic "goodness" or "efficiency" excludes from economic consideration the distribution of wealth. That, in turn, has committed today's economists to the theoretical view that a society's distribution of wealth is irrelevant to measuring the goodness of its economy. In fact, according to Pareto's "optimality," an economy in which one person owns all the wealth, including all the others as slaves, is just as good as another in which wealth is equally distributed amongst all the people. (The only proviso here is that the average percapita wealth of the two economies must be the same in order for that equality of "efficiency" to hold. If the extreme wealth of a few tycoons or slave-holders causes a monopolistic slave-holding economy to have a higher per-capita wealth than an equalitarian free one, then today's economist is committed to the view that that master-slave economy is superior: This permits regressive elitist conservatism to be favored by many economists. Such is the "science" of even today's economics.) In other words, top-down moral presuppositions, such as that "the Almighty" 122

9: Anti-Science defines what is "right," are found not only in acknowledgedly religious-based beliefs, but also in beliefs that pretend to be based on "science" (and this includes not only economics but the sub-structures throughout today's social "sciences"). Hitler had available to him in the 1930's and '40's a vast wealth of such quasi"scientific" religious-based power-"justifying" scholarly works providing rationalizations for his policies. He did not have to look far. But what he ended up with was nonetheless a crude "genetic" or as he called it "racial" basis for the Holocaust, not scientifically passable even by the low standards of his time (which were even lower than the standards of ours). Hitler was, to some extent, trapped by his objective: to "prove," to himself above all, that all Jews must be exterminated. He felt that it is so; with every fiber of his being, he was convinced of this. His earlier writings on the point had made explicit reference to the biblical concepts upon which the sentiment was based. But by the time of his Secret Conversations (Table-Talk), all that he was left with were quasi-scientific rationalizations for the belief: Jews must be exterminated because they carried "the Jewish vims." Their blood was contaminated now not (or not necessarily) by Satan, but by some kind of microbe. This was consistent with his previous rationalization, only now the "blood poisoning" did not have to come from Satan as its originating source; nothing more than a "scientific explanation," a virus, need be hypothesized. And so, in his Secret Conversations (Table-Talk) of 22 February 1942, he not only hypothesized it, but, as previously mentioned, proudly claimed this "scientific" discovery as his own, and that "The discovery of the Jewish virus is one of the greatest revolutions that have ever occurred," comparable to the achievements of Koch and Pasteur during the prior century. Hitler throughout his life had exhibited a need to believe that his antiSemitism was based on reason and not only on faith. Even in Mein Kampf, he asserted that the sentiment was purely of adult origin, and that it was not at all based on the churches' "irrational" anti-Semitism, which had treated Judaism as a religion, which Hitler (in line with John 8:44, Matthew 27:25, and Phillipians 3:2-9) was convinced it was not. But now, late in his career, Hitler, in his own eyes, was purely the "scientist." Yet, as it turned out, the new self-diagnosis by Hitler of his lifelong ailments was no different than the more-detailed version he had included over a decade earlier in Mein Kampf as his theory of eugenics (and which is herein the first Appendix), except that he had now stripped out the references to "the Almighty," and to Christ Himself as "the Sublime Founder of the new doctrine." Hitler remained, as before, not only ignorant of 123

9: Anti-Science scientific knowledgewhich even a scientist, or an individual with a scientific approach to determining truth/falsity, might bebut, even more importantly, he remained religious, rather than scientific, himself. Till his dying day, Hitler was irrevocably committed to the basic idea of faith, namely that infallibility or inerrancy exists; he never understood the systematic skepticism by which the scientist approaches every belief, every assertioneven one coming from another great scientist, regardless how great a scientist that may be. To the contrary, Hitler said near the end, on the night of 28-9 January 1942, "faith is at the bottom of everything" (as previously noted), reflecting still the attitude of religion, expressed in John 20:29, "Blessed are they who have not seen, yet still believe"; John 1:1, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"; and 2 Samuel 22:31, "The Word of the Lord is flawless." This acceptance of inerrancy is the very antithesis of the epistemology (i.e., of the criteria for truth/falsity) of the scientist. Thus, no matter how much Hitler in his final days aspired to being a man of science, rather than a man of faith, it was futile. Deep down he knew this, and was proud of the fact, such as when he proclaimed, "deep down, I am a religious person all the same." And so Hitler's theory for the Holocausthis theory of eugenics-remained even to the very end the theory that he had given in Mein Kampf its fullest expression (as our Appendix 1), and that he had unremittingly fought to implement. And so, too, that theory was clearly of religious, not scientific, origin, and is full of violations of even the most basic scientific understandings of the way genetics operates and functionssuch as the well established principle that mongrels or mixed breeds have not less hardiness and more disease than pure breeds as Hitler repeatedly claimed, but the reverse. Furthermore, all of his "eugenic" criteria were arbitrary; for example, hardy races were "good," but Jews were tenaciously hardy and thus "bad." Also, these selections were to be done on the basis of "race," not of the individual's traits as scientific selective breeding is done. Moreover, there was no recognition of the increased survival benefits of natural variation; to the contrary, Hitler wanted everyone to be the same "Aryan" ideal, and the resultant genetic uniformity could produce a situation in which epidemics would spread like wildfire; oddly, the scourges of plague, and even of syphilis such as had been railed against at length by Hitler, couldlike all communicable diseases under his regimenend up being vastly more pervasive and deadly in Hitler's biblically racist "Paradise." And on top of that, as previously suggested, Hitler's version of social Darwinism constituted nothing better than a caricature of Darwinian theory; 124

9: Anti-Science in fact. Hitler outright rejected Darwinian evolution in favor of creationism (e.g., it is necessary "to give the Almighty Creator beings as He Himself created them," and "Because God's will once gave men their form, their being, and their faculties, who destroys His work thereby declares war on the creation of the Lord." And Hitler had expressed it years earlier, as "The BibleMonumental History of Mankind.") Also, Hitler's confusion of intergenerational transmission of a contagious disease such as syphilis via spirochetes, with authentically genetic transmission of a real genetic disease, hardly reflected science. And, of course, finally, his avoidance of curing any disease in favor of killing its victims; his killing people instead of sterilizing them; and his damning of all diseases as somehow moral failings; all made his theory a ghastly mockerynot an actual applicationof science. In a sense, it is even ludicrous to apply the term "eugenics" to Hitler's racism, which instead was based on "viruses" or "bacilli" as the intergenerational transmission vehiclenot genes at all. Ever since Gregor Mendel had introduced the basic laws of genetics, well before Hitler's time, any such reference to microbes as formative or deformative of races, species, or other biological categories, could have no scientific standing, even in the era prior to the discovery in 1953 of the DNA double-helix as the structure underlying such actual genetic transmission. The very term for the field "genetics" was coined by William Bateson in 1906. Yet for Hitler, "race" was carried not in the genes, but in the bloodjust as in the Bible. Furthermore, it seems that Hitler refused to accept Darwinian evolution even during his later years when he was trying to become "scientific." In his Secret Conversations (Table-Talk) on the night of 25-6 January 1942, when the "final solution" was already in full sway, Hitler asked, "Where do we acquire the right to believe that man has not always been as he is now? The study of nature teaches us that, in the animal kingdom just as much as in the vegetable kingdom, variations have occurred. They've occurred within the species, but none of these variations has an importance comparable with that which separates man from the monkey assuming that this transformation really took place." Despite Hitler's claim here concerning what "the study of nature teaches," the racism that motivated the Holocaust clearly had everything to do with "original sin," and nothing at all to do with the actual science of biology. Nonetheless, some individuals who are ignorant even of what "science" itself is, have cited Hitler's theory of eugenics (Appendix 1 here) as constituting the "scientific" cause of the Holocaust. Of course, Hitler 125

9: Anti-Science would have felt flattered by that opinion. And one could hardly even imagine flattery that is less earned, less justified, than that. The very same individuals who attribute the Holocaust to "science," not only do not know what they are talking about, but they pay Hitler an unwarranted honor. It is one thing to confuse technology with science (which such people commonly do in order to use Nazi Germany's technology as itself "evidence" that science caused the Holocaust), but quite another to pay undeserved homage (even if only in yet additional ignorance) to the world's leading genocidist. Clergymen of all faiths routinely encourage such anti-science propaganda so as to reassert claim to their own turf of "expertise," morality where that claim is just as bogus as at least enlightened people now recognize to have been (and/or to still be) over questions of cosmology and human origins. And equally fallacious arguments are presented that science itself is "just another religion," that are usually based on the false claim that the difference between science and religion is different beliefs, when the reality is that the core distinction is instead their different criteria for determining truth/falsity. Religion is based on faith in incrrant Scripture as the path to Truth, and science is based on the oppositeno faith in any scripture at all, but instead systematic skepticism adjudicated by the individual's own experience, in the scientific manner. The Holocaust was wrong because it was based on lies. The fact that those lies themselves are of religious origin does not negate this brute reality, but to the contrary suggests that the implications of the Holocaust for the future during our still-religious era should give us even more cause for concern.


10: The Cover-Up by Scholars

As has been indicated earlier, scholars have been more than willing to consider science to have been the cause of the Holocaust. However, they have not been willing to consider, or even to debate the possibility, that religion was its cause. In fact, perhaps the only scholarly consensus that exists regarding the Holocaust's cause is that religion did not cause it; and, specifically, that Hitler himself was not motivated to the Holocaust by the Bible, nor by Christianity, nor by religion in any other sense. This consensus did not result from a debate that entailed careful consideration of the evidence and airing of contesting opinions. No such debate ever took place. In fact, no debate at all took place about the issue. This consensus is instead the product of bald assumption, unexamined and unchallenged till now. The public-at-large takes it for granted that Hitler was non-Christian if not anti-Christian. They do so because historians and other scholars have accepted this viewpoint as established beyond question, and thus unworthy of debate. For example, William Carr opens his 1979 Hitler with several pages describing the euphoric, Christian-fundamentalist revival meeting atmosphere of Nazi rallies, only to summarize on his fifth page by saying, "Hitler's meetings bore at least a superficial resemblance to revivalist gatherings of the oldfashioned bible-thumping variety, full of fire and brimstone, immortalized in Sinclair Lewis's Elmer Gantry. There was the same infectious enthusiasm, the same electrically charged atmosphere, the same extraordinary credulity and the same intensity of feeling welding speaker and audience together in a mystical union. There is much force in 127

10: The Cover-Up by Scholars the contention that Nazism is only properly intelligible in terms of a pseudoreligion." That "pseudo " displays the bias. Carr never gives any evidence to support the bias. Robert Waite, the leading Hitler-psychobiographer, to whom I had sent an early draft of this book, wrote back by dismissing it, on the grounds that, in reality, "the essence of the New Testament is love and reconciliation; it is not hatred and extermination," as a consequence of which it is wrong of me, in this work, to take seriously "the staggering distortions of Hitler." I asked him what these "distortions" were. He never replied. (Even if there had been Scriptural distortions in Hitler's theory for the Holocaust, would that be a valid reason to suppress reporting the theory?) While it is true that religious people can have different interpretations of biblical passages, does this show that someone is not religious or not Christian, or is making "staggering distortions"? One may infer that for Hitler the greatest commandment is Matthew22:31 (Mark 12:30), "Love the Lord" (and so do not kill Him); while for Waite it is Mat. 22:39 (Mark 12:31), "Love your neighbor" (and so do not kill the Jews). Both are from the same Bible (both the Old and the New Testaments: the first is based on Exodus 20:3 and Deut. 5:7; the second on Leviticus 19:18). And in some parts of this Bible God orders genocide (Dent. 20:16-17, 7:2. 2:34. 3:3, 3:6, & 25:19); Numbers 31:15-7; Hosea 13:16; Isaiah 13:11-6; 1 Samuel 15:3; Jeremiah 48:8-10; and Joshua 6:21, 8:26 & 10:28&30&32&33&35&37&39&40), and even in the person of Jesus counsels violence (Mat. 10:34; Luke 12:49-51, 19:27 & 22:36). But regardless of how right or wrong Hitler's reading of the Bible was, its historical importance was enormous, and therefore historians certainly should report it. A few months later I approached Rabbi Hyam Maccoby offering to show him my work, because he had been the sole proponent cited in Ron Rosenbaum's 1998 Explaining Hitler as suggesting so much as a possibility of a Christian motivation behind the Holocaust. He, however, declined to see the typescript, writing me that "The evidence [he didn't state what this "evidence" consisted of] is that Hitler was an atheist, not a Christian believer. I am afraid that you have gone far beyond the facts [none of which he specified] in representing Hitler as a believing fundamentalist Christian. He did sometimes play the religious card, when it suited him, as when he appealed to the authority of Luther. But he was actually anti-Christian." (Actually, the Rabbi seems to share Hitler's own bigotry against atheists, such as Hitler expressed on 14 October 1941 to Himmler in Secret Conversations (Table-Talks), where Hitler, who considered "the animal" to represent the lowest rank of "spiritual 128

10:The Cover-Up by Scholars achievement," stated that "atheism . . . is a return to the condition of the animal," which is also perhaps why he had told a public audience in a speech on 24 October 1933 that, "We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against atheism.... We have stamped it out.") But perhaps the best example of this unquestioned assumption of scholars that Hitler was not religious, is provided by a prominent Hitler/ Holocaust historian, Dr. Ian Kershaw, who in 1987 published a highly regarded book claiming to penetrate behind The Hitler Myth (as it was titled). Dr. Kershaw is not only a historian, he is at the top of his fieldor, as Michael H. Kater said in his favorable review of The Hitler Myth in the October 1988 English Historical Review (p. 1014), Kershaw "has already emerged at the top of the experts on the Third Reich in the United Kingdom" (and the U. K. dominates scholarship in that field). Yet this supposed de-mythologisation of the Fuhrer actually contributed to the real Hitler myth, by its own pervasive assumptionwith no documentation or support of any kind provided anywherethat Hitler was not a religious person, much less a fundamentalist Christian whose motivation for perpetrating the Holocaust derived from that very fact (as is, in fact, documented herein). Professor Kershaw implicitly buries the contrary theory, of Hitler's irreligiousity, subliminally under such verbiage (pp. 1079) as, "Once he became Chancellor, Hitler's language became pronouncedly 'messianic' in tone, and his public addresses were frequently replete with religious symbolism," and even, "the 'religious' dimension was a powerful component of the 'Fuhrer myth'" that was itself the subject of Kershaw's book. Reading a work like that, one would never guess that Hitler's "Messianic" assertionsoften based on specific Biblical referencesoccurred far more frequently before he became Chancellor than after, and more often in his private correspondences and personal notes to himself than in his public speeches. And one would never guess, either, that the people who were personally closest to Hitler, and those who worked intimately with him in the Nazi party and leadership, including such figures as Goring, Goebbels and Bormann, all took for granted that, as Bormann himself expressed it without objection to Hitler, "You have always been very religious." Instead of informing his readers of any of this, Professor Kershaw goes on to observe that Goebbels "himself seems to have fallen victim to Hitler's 'messianism,'" refers to "Goebbels swallowing the religious nimbus of the Fuhrer," and notes with obvious disdain "that even prominent churchmen appear to have convinced themselves that Hitler was deeply religious in character" as a result of "Hitler's obvious ability to simulate" such 129

10: The Cover-Up by Scholars Christianity. And thus, an important theoreticalor explanatoryassertion that Hitler was actually not religious, much less Christian, has been introduced subliminally and with no evidence to support it. This is typical: The mind slammed shut against even the possibility of the authenticity of the Holocaust's religious origins, is standard amongst scholars. At the very least, the present pages have revealed massive scholarly incompetence, if not worse, on this. To assert that the Holocaust was based upon the Bible is not merely to take Hitler's word for it. Of course, it includes that. Hitler did say that it was. But the evidence goes vastly beyond this, to include as well his cultural background, the childhood-influences that shaped his character the testimony of his friends and colleagues about his religiosity, and Hitler's own testimony in his private letters and notes confirming the religious base of his thinking. But there is even more; there is the universalistic, internationalist, nature of the Holocaust itself. We have mentioned other things as well. Here we shall briefly summarize this evidence, and then address at length the failure of historians to have considered even the possibility that the Holocaust was caused by Christianitythat the Bible was central to this genocide. We shall draw conclusions about not only the fact that the Holocaust was a deeply religious act, notwithstanding its also having been an intensely evil act; but also the lessons that future histiography can constructively draw from the historical profession's dismal performance in failing to deal in an honest and forthright way with the Holocaust's religious roots. And we shall discuss possible options by means of which the general public, having been disserved by historians as supposed "experts" at understanding, interpreting, and representing history, can directly overcome this. At least up through 1937, and even afterwards, Hitler repeatedly expressed the Biblical source of the Holocaust that was to come, such as when he promised his supporters, on 18 December 1926, that "The teachings of Christ have laid the foundations for the battle against Jews as the enemy of Mankind; the work that Christ began, I shall finish," and when he assured Bishop Berning on 26 April 1933, "I am doing what the Church has done for 1,500 years. I am simply finishing the job" (both foreshadowing his "final solution"). He even expressed it in Mein Kampf-e.g., "By defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." Furthermore, he based his theory for the Holocaust (given here in Appendix 1) upon the Bible, and especially upon the anti-Semitic assertions in the Gospels. In addition, we have shown how Hitler's early childhood indoctrination from his mother, his teachers, his priests, and his culture 130

10: The Cover-Up by Scholars generally, was consistent with Hitler's growing up to believe that the Bible was, as he asserted, "the Monumental History of Mankind," not mere myth. And we have pointed out that when Hitler on 29 October 1937 announced that he was starting to question this, and admitted that he had just then, "after an intense inner struggle, been freed from the still-current and childish imaginings of religion," he was simultaneously thereby acknowledging that he previously accepted unquestioningly precisely these same "childish imaginings." This was amazing for a man who prided himself on never changing his mind. But to be sure, we are not taking just Hitler's word for it; and we are not taking just his devout upbringing for it; and we also are not taking just the testimony of his friends such as Eckart and Bormann (etc.) for it. Above all, Hitler was a man of action; and the way that the Holocaust was donesuch things as that 96% of the exterminated Jews were not Germansverified Hitler's claims to a religious universalistic motive for it. Hitler actually executed his promised "purification" from the "blood poisoning" by "the Jews." Of course, he made the political accommodations he had to; above all, he "exported anti-Semitism," by expelling some Jews to hypocritical other Christian nations that condemned the extermination but that refused to accept these dispossessed Jewish refugees. However, Hitler remained true to his goalthe "final solution." On this he was a man of his word; he fulfilled his promises, his threats, which a religious world was torn between supporting and ignoring. The world could not ignore his Lebensraum initiatives, after he invaded Poland on 1 September 1939; but it could and did ignorewhere it did not outright support Hitler's Holocaust, which started on the same date. "Soil" became the source for the international World War II; "blood" was the source for Hitler's internal war against Jews and other "inferior peoples"; even though both were really international wars. But the outside world held tight to the myth, even though Hitler was soon grabbing Jews to slaughter anywhere he could grab them from. The "blood" war was clearly based upon Hitler's biblically grounded theory for the Holocaust; the "soil" war was based upon a long medieval and ultimately biblical tradition, but with biblical roots that were less clear than those of the "blood" war, even if by no means unclear. Yet historians have all but ignored the Bible in their "explanations" for the Holocaust. Why? They could have looked to Hitler's own theory for the Holocaust, in order to determine what his reasons for it were or even just might have been. But they instead chose not to do so; they have essentially ignored Hitler's theory. They did not even quote it in order to attack it. Though that would have been to ignore that the theory was 131

10: The Cover-Up by Scholars historically important regardless of its truthfulness, at least it would have acknowledged that Hitler gave this reason for his perpetration of the Holocaust. But historians cheated their readers of even that. The closest that any of them came to providing this basic information was when some historians, such as Waite, acknowledged that Hitler saw himself as a "Messiah" fighting against "the incarnate evil of 'international Jewry,'" and when others, such as Carr, referred to Naziism as itself a "pseudo-religion." But no historian has even so much as quoted Hitler's biblically rooted theory for the Holocaust. Actually, they have suppressed its very existence. However wrong and evil that theory is, its historical importance is nonetheless immense. This theory caused the Holocaust. There is no valid justification at all for historians having suppressed it. How can the public-at-large possibly come to understand historyhistorians are supposed to help with that, aren't they; or is it okay for them to hinder it instead?if historians merely pretend to explore for understanding, while they actually suppress key facts if those facts are viewed by them as interpretable by the public as being unfavorable toward organized religion? If historians have done this with respect to the Holocaust, then in what other ways have they distorted history in order to, perhaps in their view, avoid giving offense? Are historians scholars, or rather clergymenor is there any difference between the two, other than a different name for what they do? (One thing is certain: historians are as yet, far from being scientists.) So long as historians pander to what may be popular myths, they violate their professional trust. And this is true regardless whether or not historians themselves share in such myths. Instead of even so much as considering Hitler's carefully worked-out theory for the Holocaustthe Fuhrer's own detailed explanation of why it was, in his view, a moral necessityhistorians have concocted their own "explanations," based on their own theories, essentially ignoring entirely Hitler's painstakingly constructed explanation, even to the point of not tearing it apart to criticize its substance. Rather than quote Hitler's theory, some historians have alleged Hitler's "inspiration" for the Holocaust to have come from writings that he read, if at all, only after childhood, when his personalityincluding his adult anti-Semitic fanaticismwas presumably already fixed in cement. The fact that Hitler's obsessive anti-Semitism became overt only in his adult years does not gainsay that the roots for it must have been planted in his earliest years. Yet historians have instead cited as "sources" for the anti-Semitism writers such as Fichte, Fritsch, Liebenfels, Wagner, Chamberlain, and Gobineau, whom Hitler probably never even read as a child. And they have ignored entirely the one written 132

10:The Cover-Up by Scholars source to which the child Hitler was repeatedly exposed by his mother, his church, his school, and all around him: the Bible. Did Hitler himself actually cite such writers as Fritsch or even Wagner, as authority for the need to eliminate the Jews? No; sometimes, rarely, he would mention such writers as confirmation of his own views, but never as any sort of ultimate authority, such as when he in Mein Kampf referred to Jesus, and such as when he subsequently on two occasions stated that he was going to complete Jesus' work. Hitler never said that he was going to complete the work of Fritsch, Gobineau, Wagner, or etc.; he was going to complete the work of "the Church." This was an authority that he knew, and that he accepted as authority, since infancy. Yet historians deceived. No matter how rarely that Hitler actually referred to such adult-period writers as authorityand never as anything like ultimate authority for the need to "eliminate" or "exterminate" the Jews, and no matter how often he referred to the Bible (either directly, or by citation, or by reference to such things as the Obergammergau Passion Plays that were based upon the biblical account) for such authority, the official intellectuals in our universities have nonetheless decided that such writers as Fichte, Gobineau, Liebenfels, etc., were "guilty" of having inspired Hitler, and that John, Matthew, etc., were not. And never has such a historian, having already established such a bogus basis for his "explanation," thence proceeded to inquire whether the figures they have referred to (Liebenfels, etc.) might have gotten their own anti-Semitism in the crib, from the Bible and from the prevailing Christian culture. However, there have also been some historians who have resolutely refused to attribute Hitler's anti-Semitism to any intellectual sources at allnot even to the real one in Hitler's childhoodand who have instead proposed purely mechanical, "structural," or "materialistic," explanations ot the Holocaust, aping in their historical analyses pre-Einsteinian physics, without their understanding even the outdated Newtonian scientific model they unconsciously thereby mocked. For example (as Jeffrey Herf discussed in the first part of his 1997 Divided Memory: The Nazi Past in the Two Germanies), East Gentian communist historians notoriously attributed the Holocaust to mechanistic, purely structural, causes, specifically to Karl Marx's mechanistic theory of class-struggle. On the other hand, Western conservative historians of both the Right and the Left have also proposed non-Marxist structural explanations. But perhaps the largest percentage of Holocaust-historians have refrained from offering any explanation at all for the genocide. Typically, 133

10: The Cover-Up by Scholars such historians claim that because they are "objective," they do not involve themselves in such "polemics" (i.e., in explanations). Instead, they "just report the facts," without interpretation (as if that were really possible; the example we cited earlier from structuralist Ian Kershaw, pretending to report the facts about the supposed "myth" of Hitler's religiosity, and burying in his account an assumptionessentially, an interpretation, or a theory-that Hitler was not actually religious, much less Christian, shows how interpretation ends up in a purported recitation of "facts," like it or not). Maybe some of these self-styled "objective" historians go to church, synagogue, or mosque, in order to find instruction on moral matters, from the same type of Scriptural authority that informed Hitler. Of course, they are "objective" about this, and (at least so they believe) Hitler was not. Other of these scholars who have no explanation of their own to offer, refrain because "reducing such a complex social phenomenon to a theory is to oversimplify that phenomenon," as one of them put the matter to me in a personal communication upon reading a draft of the present work. "I do not feel that unilateral arguments such as your own provide a full explanation of a very complicated phenomenon." She was unfortunately not able to identify the sort of thing that a "multilateral" analysis ought to include. In a very real sense, science is itself a particular kind of "polemics." Science not only interprets; it aims to interpretinterpretation, in fact, is what theory in science is all about. And the purpose of theory, in an equally real sense, is to "simplify"but only to do so without compromising the complexity of what is explained (a very difficult challenge to meet, which is why theoretical science is so challenging). But perhaps what above all sets the scientist apart from the scholar, and what constitutes the single biggest difference between the alreadyestablished authentic areas of science (the physical and biological sciences) and the merely pretended aspiring ones (the "social sciences" especially, including historyall areas where the assumptions are routinely hidden, unstated, and thus not actually debated), is that the scientist knows that interpretation must be conscious, acknowledged, and subjected to public discussion and controversy, in order to have any standing at all as scientific interpretation or theory. Historians, even today, practise a "science" that is just as phony as the "science" promulgated by the post-1937, newly "freed," "scientific" Hitler. A thousand, or maybe even only a hundred, years from now, today's "social scientists" will probably be viewed as having been bible-defenders just as Ptolemaic physicists and creationist biologists of former eras are today (at least amongst scientists). These statements I am making here are polemical, 134

10: The Cover-Up by Scholars because historians and other scholars are going to attack and condemn this book, at least to the extent that they cannot get away with ignoring it altogether. And those attacks will be not only polemical but distortive and outright false. There are only a limited number of historical interpretive responses possible for the Holocaust. The present effort is the first to consider seriously and systematically Adolf Hitler's own explanation of what motivated him to perpetrate the Holocaust. Although academic historians have let parts of Hitler's explanation surface in their accounts (such as, especially, Hitler's accusing Jews of being not only Bolsheviks but the inventors of Bolshevisman accusation that was, itself, probably sincere on Hitler's part, but that certainly was not central to Hitler's thinking, and that was more likely stated for propagandistic effect than anything else), they have never presented the Christian fundamentalist framework in terms of which Hitler formulated and (up to 1937) defended his anti-Semitic charges, and in terms of which he ruled Germany. Therefore, that framework is the subject here, and Hitler's most detailed statement of it, presented in Mein Kampf, is given in Appendix 1. The focus here, in other words, has been on the evolution and nature of Hitler's system of values, in terms of which he felt that the extermination of all Jews would be a good thing, and even in terms of which he felt that the extermination of other "defective" or inferior" (which, after all, are evaluative terms) people would be right. Most historians have ignored Hitler's system of values; some have treated him as "the psychopathic god" who thus had no values, simply none at all. Historians who have held that Hitler did have values have attributed those values to writingssuch as Fichte, Gobineau, Chamberlain, Haeckel, Wagner, or Hegelthat Hitler read or even just might have read only after he had already reached adulthood, and that therefore could not even possibly have planted the seed for this obsessive exterminationist hatred in Hitler's personality. We have shown that, to the contrary, "good" and "bad" were religious concepts to Hitler, and that he accepted specifically the Christian faith as defining his values, especially in regards to "the Jews." We have shown that, even in Hitler's statements (such as his Munich speech of 12 April 1922) expoundi ng upon his specific accusations against "the Jews" as being people driven by greed (e.g., their "'god' is nothing more than money"), his "evidence" was frequently cited from specific biblical passages (such as John 2:13-16), which, however, he did not name, since he was a Politician, and therefore had to appeal to a broad public, including to 135

10: The Cover-Up by Scholars individuals who, like even Hitler himself after 1937, considered themselves to be secular. We saw that Hitler's self-image early in his career (at least from 192334) was as Christ taking the whip to "the Jews" to beat them out of God's temple on account of their Satanic greed, and that later (by 1938) he saw himself as a Crusading knight in shining armor, rescuing "God's People" from the evil villain portrayed in the New Testament, the "children of Satan," Jews. And what is especially important is that Hitler saw both missions, which were really one, as any biblical mission would be: inter-generational. For Hitler, this intergenerational concern reflected itself (again as typically is the case in biblical contexts, though not only in those) in the form of a "race," "people," or even "nation" (and Hitler referred to Jews particularly by all three terms). This is a perspective that is distinctly at variance with the typical technologically oriented vision of "improving the world," and even at odds with the specifically biological-genetic vision (as we have previously discussed) of scientific selective breeding on the basis of the individual's genetically determined traits. The great founder of genetics, the Austrian monk Gregor Mendel, carried out a selective breeding program on an entirely different, scientific, basis, which Hitler, with his medieval mentality rooted far more in the Bible than was the great monk's, was not only unable to grasp, but had no real interest in understanding. And even as the great American geneticist, Thomas Hunt Morgan, was publishing major books not only explaining but advancing the actual science of genetics at the very time when Hitler was seeking power in the 1920's, and even before that, Hitler continued to develop his own biblically based "eugenics theory" just as if science itself did not exist. He clearly had no real interest in it. One mightas some scholars have donecall Hitler's approach "Platonic," in that for him the collective entity (e.g., "the Jews") came before the individual one (e.g., "this particular person") and colored his entire reaction to any individual. But Hitler did not get it from Plato; he got it from the Bible. Some philosophers have even speculated whether Naziism was rooted in Plato's philosophy (especially The Republic). But whatever "justifications" for Hitler's policies one might possibly find there, were entirely incidental, not causative. The child Hitler was exposed to the Bible, not to Plato, and thus it is a question of purely ivory-tower interest whether Plato might be characterized in modern terms as having been "a fascist." At any rate, the real source of the variant of fascism that constituted Hitler's own Naziism is the Bible, surely not any of the philosophers that historians cite as "sources" for it. In a speech in Nuremberg on 6 September 1938, near the 136

10: The Cover-Up by Scholars Holocaust's start, Hitler proclaimed his roots to be not only medieval but The Holy Roman Empire itself, and asserted, in line with Mein Kampf's call "to give the Almighty Creator beings as he himself created them," that, "At the head of our program there stand no secret surmisings, but clear-cut perceptions and assertions of belief, at the center of which is the maintenance and security of a being formed by God, thus serving a divine work and fulfilling a divine will." Is this Plato's Republic, which some academicians cite as an origin of Naziism? To cite as a "source" of a mass-movement such as Naziism, some erudite intellectual influence that was read in their childhoods by neither the leaders nor the followers of that movement, is, in fact, profoundly elitist. It is also false. Perhaps the best "exception" to test this general rule is Lenin's imposition of Marxism upon Russia (and we deal with Marxism in more detail in the second part of Appendix 2). But Hitler, and even Naziism itself, actually had no real equivalent to Marx, unless it was the Bible itself. To try to understand Hitler's Naziism without reference to the Bible on which it was based, would be necessarily to misunderstand Naziism. In other words, a non-elitist understanding of mass-movements looks to the cultural influences that in early childhood shaped the founder of the movement, and that also can reasonably be posited as having predisposed the movement's followers to become followers. Such an understanding will naturally make reference therefore to religious Scriptures and the types of writings that a cultural anthropologist is interested in, far more than it will to the more elitist kinds of writings (such as famous classical philosophers, and other typical college-readings) that historians have traditionally taught as "causes." It may be good scholarship, but it is atrocious science and therefore academic failure, to teach Plato, Hegel, Wagner, etc., as "the basis on which Naziism was built"; because Naziism was built upon the Biblethe same source from which a great many of Naziism's alleged "founders" had gotten their own (subsequent) Nazi ideas. The best single example of how subtly the traditional elitist orientation can transform even heavily documented scholarship into mere propaganda as far as the attribution of causes of historical events is concerned, is probably the single most exhaustive presentation ever published of the standard academic/theological case defending Christianity against the charge (which prior to the present book has never, in any event, systematically been leveled or documented) that Christianity caused the Holocaust: Steven T. Katz's massive 1994 The Holocaust in Historical Context, a work of imposing erudition, running thousands of pages, footnoted so densely that sometimes a single sentence contains several. Yet 137

10: The Cover-Up by Scholars throughout, Dr. Katz works under the assumptionnowhere in his vast work discussed, much less documentedthat the long history of mass-murders of Jews by Christians reflected, as he put it in the Conclusion to Volume I (from which volume all our citations here will come), a "genocidal instinct" (p. 580). Although he immediately contradicts this assertion by saying that this "instinct," which if it refers to anything refers to an inborn biologically determined impulse, "might lie present within these determinate historical situations" that, obviously, must remove it from any such innate domain, he actually ends up implicitly relying upon anti-Semitism being an innate impulse; he simply assumes that these antiSemitic assaults by all these Christian mobs occurred not only not because of but despite their Christianity, presumably from this irresistible inborn Jew-hatred. In order to, supposedly, defend this his overriding thesis, Katz documents innumerable instances where Popes and other Christian clergy condemned and tried to restrain Christian mobs who were assaulting and killing Jews. For example, referring to medieval champions of the Crusades who wrote calling for an all-out war against "the Jews," Katz (p. 324) says, "Those contemporaries who read the call to the Crusades . . . as legitimating the extirpation of European Jewry, were engaged in a deadly misreading that the church never endorsed and, insofar as it was able, that it sought to mitigate." In other words, Katz portrays Christianity not as a culture, as an anthropologist might do, but as a bureaucracy, a sociological concept entailing elite command and control, so that if the Christian elite were trying to stop the anti-Semitic assaults by a Christian mob, then "Christianity" was against those assaults, despite the perpetrators' own Christian cultural identities. Those religious identities for Katz were bureaucratic, not cultural: these mob-members were violating the commands of their bureaucracy (the Church), presumably carrying out their "genocidai instinct," despite their "religion" or bureaucracynever mind that a religion is first of all a culture. To conservatives such as Katz, human nature is ugly, and must be restrained by imposed order, from "higher authority," typically religious. The archetypal philosophical representative of this view is Hobbes, who described the natural state of Man as "nasty" and "brutish," and so requiring a theocratic dictator, a divine-right monarch. This is the implicit philosophical position behind Katz's overflowing erudition. It is a philosophical position that was most prominently promoted by the late philosopher Leo Strauss, who left an enduring impact upon political theory in the United States: he criticized the American political system as too liberal from the influence of the "modernistic" Hobbes, who wasn't sufficiently medieval to suit the preferences of Dr. Strauss, who became the intellectual guiding light of the 138

10:The Cover-Up by Scholars U.S. Reagan Administration (via his many influential students). But even in the "too liberal" Hobbes version, this philosophy is hostile to "the Enlightenment," "modernity," or "science," in favor of reasserting theocratic supremacy, which is viewed as synonymous with morality. "Good" is seen as coming top-down, from God. "Evil" is Man's disobedience, since the time of Adam and Eve, and the original sin. (And the original sin, in this view, is often itself seen as the search for knowledge, sometimes even as science in the broadcast sense.) Katz does not want to engage in "polemics," so in the thousands of pages of his account of The Holocaust in Historical Context, he avoids any detailed presentation of his historical interpretation of the Holocaust, other than to say (p. 9) of "Hitler's manichean [sp.] racial principles," that "what makes the Aryan myth genocidal" is "the fact that Hitler insists" on things that are consistent with the immanent principle of the modernizing ontological consciousness." The key term there is "modernizing"; Hitler was, in Katz's view, a modernizer. The Holocaust occurred not because of religion, but despite it, on the basis of "racial principles," not of biblical ones. Specifically, Katz identifies the philosopher, G. W. F. Hegel as "one of the basic fountainheads" of the "the modernizing ontological consciousness" that drove Hitler to exterminate Jews. Katz claims "that Hegel's influence on the modern temperament was so significant" that "the broader philosophical environment he created" led to the Holocaust. This formulation is archetypally academic: it vaguely imputes Hitler's genocidal anti-Semitic program to a "collegetalk" figure, Hegel, yet without claiming that Hitler was even aware ofmuch less had actually read, still less had been exposed to during Hitler's own childhood the works of this erudite philosopher. Again, Katz's interpretation is elitist, top-down, anti-science, anti-democratic. And despite the torrent of footnotes he provides, his interpretation is entirely undocumented; after all, he doesn't want to get involved in polemical debates. Fortunately, however, Katz has elsewhere taken down the scholar's mask of the unprejudiced searcher for truth, and described what really stands behind his professional charade. In Joshua Haberman's 1994 The God I Believe In: Conversations about Judaism, he responded to the interviewer's questions to explain his faith "in the light of the Holocaust," by his frankly admitting that "arguments . . . that God is not really all powerful, I find unattractive. . .. Because of our sins, we are punished. ... One does not perform immoral acts for the same reason that one adheres to ritual law, because both are grounded in commandments and prohibitions. ... An independent ethic, at least for Jews, is a very difficult proposition to maintain." 139

10: The Cover-Up by Scholars The implications of Katz's view here expressed are numerous: not only that might determines right, but that morality is impossible without religion (or, as he states it, that "an independent ethic" is "difficult" "for Jews"). To Katz, clearly, morality flows from faith in "the Almighty." Therefore, if other people having faith in "the Almighty" such as Christians, perpetrated pogroms and later the Holocaust, then only two explanations are possible. Either the Jews didn't deserve it, in which case the Christians must have been acting immorally and so disobeying their religion; or else the Jews did deserve it, and thus the Holocaust must have been Divine Providencethe anti-Semitism had to be, in Katz's term, "instinctual" (which would fit his might-makes-right assumption that, "Because of our sins, we are punished"; i.e., this "instinct" was God's way of "punishing" all these "sinning" Jews; Hitler, according to this line of thinking, was right saying, "I am fighting for the work of the Lord"). To be on the safe side, in order to keep his own Jewish faith intact, Katz opted for both explanations in his The Holocaust in Historical Context, This is also consistent with another line of reasoning: Jews and Christians (just like Muslims) don't claim to worship different Gods, but the same God. Each religious group considers itself to be that God's "people," and thus morally superior, or "chosen" above others, the "infidels," "pagans," or "Gentiles." But none question that the God is the same. And so, too, any believing Jew, such as Katz, accepts that Christians worship the Jewish God. This would return him to the same questions as to how to explain the Holocaustand the same solutions. What a comment it is that an important message the author of The Holocaust in Historical Context believes himself and considers acceptable for the Holocaust's millions of victims is, "Because of our sins, we are punished," and that another is that anti-Semitism is "instinctual" for non-Jews. Hitler would have applauded both views, but for the fact that the author here happens to be Jewish. Katz's work is cited here as an example of the profoundly unscientific, even anti-scientific, approach that is pandemic in our universities toward explaining the Holocaust, throughout the "social sciences." Again and again, I am asked how it can be even possible that Hitler not only carried out, but explained in detail that he would cany out, an extermination-program against all Jews on the basis of the Bible, and that no one until now would present, or bring together at long last in one place, Hitler's explanation of why he did it. My answer is: the ability of scholars to deceive themselves even within their own areas of "expertise" is perhaps the biggest ability they possess, to the point of dwarfing whatever scientific ability they might also have. 140

10: The Cover-Up by Scholars Scholars, in other words, understand so little of their own motivations, that they have no clue to the motivations of someone so like themselves as was Adolf Hitler. For example, the tables at the back of Michael H. Kater's 1983 The Nazi Party: A Social Profile, show that, of all occupational groups, the two with the highest degree of over-representation in the Nazi Party were professors and university students or as he called them, "Academic Professionals" and "Students"and Richard F. Hamilton's 1982 Who Voted for Hitler? also exposes as a lie the standard scholarly assertions that Naziism held its greatest appeal for blue-collar workers, the uneducated and the poor, which was the exact opposite of the truth. Our own Appendices 2-C and 2-F provide more details about academic leadership amongst Hitler's supporters. Even cultural anthropologists, who are supposed to be experts about culture, tend to look away from, rather than to focus upon, their own culture as an object of study, and prefer instead to study primitive and exotic cultures, which are less threatening to understand than would be a focus upon their own irrationalities and prejudices, reflecting their own culture and thus the lies taught to them in their own childhoods. Safer by far to talk instead about far off, pre-literate tribes. Anthropologists are thus absolved of the uncomfortable professional responsibility to explore, for example, such beliefs of their own tribe as that but for the sixth of the Ten Commandments (Ex. 20:13, Deut. 5:17), "Do not kill," there would be no moral reason not to kill, notwithstanding the far-more-numerous biblical commands to kill (e.g.: Ex. 22:18-20, Lev. 20:13, Deut. 22:20-29, 20:16-7), and notwithstanding Scripture's real irrelevance to morality. And thus, too, the entire culture of academia escapistically looks away from the real culture (in a cultural-anthropological sense) within which it is embedded, and focuses instead on "culture" in its top-down, elite, sensethe "classics" that the professors teach and honor, and even the "intellectual influences" that (supposedly) "shaped Hitler": Haeckel, Wagner, Nietzsche, Plato, Hegel, Liebenfels, Fritsch and other writers that (unlike the Bible that was omnipresent even in the crib) people encountered only after they had already grown to an age by which their deepseated motivations had already been long since formed. This reflects the false scholarly assumption that intellectual influence such as from those adult-period writers, and motivational influence such as from the Bible, are in the same league and perhaps even the same thing. Scholars have no way to distinguish between a person's rationalizations and his/her reasons. Perhaps as professors themselves, scholars wish to entertain their own illusions that as the intellectual influences they are upon their own 141

10: The Cover-Up by Scholars students, they affect their students' reasons for acting, and not merely their rationalizations for acting. But at so late a stage in a person's life (i. e., by college), motivations are long since off the table; only cognitive changes are even possible; the motivational aspects of the student's personality have already been essentially set. It may be a pleasant conceit for a scholar to believejust as most people, including Hitler himself, believedthat their own motivations were shaped by influences they received during their adulthood, after they had already presumably developed some independent critical capacity. The very culture of scholarship is largely founded upon that self-deceit. However, the reality is that intellectual influences are not the same thing as motivational influences, which come much earlier in a person's life. Thus, a scholar like Katz, Waite, or Kershaw, may end up formulating his interpretations/theories on the basis not really of what he has learned in his adult researches, but rather of what he learned as a childeven if the scholar as an adult has come to believe that to be nonsense. Thus, you may reasonably blame the historians if you were yourself previously deceived about the cause of the Holocaust, and if you are now surprised to find that Hitlerfar from having been non-religious, or even antiChristian, or even atheist, as most historians have simply assumed; and far from not having been religiously motivated to perpetrate the Holocaust, as all historians have assumedwas indeed religiously motivated to perpetrate that horror. But before the historians deceived you, they deceived themselves. Despite what you have previously read and heard, the Bible was at the core of Hitler's politics. The Holocaust was an expression of Christianity, not of some erudite philosopher(s), nor of any impersonal "structures." And you can verify this for yourself by checking any of the sources cited here, on any matter that interests you. You can check for yourself whether Hitler, the Bible, and/or any of the scholars referred to here, said what they are here represented as saying; you can judge for yourself whether it is the historians or the present writer that has been distorting and deceiving. You need not trust to authority. And that is important, because what I am claiming here is that scholars have been engaging collectively in a massive cover-up of the Holocaust's true cause a coverup that is not conspiratorial, but cultural, in its origins. This is by no means to deny that Christianity has also produced some good and even wonderful expressions as well (e. g., Mother Teresa, great artworks), but only to acknowledge for the first time in a realistic way, the bad along with the good that our entire cultureshaped as it is by 142

10: The Cover-Up by Scholars religionmakes constant reference to. It is, in other words, to replace salesmanship, at last, with balanced information, about religion. Opponents of this book will say that the account given here is "one-sided" or "overly critical" or religion, because it introduces the other side, which they would prefer to continue to be suppressed. They would prefer the cover-up to continue. What made the Holocaust evil is not that it was un-Christian or a violation of the Bible, but, as previously indicated, that it was based on falsehoods. To state that the Holocaust was evil is to make a scientific assertion, not a religious one as the numerous propagandists for religion (inside and outside our universities) claim. And since these falsehoods that caused the deaths of millions came themselves from the Bible, the next section, probing deeper into why the Holocaust happened, probes the actual origins of these biblical falsehoods. Needless to say, historians have assiduously avoided dealing with this, too; in fact, their deceptions about the immediate cause of the Holocaust are small by comparison with their misrepresentations about this, the originating cause. Thus, there is all the more reason here to address these matters as well. In fact, the following removes the cover from the biggest and longestlasting cover-up in all of history.


PART II: Where the Bible's Anti-Semitism Came From


A Map of the Argument: How Saint Paul Hijacked Christianity and Invented Anti-Semitism Paul, the author of Galatians, Romans, and other books in the New Testament, is considered by numerous scholars to be the most influential founder of the Christian church, because of the vast impact of his writings upon Christian theology, and because his writings predated all of the four Gospels. Yet his importance in shaping Christianity is actually far greater than recognized. When Paul entered the Jewish sect that had been founded by Jesus, Jesus was already dead, and the sect was led by his brother James, whom Jesus had appointed as His successor prior to being crucified by the Romans for sedition as a challenger to the rule and authority of the Roman-appointed King of the Jews, King Herod. The Jews were one of the many peoples who had been conquered by the Romans, and Jesus had not been the only Jew who claimed to be the authentic King of the Jews; all such claimants were routinely crucified by the Romans, to serve as a warning against others who might be tempted to assert the same claim. Paul very early determined that the sect's future lay not with converting yet more Jews, but rather with converting large numbers of non-Jews, called "Gentiles" or "pagans," most especially the ones who held Imperial power, the Romans themselves. Since the ministry to convert Gentiles was headed by Peter, who like James himself had actually known Jesus personally during his lifetime, Peter became Paul's own model and Paul's chief link to the actual historical Jesus. Paul measured his success as a missionary to the Gentiles by the number of converts he was able to 146

A Map of the Argument win, and especially by the number of wealthy and powerful ones, especially Roman rulers themselves. Paul's original name, in fact, had been Saul, and he changed it to Paul shortly after winning his first powerful convert, Sergius Paulus, the Romanappointed ruler of Crete. At some point in time not long after the beginning of his mission, Paul made two fateful decisions, which shaped and even transformed the future of what was still not yet called "Christianity," but which these two decisions were subsequently to make into no longer a Jewish sect, but the entirely new religion, Christianity: First, Paul concluded that the Romans had to be exonerated of Jesus' crucifixion, because they would not worship someone whom they had themselves declared a seditious criminal and executed as such. Rather, the Jews, whom Jesus had claimed to lead and had sought to help, must instead be charged with having crucified Him. (This would also help to marginalize the Jews, whom Paul hated additionally on account of their denying that Jesus was their Messiah as Paul asserted Him to be.) Second, Paul, going far beyond his model Peter who had favored simply the relaxation of the Jewish circumcision-requirement for adult male Gentile converts, decided to terminate this commandment of God (Genesis 17:14: "Any male who has not been circumcised will no longer be considered one of my people, because he has not kept the Covenant with me") entirely. In that era, before the advent of either anaesthesia or antibiotics, this medical operation was both frightening and dangerous to the adult Gentile males that Paul was devoting his life to converting; it was the greatest barrier to the success of his mission. And as Paul admitted in Galatians 2:2, he had come to the conclusion that he must simply abolish the requirement, "for fear that the race that I have been running in life has been run in vain," or in other words (as another translation puts it), "I did not want my work in the past or in the present to be a failure." In order to justify abandoning this command of God's, Paul declared that all of the behavioral commands of God, which is to say everything but the First Commandment itselfthe command to have faith in Godwere terminated by the advent of Jesus. He did not say that all those commands were terminated by JesusPaul did not rely upon the authority of Jesus for this termination, essentially, of the entire Jewish Covenant except for the First Commandment. The reason is that the memory of Jesus was still sufficiently fresh then so that if Paul had said that, then Paul would have been widely recognized as a liar; all of Jesus' disciples knew Jesus to have been a devout Jew. This is why Paul relied instead upon Hebrew Scripture itself, twisting and contorting some passages into their exact opposite, as authority for what was, in fact, nothing 147

A Map of the Argument less than the termination of Judaism itself, and its replacement by Paul's new "Christian" covenant of salvation by faith and grace alone. Jesus' brother James, still a devout Jew (as Jesus had been), gently remonstrated for Paul to stop, but Paul would not. Jews recognized this replacement of their covenant as a declaration of war by Paul against Judaism, and rioted against him. That confirmed Paul yet more in his, essentially, hijacking Jesus' Jewish sect so as to serve Roman ends and thereby win Roman and other Gentile converts. Paul's followers reflected this by their writing the four Gospels in line with Paul's general program. This entailed not only the replacement of the Jewish initiation-rite of circumcision with the safe and painless one favored by Paul: baptism. And it entailed not only the replacement of Jesus' own designated successor, his brother James, by Peter, the disciple least hostile to Paul and Paul's own predecessor in the mission to the Gentiles essentially a re-write of the history of Christianity's post-Jesus succession. Above all, it entailed their writing their Gospels as the textbook of anti-Semitism that ultimately inspired Hitler to perpetrate the Holocaust, and also inspired German (and other) Christians to carry it out. The long history of the historical profession's covering up this history has been even more scandalous than the historical profession's cover-up of the immediate cause of the Holocaust.


11: Our Methodological Approach

This will be a search to find the origin of the anti-Semitic statements in the New Testament that Hitler took so seriously as to cause him to come to devote his life to the extermination of Jews. As was shown in Part I, the central charge against "the Jews" was that Christ Himself had said that "the Jews" are children of the devil and that therefore "the Jews" would kill Him (John 8:42&44); furthermore, "the Jews" had allegedly said (Matthew 27:25), "His blood will be upon us, and upon our children," indicating that "the Jews" themselves accepted not only their Dcicide-guilt, but their heritable Deicide-guilt. One might say that it is sufficient reason to dismiss these charges, simply to point out that no parent or ancestor possesses the right, or even the authority, to assign any of his/her guilt for any actDeicide or otherwiseto his/her children or descendants. However, the authors of the Bible made clear that they did not agree with that position; and billions of people even today believe that the authors of the Bible were inspired by God and were therefore right. The question, therefore, that is posed here is not one of valuessuch as whether the Bible is their source, or an appropriate sourcebut one of facts: are these statements in the Bible true? And this does not concern only whether Deicide-guilt, or any other guilt, is heritable; it concerns all issues pertaining to Jesus of Nazareth, his trial, and crucifixion, on the basis of which Hitler led, and German and other Christians followed his leadership in, the Holocaust. A Vatican representative, Father Peter Gumpel, who champions canonization of "Hitler's Pope" as Saint Pius XII, told the CBS Evening News on 17 March 2000 (shortly prior to the Papal visit to Israel) that one 149

11: Our Methodological Approach should never forget that "the Jews" killed Christ. He made clear that his source was the Gospels, which, he noted, asserted that leading Jews had pressed for Jesus' crucifixion as punishment for Jesus having violated Jewish law. This Vatican historian was challenged by the reporter that "Vatican II removed references to any Jewish blame for Christ's Crucifixion from Church rites more than 30 years ago on the grounds that such claims were historically debatable, hurtful and dangerous." But nonetheless he responded by standing by his assertion that "the Jews have killed Christthis is an undeniable historical fact." His retort was, "But there is no possibility to deny that the Jewish authoritiesreligious authorities of the timesaid 'He has made himself God, and according to our law, he has to die.'" This Vatican defender of the saintliness of the Nazi-era Pope was emphatic; he even introduced his comments with "Let's be very frank about this"as if to say that Vatican II and other, more "diplomatic," Church pronouncements about the "guilt" of "the Jews," were merely for public consumption, while what he was saying was the real Truth. Nor did the Pope himself contradict or criticize his subordinate's statement; but six days later, on 23 March at Israel's Holocaust Memorial, he did express himself to be "deeply saddened by the hatred, acts of persecution and displays of anti-Semitism directed against the Jews by Christians," ignoring that those "Christians" had in fact, been inspired to it by this very same Church teaching that the Vatican historian had just reasserted. Father Gumpel, like Hitler, was convinced that the account of the trial and execution of Christ that is presented in the Gospels is the Gospel Truth. Is it? Millions of people have been slaughtered because of that belief. But is it actually true? It is not. During the Twentieth Century, a growing scholarly literature had already pointed out falsehoods in the Gospels' accounts of these matters. Much evidence has accumulated that Jesus was, in fact, killed by the Romans for sedition for asserting himself as "King of the Jews" when the Roman-authorized King Herod sat upon that throne. It is now known that all Jews of that time who claimed the Jewish Kingship without Rome's authorization to be King, were crucified by the Romans as guilty of sedition. Two especially fine books that present massive evidence that the Gospels lie about who killed Jesus, are John Dominic Crossan's 1995 Who Killed Jesus? and especially S. G. F. Brandon's masterful 1968 The Trial of Jesus of Nazareth. (The present work does not build upon such scholarly analyses; they are not cited here for their constructive theories, but rather for their destructive demonstrations that the fundamentalist acceptance of the historical inerrancy of the canonical four Gospels is scientifically false, not only on a few points, and not only on minor points, but generously and 150

11: Our Methodological Approach grossly.) The great remaining question, really, is: Why did the Gospel accounts lie? What motivated these lies, and how did they come to be inserted in the Gospel accounts? In order to answer these questions, our methodological approach will be to scrutinize with the greatest care the earliest-written works relating to these matters. It turns out that these works are themselves in the New Testamentindeed, are the earliest-written books of the New Testament. Closest in time to the actual events, these are certainly the most reliable of all sources. The earliest written books (or chapters) of the New Testament are recognized by scholars to be the letters (or "epistles") by Paul, which predate all of the Gospel-accounts, and which consume up to half of the total number of books in the New Testament. Paul was, far and away, the leading writer of the New Testament, not only by sheer bulk, but also in terms of his impact on Christian theology. However, historically his presence looms even larger in the faith, since his writings came first. It is now widely recognized that whoever the true authors of the Gospels were, they were not any of Jesus' original twelve apostles, and their accounts were not of things that they had themselves witnessed and heard, but were instead transcribed from oral tradition passed on to them. Even the best and most-honestly-intentioned writers under these conditions will inevitably make errors; and as we shall see, these were hardly the best and most-honestlyintentioned writers. But the situation is still hopeful for finding what the truth was, because the earliest writings, which above all is to say those by Paul himself, were written early enough after Jesus' death so that there was a considerable constraint in that era upon the fabrication of the most bald-faced lies: namely, that the people then still living who actually had personally known Jesus and had heard him speak, would have proclaimed the writer to be lying. The falsehoods in that early era thus had to be only by means of indirection, rather than by direct assertion. Thus, too, it is not only by failed memory that the later writings such as the Gospels can be expected to contain the more-bald-faced falsehoods, but also by the far lesser constraints upon fabrications that such later falsehoods would be of more direct kind. Our task is to derive from the texts that have come down to us, the most-consistent-possible, and realistically the most believable, account of the events discussed in the New Testament. What follows will be precisely this: it will, in fact, be a story that is contained within the New Testament itself, where it is found covered over by the myths that collectively constitute the New Testament account that is more widely known. When 151

11: Our Methodological Approach the myths are peeled back, this is the underlying story that remains, and that actually explains why those myths were added. The key is to understand the point at which Christianity separated itself off from being a sect of Judaism, and became a new religion. The primary source we shall use is the Bible. IF YOU WISH TO CHECK ANY OF WHAT FOLLOWS BY REFERRING TO THE BIBLE ITSELF, THEN FOR THE SAKE OF ACCURACY, WE SUGGEST THAT YOU USE ANY OF THE MODERN TRANSLATIONS, NOT THE KING JAMES VERSION, WHICH IS BOWDLERIZED, AND OFTEN HIGHLY INACCURATE. The modern translations are much more accurate than the unreliable King James version. For example, the latter "cleaned up" the text by using the clearly inaccurate term "servant" instead of "slave," so as not to offend 17th-Century British sensibilities, for which slavery already held a moral stench; thus passages such as 1 Peter2:18 (& Eph.6:5, Col. 3:22, Tit. 2:9, & 1 Tim. 6:1), "Slaves, submit to your masters with full respect, not only to those who are good and kind, but also to those who are harsh," were bowdlerized in King James into "Servants, be subject to you masters...," which is not what the original means. (It should also be mentioned that King James' scholars were working from highly corrupted "originals," which were based on Renaissance-era umpteenth-generation copies of copies, almost in total ignorance of anything older than the Tenth Centuryand with little even that old.) Today's translations tend to be vastly more authentic. However, if all that you have is King James, it's better than nothing. Also, though there exists a vast scholarly literature on the meaning of these Pauline letters or "epistles," our source here will be those letters or epistles themselves, and not any of those interpretations by others. Our source, in other words, is going to be the writings of Paul, not the writings of scholars about the writings of Paul. The difference is important. In the old parlour-game, people arrange themselves in a circle, and one whispers to the individual next to him/her a message; that recipient then passes it to his/her neighbor, until it eventually comes back to the first person, who typically bursts out laughing at the end result as an amazing distortion of what he/she had said. This is an ideal model of what scholars do: if you pick up any one of the hundreds of books about "What Paul meant," you will see remarkably little analysis of what Paul said, and page upon page or analysis of what various other scholars have said that Paul meant. In the middle part of one of our appendices ("2-F: The great failure of intellectuals and the academy"), the resulting ludicrousness of this scholarly literature 152

11: Our Methodological Approach is exposed. Consequently, the presentation here is not based on, and will not refer to, that literature, and all that you will need in order to verify it is Bible. We shall here be discussing what have probably been the most Influential writings in all of human historythe writings that most profoundly shaped, and that we shall attempt to show actually gave birth to, the religion that is now known as "Christianity." Because these writings, to a very large extent, molded every Christian culture, including our own, they have had a towering impact upon us. That is why they merit the extremely close reading of them that you and I and your Bible will here engage in. However, to start with, I am going to present an overview of what will be the results of that reading, and this will itself be set against the backdrop of the political and cultural context in terms of which Paul wrote his letters. Just as with the previous section on Hitler, the conclusions will first be broadly stated, and documented with only passing references to the sources; after which will come the very close reading, but this time of Paul, not of Hitler.


12: The Pre-Pauline Background

Christianity distinguished itself from Judaism by asserting a new covenant with God: God's People, in order to win their individual salvation, agreed to follow God's commandments or laws, collectively known as the Covenant or the Law. It was a new agreement with God: a new basis for winning salvation or heaven. Whereas Jews, in the Old Testament, followed God's Law as laid down in the Ten Commandments and in the other commandments such as Genesis 17:14, "Any male who has not been circumcised will not be one of my people, for he has disobeyed me" indeed a whole raft of behavioral commandments, which, taken together constituted the Jewish faithChristianity, as represented in Paul's letter, Galatians 2:16 (and in his others, such as Romans 3:20-2 & 4:5), stripped this down to: "A person is put right with God only through faith in Jesus Christ, never by doing what the Law requires. ... No one is put right with God by following God's Law." Christianity thus set itself off from its predecessor faith of Judaism on the most basic of moral grounds. A new Covenant with God was a new religionnothing less, and nothing more; it was the seminal event. Thus, the story of when and how this happened, is the story of how Christianity itself came to be. To answer this question, we have an authority that predates the Gospel accounts; namely, Paul's own letterswhich, furthermore, are the source for the very doctrine itself as it is now known to us. And these letters tell an extraordinary story: they show that this doctrine, which made Christianity a new faith, was introduced by Paul in a very special capacitythat of an evangelist, if not the leading evangelist, to the non-lews; i.e., to the Gentiles or "pagans" (e.g., Galatians 1:16), which very importantly included in those times the Romans themselves, 154

12: The Pre-Pauline Background who, as the imperial regime that had conquered the Jews, we now know had routinely executed every Jewish self-proclaimed "King of the Jews" during that time, including the one known to history as Jesus of Nazareth all of whom were automatically considered by the Roman authorities as threats to the ruling Roman government and to its own appointed King of "Judea" (or "Israel," as the anti-Roman rebels among the Jews still called it). That story has been told very well in many places, but perhaps none better than Samuel G. F. Brandon's 1968 The Trial of Jesus of Nazareth; and none more dramatic than pages 156-203 of anthropologist Marvin Harris' 1974 Cows, Pigs, Wars & Witches. Of all things definitely known about Jesus, none is more certain than that he claimed to be the "King of the Jews." It was marked on his cross, just as it was marked on the cross of every other Jew at the time who made that claim; and no wonder, inasmuch as the Romans' own appointed King of the Jews, who was King Herod himself, and even Caesar who stood behind him, had waged many bloody battles in order to win and assert their authority over Jews. For the Romans to tolerate alive anyone else claiming that throne, would be unthinkable, and they did not. Even Matthew (2:1-18) says that the Roman-appointed King of Judea, Herod the Great, tried to murder the infant Jesus upon hearing that this infant was going to become King of the Jews; when Herod's son, Herod Antipas encountered Jesus' forerunner John the Baptist who even in Matthew (3:10-12) used language such that as Marvin Harris (p. 184) notes "the Qumram scrolls make it extremely difficult to separate John the Baptist's teachings... from the mainstream of the Jewish military-messianic tradition," Herod soon had John killed. Almost immediately thereafter, Jesus began his ministry, and became the "King of the Jews" that Herod's own father had feared and tried to kill. Not long thereafter, Herod did have Jesus killed, or else Herod's Roman colleague Pontius Pilate, the governor of the adjoining territory, carried out the crucifixion. Actually, scraps of the truths that in the Gospels' own time lent credibility to the myths they wove around them are sprinkled throughout their accounts. For example, in Luke, 9:7-9 has Herod expressing fear that Jesus' preaching might indicate "that John the Baptist has come back to life"; 12:49-51 presents Jesus saying, "I came to set the earth on fire. ... Do you suppose that I came to bring peace to the world? No, not peace, but division." In 13:31, Jesus is warned, "Herod wants to kill you." In 22:36, Jesus tells his disciples, "whoever does not have a sword must sell his coat and buy one." (A sword then was like a gun now.) And near the end, in 23:7, Pilate sends the prisoner Jesus to Herod for judgment. In Mark, 3:6 says that not long after Herod had had John the Baptist killed and Jesus began preaching, "the Pharisees . . . met... with 155

12: The Pre-Pauline Background some members of Herod's party, and they made plans to kill Jesus"; 8:15 asserts that when the disciples brought a loaf of bread, "Jesus warned them, 'Take care, and be on guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and the yeast of Herod,'" the clear implication being that either might be poisoned; 12:13 states that Pharisees and some members of Herod's party were sent to Jesus to trap him with questions. And even the most anti-Semitic Gospel, John, 11:48, let slip the following very believable worry about Jesus expressed by the leaders of the Jews: "If we let him go on in this way, everyone will believe in him, and the Roman authorities will take action and destroy our Temple and our nation!" In fact, history does record that that is the kind of thing that did happen on 29 August in the year 70, when after decades of Jewish rebellion against the Romans, Roman legionnaires stormed the Temple at Jerusalem and burnt it, with an estimated million-plus people dying in the sacking of the City after the defeat of a self-styled "King of the Jews" by the name of Menahem. And even before that sacking, at around 49 A. D., the Emperor Claudius (according to his biographer Suetonius) seems to have expelled all Jews from Rome out of his fear of the followers of the rebel "Chrestus." Furthermore, astoundingly, Acts, written by the same person who authored the Gospel Luke, acknowledges in 1:6 the amazing fact that at the time of Jesus' death, His disciples had been expecting Jesus "to establish once again the sovereignty of Israel" (as the New English Bible has it). Evidently, even as late as the writing of Acts, it was too well-known that this was the case for it not to be acknowledgeda truly shocking admission in light of the New Testament's general portrayal of Jesus as the Prince of Peace, who had no specifically political, and especially no specifically Jewish, agenda. Jesus' disciples, who were quoted here in this line, happen to be the people who knew the actual, historical, Jesus, better than any other human beings (with the sole exception, perhaps, of Jesus' own family); so if this line in Acts is true, then that alone would mean that vast swaths in the New Testament are false, since that line presents Jesus as a very real sedition-threat to Roman authority. But that is not all: even the Gospels' accounts of the trial and crucifixion itself included snippets of this other story, this political reality, that did not fit the Gospels' up-front story of the apolitical Prince of Peace who was martyred by "the Jews." Here, from the Gospels again, is that part of this other story: The earliest-written of the canonical four Gospels, and therefore the one that is generally considered the most reliable, Mark, presents Jesus in 14:62 as claiming outright that he is "the Messiah." Even the other three Gospels (Matthew 26:64, Luke 22:70, and John 18:37) quote Jesus as not 156

12: The Pre-Pauline Background denying that he is "the Messiah" (or, in John, even that he is "a king"). In its article on the term "Messiah" in The Oxford Companion to the Bible, is explained that this term "is virtually a synonym for 'king,' in particular David and his descendants, and it should be understood in the context of the royal ideology documented in the books of Samuel, Kings, and Psalms, even when it is applied secondarily to priests and others. The king was appointed by divine command (7 Sam. 10:1, 16:1-13; Ps. 45:7), and he was adopted as Son of God (2 Sam 7:14; Ps.2:7; cf. 89:26)." As Gerhard Schneider noted (in his essay on "The Political Charge Against Jesus," in Ernst Bammel and C. Moule, eds., Jesus and the Politics of His Day, 1984), "'King of Israel' (or 'King of the Jews') is an equivalent paraphrase of 'the Messiah.'. .. These two titles are identical in content." (Professor Schneider then, in amazing ignorance of the basic fact that for the Romans sedition was a capital offense punishable by crucifixion, continued with "How this kingly claim was made into a capital crime is not possible to deduce.") However, in fact, not every Jewish king was a "Messiah"; rather than saying "These two titles are identical in content," it would be accurate to assert that a "Messiah" was a certain kind of Jewish king, "in particular David and his descendants," as The Oxford Companion ... put it. In other words, Mark 14:62 presents Jesus as claiming to be a king of the Jews in the Davidic line, of 2 Sam. 7:5-16, and 1 Chronicles 7:4-14. Therefore, Jesus, by accepting the title "Messiah," was being quoted even in the Gospels themselves as picking up the legendary Davidic slingshot, only this time not against Goliath, but against Herod, Pilate, and all that backed them, which is to say Rome. In fact, for Jesus to have claimed to be "King of the Jews" would have been seditious everywhere throughout the Empire, or at least everywhere that Jews livedJudea, Galilee, even Rome itself. Jesus' claim could reasonably be interpreted as applying to his kingship over all Jews. And since this was not just any kingship-claim, but specifically a Davidic one, Jesus' claim to be "the Messiah" was, if anything, even more seditious than the generic title, "King of the Jews." But, in any case, both Mark 15:32 and Luke 23:2 do accept implicitly that to call a man "the Messiah" included calling him "a king" or specifically "the King of Israel." Mark and Luke therefore acknowledge the political implication of Jesus' claimthat the claim was itself, unavoidably, seditious. All four of the Gospels (Matthew 27:11&37; Mark 15:2&26; Luke 23:3&38; John 18:33 & 19:19) assert that in Pilate's Roman trial of Jesus, the charge against Jesus was that Jesus claimed to be "the King of the Jews," and that that very phrase ended up being inscribed into His cross as His crime. Three of the Gospels (Matthew 27:29; Mark 15:18; John 19:3) state 157

12: The Pre-Pauline Background that the Roman soldiers who executed Jesus addressed him mockingly as "King of the Jews." According to only John (19:16-8), the last-written and so leastreliable of the four, it was the Jewish priests themselvesnot the Roman soldierswho carried out the crucifixion. But even John promptly turned right around and contradicted that, saying in 19:23 that "the soldiers crucified Jesus." The priests were not soldiers, and did not have soldiers; the only soldiers there were, were Roman soldiers. All other armed fighters in Judea were called "bandits" and were Pilate's convicts, receiving his sentences, certainly not carrying them out. In essence, John, right after lying about this in 19:16-8, acknowledges the lie in 19:23. Any fundamentalist Christian, facing a contradiction like this, has to acknowledge that the Bible is not inerrant, and does not deserve his/her faith as being so. (A supplementary box at the end of Part II, titled "Paul's Followers Follow Through with Paul's Unconcern for Truth," gives more examples of the Gospel-writers proving themselves to be liars.) The story that has been fragmentarily documented here, from the canonical four Gospels themselves, is far from the "spin" on these events that was placed by the Gospels, even though every detail of this story is derived directly from the Gospels. In order to make sense of, and explain, this striking anomaly, it will be necessary to explain the explosive dispute that caused Christianity to break off from being a sect of Judaism and to become a different religion with a different covenanta new and different "God's Chosen People" (1 Peter 1:1, etc.). This is the story at whose center stands not Jesus, but Paul, and that is itself (just like the "other story" of Jesus' life, trial and crucifixion just presented) buried barely beneath the surface of the New Testament texts, which in this particular case are Paul's epistles or letters to his far-flung congregations throughout the Empire, providing a remarkably detailed (but tragic) account of this momentous occurrence; and so too of why the New Testament came to be written the way it is, and thus too, of such things as how Hitler came to be the way he was, and why Germans (and others) were willing to follow him in the direction in which he led. Let me make clear here, however, that the account just presented of the life of the actual historical Jesus is not, strictly speaking, part of the history of the Christian faith; it isto the extent that it is true at all (after all, these lines in the New Testament might be false)solely a component within the history of the Jewish faith, inasmuch as it outlines the life of the founder of a Jewish sect. We do know that it was a Jewish sect even after Jesus' death and alleged resurrection, because the earliest writings within the separate Christian faith implicitly grant that this was the case. 158

12: The Pre-Pauline Background for example, as will be documented in the following chapters based upon the writings by Paul, Paul had to travel to Jerusalem and have his case presented to the sect's leaders for their authorization that his means of winning converts were acceptable under Jewish law on the basis of the Jewish Bible, especially the Pentateuch, the Torah. Clearly, this would not have been the case if Jesus' instructions to these leaderswhom He had appointed as His successors, and who had known Jesus as His disciples while he was alive (which Paul admits himself that he did not)had been that His own teachings replaced Jewish law. Thus, even Paul, who explicitly insisted that the teachings of Jesus replaced Jewish Law, acknowledged implicitly but incontrovertibly, that this doctrine originated with himself, and ran contrary to the teachings of the actual, historical Jesus. This, in fact, is a good example of our methodological approach. By our relying on the earliest written documents, which were written so early that the audience would have recognized immediately any lies that were not couched in artifice (such as, in the present case, that Paul had personally met Jesus, or that Paul did not have to seek the approval of superiors in Jerusalem, or that such approval/disapproval would not have been adjudicated on the basis of Jewish Law as found in Jewish Scripture), ironclad facts can be established by necessary logical implication, even in the very same texts that seek to persuade the reader to the contrary by explicit assertion. The authors of the Gospels, writing at later dates, for a readership consisting of people who could not by their own personal experience authenticate or disqualify even the most artless and explicit of fabrications within the talcs they were writing, enjoyed vastly greater license to fabricate than did Paul. Consequently, it is a hopeless task to seek to know with any very high likelihood, much less with certainty, on the basis of the existing sources, many details of the life of the actual historical Jesus. Without question, by the time of His death He had become the subject of intense controversy, and perceived by prevailing powers political and/or religiousas a great threat. We also know, for a certainty, that Jesus was born to a conquered people, Jews, within the Roman Empire, who were subject to a Roman-approved King, Herod. (Herod ruled over Galilee; Pontius Pilate was the Governor of Judaea, standing in there for the Emperor or Caesar Tiberius; but Jesus' claim to be "Messiah" was seditious against Rome itself in any case, and equally a challenge to both Herod and Tiberius.) All sources are consistent that Jesus died by crucifixion, and that on His cross were emblazoned the words, "King of the Jews." To what extent this Man was actually a "rebel" or "challenger" to King/Emperor is not known for certain; but what is known for certain is that the Roman rulers made examples of 159

12: The Pre-Pauline Background anyone who claimed or was asserted to be "King" as opposed to anyone whom Rome authorized as suchand that Rome routinely crucified all such individuals, amongst whom was one Jesus of Nazareth. Furthermore, it is well established throughout human history that colonial powers (such as Rome) usually work with the pre-existing leadership of a conquered people (such as the Sadducees and Pharisees in Judaea) as their puppets. It thus is reasonable to assume that the real, historical Jesus was viewed as a threat by the Pharisees, and not only by Rome. Paul himself acknowledged (Philippians 3:5) that he was a Pharisee; Acts (16:37 & 22:25-9) claims that Paul was a citizen of Rome and received special Roman protection. It thus is not surprising that (in Philippians 3:6; Galatians 1:13) Paul originally persecuted the followers of Jesus, and that (as we shall show) he subsequently overthrew them and replaced them with a new Roman-oriented Church, which came to be called Roman Catholicism. Thus, we come now to the writings of Paul, which, as compared with even the likeliest statements in the Gospel accounts, are of vastly higher authenticity, such as to be considered history, as opposed to mere speculation, but which need to be read with extraordinary care in order for them to be viewed as history rather than as mere propaganda.


13: Summary of the Case

Because Paul was an evangelist aiming to convert even the Roman conquerors themselves to become followers of Jesus (Acts 13:7-12 even suggests that Paul changed his name from his given Jewish name of "Saul" in honor of his first major convert who was a Roman ruler, Sergius Paulus, the governor of Crete), he inevitably faced enormous problems; but the most urgent of them all was to convert to this Jewish sectwhich is what it then wasuncircumcised adult Gentile males. Naturally, as Gentiles in that era, these men had not been circumcised as infants; and the prospect of their now undergoing this operation as adults terrified them; for an adult, the experience would be excruciating, not to say dangerous: modern anaesthesia did not then exist; neither did antibiotics. (These elementary facts are ignored by the scholars but are enormously important, actually nothing short of essential, in order to be able to understand the origin of Christianity.) Furthermore, this was a very male-dominated era, so any religion that would have prospects of substantial growth would have to convert, above all, adult malesthe people who held not only all power and influence, but all property; the people who controlled government, society, and wealth. (This, too, is ignored by the scholars.) Thus, Paul's task was unimaginably difficult. On the one side stood the command of God contained in Genesis 17:14, that every male convert, including adult ones, must be circumcised. On the other was the terror that such a requirement must certainly have struck in the heart of any Gentile man contemplating to join this Jewish sect. Yet nonetheless, the leader of the sect after Jesus' death, who was Jesus' own brother James, required that God's command be carried 161

13: Summary of the Case out. According to Acts 15, James at first supported Paul's desire to forego such circumcisions; and Peter, too (who according to Paul's own account in Galatians 2:9 was one of the three "pillars" of the sect, along with James and John) was willing to make an exception here, on the grounds, stated by James, "that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God" (15:19). But, subsequently, Peter, and especially James, reversed themselves in Galatians 2:1114, which gives Paul's account of this climactic dispute; the accounts of James and Peter are absent (unless, that is, the letter James provides it, especially in James 2:10-26; but that letter was ignored until Origen referred to it in the Third Century, and Jerome canonized it in 405 A. D., after which it continued to be condemned by many church fathers; Luther himself called it "an epistle of straw" in contrast to Paul's "gold"; and to this day the letter's very authenticity is challenged, and it is rarely cited since it contradicts Paul and thus all of "Christianity." In any event, Paul "won.") James, in fact, sent a delegation to Paul ordering that he not accept into the faith any man who refused to undergo circumcision (Gal 2:12). This was a crisis for Paul's entire mission; he rejected the order, He decided to break with Christianity as it then existed, and to establish his own church a breakaway sect of a Jewish sectand this is the "Christianity" we know today. (Perhaps this is the reason why Acts 11:26 says that "It was at Antioch that the believers were first called Christians": Paul's base of operations was Antioch.) (The split with Judaism, although precipitated by the problem with circumcision, must not be understood to have been ideologically restricted to that: James had also demanded compliance with the Jewish dietary and other Laws in the holy Covenant; the reason the schism had come over circumcision is that it is this that posed by far the greatest threat to the success of Paul's mission; we know this especially because of Galatians 2:2, in which Paul himself acknowledges that imposition of the circumcision requirement upon his flock would place his entire life's work in jeopardy; and also because in Acts 15:19, James had temporarily ruled in Paul's favor on this because "we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God.") Now Paul needed a rationale for breaking the covenant with Godsomething that would permit admittance of uncircumcised males into the faith in violation of Genesis 17:14: "Any male who has not been circumcised will no longer be considered one of my people, for he has disobeyed me. This excuse was that in order to be a member of God's people, it was not necessary to obey God, but only to believe in Him. As he put it in Galatians 2:16, "A person is put right with God only through faith in Jesus Christ, 162

13: Summary of the Case never by doing what the Law requires. . . . No one is put right with God by following God's Law." Paul restated this many times. Perhaps his most extensive single expression of it is Romans 3:20-4 & 4:5: No one is put right in God's sight by doing what the Law requires; what the Law does is to make man know that he has sinned. But now God's way of putting people right with Himself has been revealed. It has nothing to do with the Law, even though Moses and the prophets gave witness to it. God puts people right through their faith in Jesus Christ. God does this to all who believe in Christ, because there is no difference at all: Everyone has sinned and is far away from God's salvation. But by the free gift of God's grace, all are put right with Him through faith in Jesus Christ, who set believers free. . .. The person who depends on his faith, not on his deeds, and who holds that faith in the God who declares the guilty to be innocent, stands therefore as right in God's judgment. What Paul had done here was, at one breathtaking step, to eliminate all of God's commandments save the First: faith itself. Amazingly, this scandalous story is "between the lines" of Scripture itself, in Paul's own account in Galatians 1:13-2:16 & 3:1-10, and in Romans 2:25-9 & 3:27-4:13. Paul could now do his job of converting adult male Gentiles. But compounding the scandal, scholars can find no Scriptural support for Paul's tactic. The examples cited by Paul fail to make the point he draws from them, that God will accept any believer who disobeys Him; they show merely that God approves an obedient believer, and that at His discretion He may forgive a sinner (e.g., Genesis 15:6, Psalms 32:1-2). (For more details on this, see the following box.)

PAUL'S PHONY ARGUMENTS FOR JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH ALONE The foundation of the Christian faith is the replacement of the Jewish Covenant, or laws, by the sole requirement that one have faith in Jesus Christ. All of Paul's arguments for this were based upon Jewish Scripture, since the Jesus-sect of Jews, which constituted Christianity before Paul entered the sect, accepted unquestioningly that this is where the Word of God was to be foundspecifically in the Torah or Pentateuch, the first five books of the Bible. Paul's Genesis 15:6 argument, given in Romans 4:1-13 and in continued 163

13: Summary of the Case Galatians 3:1-10, is a blatant fraud, because of Genesis 17:24. Abraham, according to the Scripture, in fact did obey God's command that all males must be circumcised; unlike the converts that Paul was determined to win to his new faith, the 99-year-old Abraham, the Scripture says, subjected himself to the knife, even in his era, thus nullifying Paul's sham of an argument here, which had been to the effect that God's acceptance of Abraham had not been conditional upon Abraham's carrying out the command-something that the Scriptural citations that Paul gave failed to support in any way whatsoever. Paul's argument that non-conditionality was proven by virtue of the fact that Abraham circumcised himself after God's command rather than before it, is one of the most ludicrous of all Paul's fabricationsas if it were not necessarily the case that compliance is judged after, rather than before, a command is issued. Furthermore, Habakkuk 2:4, "Those who are evil will not survive, but those who are righteous will live because they are faithful to God," is, at best, ambiguous: there is simply no way of telling for certain from these words alone, whether "faithful to God" here means (1) obedient to God, or (2) believing in God's existence, or (3) accepting God as the one-and-only God. However, almost surely it means what Paul is rejecting, which is the first; the reason being that the opening, "those who are evil will not survive," clearly sets opposite to "faithful" the concept of evil, which traditionally meant disobedient to God. This would annihilate Paul's interpretation. And as for Jesus' brother, "James the Just," everything that we know about him as leader of this Jewish sect would compel us to infer, as Paul implies, that James accepted all three; but not on the authority of Habakkuk, since that was not part of Jewish Scripture; i.e., not part of the Torah or Pentateuch, the first five books of the Bible, the only part that for Jews represented the "Word of God" and thus final authority. James would have accepted all three because they are within the Ten Commandments, the chief commandments of the Torah. And the fact is, that any acceptance of the first of these three, necessarily entailed acceptance of the other two, because the First Commandment said it does. In order to win his cheap conversions, Paul eliminated all the commandments except the First; but nothing even in Habakkuk is authority for that. And, as we previously pointed out, Psalms 32:1-2, which Paul prominently cited, also is not; in addition, it's not even in the Torah, so it too, lacked authority for Paul's purpose.

What is actually decisive is that the Torah itself, which is the only Scripture in Judaism that does posses such authority, contradicts Paul's view throughout; perhaps most vigorously in the passages of Deuteronomy describing re-presentations of the Ten Commandments (e. g., Deut. 6:17&25; 7:11-12; 8: l & l 1&20; 10:12-13&16-17; 164

13: Summary of the Case 11:1&8& 13& 18&22&27; and 12:1 &32), from which we shall quote now 7-11; 8:11 &20 and 12:32: "Obey what you have been taught; obey all the laws that I have given you today. . . . Make certain that you do not forget the Lord your God; do not fail to obey any of his laws that I am giving you today... If you do not obey the Lord, then you will be destroyed. ... Do everything that I have commanded you; do not add anything to it or take anything from it." Obviously, Paul took everything from it, except only the First Commandment itself. However, according to Deut. 11:28, which at least suggests that disobedience is itself equivalent to worshipping other gods, even the First Commandment may have been violated by Paul. This interpretation of the First Commandment is further clearly indicated that by the fact that in both statements of it, in Exodus 20:6 and Dent. 5:10, God is claiming as his people only those "who love me and obey my laws." But Paul stripped out the latter and left only the "who love me" as his narcissistic God's command. In any event, it is clear that Paul's "interpretation" of Scripture was anything but that; it was instead a gutting of Scripture: editing out of it almost its entire core. Furthermore, the evidence suggests that this was very consciously done by himno act of mere stupidityfor he followed rigorously through with it, such as in 2 Corinthians 3:5-9: ". . . The capacity we have comes from God; it is He who makes us capable of serving the new covenant, which consists not of a written law but of the Spirit. The written law brings death, but the Spirit gives life. The law was carved in letters on stone tablets, and God's glory appeared when it was given. . .. If the law, which brings death when it is in force, came with such glory, how much greater is the glory that belongs to the activity of the Spirit. The system that brings condemnation was glorious; how much more glorious is the activity that brings salvation!" This passage is remarkable: Paul had started by gutting the behavioral commandments that concern the activities of the person (e. g., lying, killing, stealing, etc.) and left only one Commandment "that belongs to the activity of the Spirit ... that brings Salvation." Then, shortly thereafter, in 4:2, Paul refers to this freeing of the individual to violate God's laws, as if it were its exact opposite: "We put aside all secret and shameful deeds; we do not act with deceit, nor do we falsify the word of God. In the full light of truth we live in God's sight and try to commend ourselves to everyone's good conscience." Paul was even so bold as to turn obedience to God itself into a sin, and to claim that God hated his own laws; or, as Romans 4:15 put it, "The Law brings down God's anger, but where there is no law, there is no disobeying of the law." (Extending the principle into governmental affairs, the "good" way to deal with the problem of crime is to eliminate the laws against it; 165

13: Summary of the Case e.g., instead of punishing the murderer, eliminate the laws against murder.) His boldness reached right into his own flock, insulting even themselves as fools, when in Romans 10:5-10 he dismissively quoted as coming from Moses rather than from God Himself, the command in Leviticus l8:5 to "follow all the laws," which in fact Leviticus attributes instead directly instead to God Himself; and then cites against that Deut. 30:10-14, where God says why "you must obey all these laws," but which in Paul's circumlocutions miraculously ends up scripting into God's mouth, "It is by faith alone that a person is put right with God." Paul was nothing if not thorough. However, the culmination was, of course, the replacement of circumcision itself, since that law had been the barrier that had precipitated all these other changes, and since the function of ritual induction into the faith now had to be met in some other way. Paul's replacement for the Covenental circumcision was a painless baptism that had first been made prominent by Paul's fellow-Jew, John the Baptist, after centuries of Jewish nonCovenental (i.e., optional) ritual practise of it in the form of the ritual bath known as the "mikveh" (which itself might have been inspired by Num. 19:13&19:20 & Lev. 15:18). And that is how the religion we know today as Christianity was, in fact, cobbled together by Paul, not created by Jesus, who ended up being merely Paul's tool. Originally driven by Paul's need to be able to win to the Jesus-sect of Jews the most valuable kind of converts (because the most powerful within society; it is always the powerful who spread a faith the most-effectively), namely adult male Gentiles; Paul's compromises ended up with an entirely new covenant, custom tailored by Paul for success. Not only had Paul eliminated God's circumcision-requirement, but he had eliminated all of God's requirements other than mere belief in Himin fact, presenting God as having given up on even the hope of Man's obedience to Him, to the point that, "The Law brings down Gods anger," no longer does disobedience to the Law cause him anger. Paul's God is He who does not care any longer about what one person does to another, but whose only concern is whether He Himself is loved, regardless of what mayhem the believer might practise against others. Paul made it easy to be a Christian, as it had never been to be a Jew. Salvation now meant only loving the Jesus that Paul and his followers were carefully constructing out of that mixture of fact and fiction that goes by the name of religious myth. And so, succeed is naturally just what this faith has done: to such a point that this Paulianity (called by his followers "Christianity") now has two billion adherents worldwide. By contrast, little remains known today of Jesus' own sect, other than that it had believed him to be King David's heir; and that, like virtually all Jerusalem Jews of 66

13: Summary of the Case the time, they were outraged at Paul's breaking of the Covenant, as reported in Acts 21:21 (and forward). Thus, still more, in order for Paul to be able to succeed in his mission to convert the Romans, he had to repudiate not only the followers of Jesus, but all of Judaism; and he did so, It is in this light that we can fully understand Paul's saying of "the Jews" in 1 Thessalonians 2:15-16, "... And now they have been persecuting us, and acting in a way that cannot please God and that makes them the enemies of the whole human race, because they are hindering us from preaching to the pagans and trying to save them. They never stop trying to finish off the sins that they have begun." The long war against Jews had commenced. In fact, 2:15 even opens by accusing "the Jews" as being those "who killed the Lord Jesus"; and this is the earliest-written of all the appearances in the New Testament of this central anti-Semitic charge. This statement of it precedes historically each and every one of the Gospel-accounts. The only comparably early appearance of the charge occurs in Galatians 6:12 another of Paul's diatribes. Furthermore, 1 Thessalonians 2:15-6 concludes by Paul's taking joy at the misfortune of Jews for their being associated with the Jesus-sect amongst themselves, saying, "And now God's punishment has at last come down upon them!" The reference is to the punishment that the Roman Emperor Claudius (according to the 25th chapter of Suetonius' biography of him) imposed upon all of Rome's Jews, expelling them all, on account of Roman disturbances stirred up by the followers of "Chrestus"the common name then for "Christ." This event had occurred in 49 A. D., perhaps within a year prior to Paul's having written this epistle, which some scholars date to 50 A. D. Also worthy of note is that at the decisive moment that Paul perverted Jesus' moral message so as to be able to create "Christianity," he failed to cite as an authority for doing so the one man he claimed to hold authority, who was Jesus Himself, and whom Paul had never personally met but instead claimed to worship on the basis of a "revelation." Yet according to Matthew 10:5-6, Jesus had instructed his disciples in words that explicitly negated not only Paul's actions and decisions, but Paul's very mission itself: "These twelve men were sent out by Jesus," says the Scripture, "with the following instructions: 'Do not go to any Gentile territory or any Samaritan towns. Instead, you are to go to those lost sheep, the people of Israel.'" (Of course, as an all-knowing, all-foresightful God, Jesus could not possibly have changed his mind on that when Mat. 28:19 quotes the resurrected Jesus as telling his disciples, "Go, then, to all peoples everywhere and make them my disciples." In that passage, he claims to "have been given all authority in Heaven and on earth," which is no more 167

13: Summary of the Case than he is alleged to have claimed prior to death. This passage contradicts the earlier one. As to whichif not bothis likely to be mythological, it would seem that any contradiction alleged in the "resurrected" state must cede to its opposite alleged during life as having more credibility.) Regarding Paul's preachings themselves, Jesus also had an answer in that same book of Scripture, in which Jesus cited from Isaiah in order to condemn precisely the sort of thing that Paul now was doing (Matthew 15:6-9): "You disregard God's command, in order to follow your own teaching. You hypocrites! How right Isaiah was when he prophesied about you: 'These people, says God, honor me with their words, but their heart is really away from me. It is no use for them to worship me, because they teach man-made rules as if they were my laws!'" Earlier in Matthew 5:17-20, Jesus is quoted where he stood on the substantive issue, as follows: Do not think that I have come to do away with the Law of Moses and the teachings of the prophets. I have not come to do away with them but to make their teachings come true. Remember that as long as heaven and earth last, not the least point not the smallest detail of the Law will be done away with not until the end of all things. So then, whoever disobeys even the least important of the commandments and teaches others to do the same [such as Paul was to do with circumcision, for example], will be least in the Kingdom of Heaven. I tell you, then, that you will be able to enter the Kingdom of Heaven only if you are more faithful than the teachers of the Law and the Pharisees in doing what God requires. Or, as He is cited as saying only a few verses later, 7:21-23: "Not everyone who calls me 'Lord, Lord' will enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but only those who do what my Father in heaven wishes. When the Judgement Day comes, many will say to me 'Lord, Lord! In your name we spoke God's message; by your name we drove out many demons and performed many miracles!' Then I will say to them, 'I never knew you. Get away from me, you wicked people!'" And in Luke 11:28, '"Blessed are those who hear the Word of God and obey it.'" Or, in John 10:35, simply, '"The Scripture cannot be broken.'" Regardless of the words used, they all meant the same thing. Before you can call yourself a follower of Me, Jesus was here saying, you must first be or become a Jew; and not only a Jew, but more of a Jeweven purer in following the commands of God, the Jewish Covenantthan are the Pharisees, the leading rabbis who collaborated with the Roman rulers. To join Jesus' Jewish sect, you had to be or to become a strict Jew. John 168

13: Summary of the Case 4:22 has Jesus saying, "you Samaritans worship without knowing what you worship. We Jews know what we worship, for salvation is from the Jews." Even as late as the writing of John, evidently sufficient public knowledge existed that Jesus preached as a Jew, so that this could not be denied without being recognized in its own time as a fraud. Paul's message, speaking in his own voice, is fundamentally different: to him, it is futile even to attempt to follow the Law, because no one can do it; any such attempt is foredoomed. That is what Paul meant when we quoted him from Romans 3:20&23, "No one is put right in God's sight by doing what the Law requires; what the Law does is to make man know that he has sinned. . . . Everyone has sinned and is far away from God's salvation." Instead of calling his followers to be "more faithful than the teachers of the Law and the Pharisees in doing what God requires," Paul says that that would inevitably fail to win salvation: just have faith in Christ, and all your sins will be forgiven; that is Paul's new "Christian" covenantand it is universal, or "Catholic." Thus, Paul in Romans 2:13 says of the Jews, "It is not by hearing the Law that people [here, Jewish people] are put right with God, but by doing what the Law commands," which Paul claims to be impossible. What Jews futilely struggle to attain, salvation by obedience, Paul's "Christian" achieves by mere faith. More diametrically opposite from Matthew 5:17-20 and demanding that followers be "more faithful than the teachers of the Law and the Pharisees in doing what God requires," would be impossible to imagine. Of course, scholars now predominately believe that all four of the Gospel-accounts were actually written after the letters of Paul, and are thus temporally even more-remote from Jesus than are Paul's writings; none of these evangelists had ever met Jesus or known him personally, or heard him speak. But what is certain is that, even as late as Paul's writings (about 48-57 C. E.), the followers of Jesus still considered themselves to be a Jewish sect. Thus, for example, Paul was required to come to Jerusalem at least twice in order to defend before James and the other followers of Jesusas well as to the broader Jewish communitythe Jewishness of his own preachings and ministry. This clearly proves that Jesus, during his own lifetime, and even in the resurrection, had not broken from Judaism. Thus, too, such statements from Jesus as Mat. 16:18, "'Peter, you are a rock, and on this foundation I will build my church,'" either are not to be interpreted as Christianity traditionally has done, or else they are false quotes. Since Paul himself actually created the Christianity known today, and the Gospels and other parts of the New Testament were written 169

13: Summary of the Case after him and by his followersnot by followers of Jesusthe historical Jesus is virtually completely lost. What is key here is that even according to Paul's own testimony, Jesus' brother James and the others who had known Jesus during his lifetime and who were continuing Jesus' ministry at the time when Paul joined the sect, were honoring and enforcing the Jewish Covenant as the sect's Covenant. Though Paul obviously came to promote replacement of that Covenant, his own testimony proves that by doing so, Paul misrepresented Jesus. And now we understand why he did so. Fortunately, application of logic exposes not just the lies but the why's. According to the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas (and this is probably one of the reasons that it is apocryphal) 12: "The disciples said to Jesus, 'We know that you will depart from us. Who is to be our leader?' Jesus said to them, 'Wherever you are, you are to go to James the righteous, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being.'" Even Paul could not deny that he had to answer to James, because everyone knew that this was the casenotwithstanding the later concoction of Matthew 16:18. When Paul defied the command of James, Paul was well aware that he was defying Jesus' very own religious organization. But the church that ended up surviving was the one that Paul established, not the one that Jesus did. Paul repeatedly (e. g., 1 Corinthians 10:33, Galatians 4:12, and Philippians 3:17) recommended his followers to imitate him; not to imitate Jesus. History suggests that even when his followers sincerely believed that they were modeling themselves upon Jesus, they were actually copying Paul's manufactured "Christ"; and in so doing, were indeed doing as Paul had suggested: imitating Paul. Paul won; Jesus lost. That is the story of "Christianity."


14: How the Scientific Approach Differs from the Religious One

For a fundamentalistfor a person who believes in "The Bible Monumental History of Mankind," or in some other supposedly infallible Scripture or Authority or "Word of God" as the ultimate source of morality such a historical question as whether a biblical allegation like Matthew 16:18 is a lie or otherwise false, has ramifications that go to the very core of the individual's morality or moral beliefs. If religion were, as it claims to be, the only ground for morality, then the issue of whether or not "the Word of God" (be it the Pentateuch, the entire Bible, the Koran, or whatever) is actually what it is presented as being, would obviously be crucially important for morality itself. On precisely such a fundamentalist basis, the Jewish scholar Jacob Neusner, when asked in the 7 February 2000 Newsweek whether he felt comfortable as a Jew that all of the major U.S. Presidential candidates publicly avowed fundamentalist Christianity as the source of their own morality, answered (pp. 33-4), "I'd rather have a Christian bound by Scripture, as I am, than a functional atheist, bound by nothing." But the assumption is false: Scripture or other allegedly infallible Authority is not the only possible basis for morality. In fact, the true ground for morality lies in a rejection of infallibility itself; it lies in science, where America's great Founding Fathers, who repudiated infallibility for themselves or anyone, laid the foundations in both theory and practice. In this new approachonly a very few centuries oldthe writing of history and of all other forms of non-fiction is subject to public criticism, open debate, and fact-based attack from opponents in the public forum, 171

14: How the Scientific Approach Differs From the Religious One and is never assumed to be flawless, nor even to meet a more modest standard of truth. As opposed to alleged religious revelation such as the Bible or the Koran, which are presented as being flawless or "inerrant" because the inspired Word of (an All-Knowing) God, scientific non-fiction writingwhether in physics, biology, psychology, history, or any other field is offered to its readership only with truthclaims that are subject to independent investigation, controlled tests where possible, and all other forms of ongoing verification by ceaselessly skeptical science. A free press is essential for this, especially in that form of non-fiction writing that we call "history." It is simplifying only a little, to state that what the physics journals are to professional physicists in the Age of Science, a free press is to the entire citizenship in a modern democracy. No such things existed in the ancient times and (as we would today call them, with their routine acceptance of slavery, genocide, and other such things that are nowadays recognized as moral outrages, but that then were not) the barbaric cultures, in which our "holy books" were written and whose values they thus reflected. The Bible was subject to no such independent verification, until now when the Age of Science scrutinizes it and parses out what is fact and what is fiction in that mixture of fact with falsehood that we today know by the name of "religious myth." And just as a free press is an essential part of that purgative process upon past history, it is also, on a current basis, an essential part of the purgative enterprise cleansing current history of the delusions and lies that inevitably circulate and thatbut for such a constantly skeptical and free pressmight end up posing the danger of producing genocides in some future century. This is the reason why a Jim Jones or other cult-founder today has vastly less likelihood of establishing long-term success than a Paul of Tarsus did in the First Century. The Age of Science has made it almost impossible for a cult to succeed long enough to emerge as a religion, except in those parts of the world we today call "backward," meaning still in the Religious Age, not yet in the Scientific Age. This is why America's great Founders, men of the Enlightenment as they weredespite their inheriting the institution of slavery from the British king who had imposed it upon the colonists as a form of "merchandise" from which he had derived massive profitsintroduced in the First Amendment to the U. S. Constitution joined together, the two freedoms of religion and of the press, which they recognized to be inseparable. (Incidentally, the defenders of slavery often cited the Bible, which says, for example, in 1 Peter 2:18, "Slaves, submit to your masters with full 172

14: How the Scientific Approach Differs From the Religious One respect, not only to those who are good and kind, but also to those who are harsh," and to similar effect in Eph. 6:5, Col. 3:22, and 1 Tim. 6:1. Or, as Morton Smith concluded his chapter on slavery in What the Bible Really Says [1989], "Biblical morality was one of the great handicaps that the emancipation movement in the United States had to overcome. The opponents of abolition had clear biblical evidence on their side when they argued.") One of the prerequisites to scientific writing in any fieldphysics, biology, history, or any otheris that the means of independent verification by the reader him/herself are provided by the writer, either in the form of describing a replicable experiment (such as is done in physics, for example), or else by some other means. Here, it is the citing of the references that the reader can consult so as to verify whether they really do say what they are being claimed to say. In religion, by contrast, there is no such verification by the individual as ultimate judge; everything is a matter of authority, supposedly coming from God Himself. The religious ideal is faith unquestioning acceptance on the basis of authority. This is why the words "faith" and "religion" are synonyms. Science is the exact opposite. For a real scientist, there is no authority. Even if Einstein says thus-and-such, the scientist won't believe it without verifying it. In history-writing, as just mentioned, the ultimate verification must inevitably rely upon the sources, all of which themselves are viewed with skepticism, as is everything. Science itself might be referred to as "systematic skepticism." The sources in the present case are especially the Pauline epistles. HOW THE SCHOLARS KEEP THE MYTHS One of the reasons why the present work does not ask you to rely on authority is that the subject of Paul and what he meant, just happens to be a perfect example of the corruptness of authority, as will now be demonstrated by some especially prominent examples: After the Holocaust, scholars tried many ways to separate "real" or early Christianity from anti-Semitism. Much of this new scholarship (discussed in more detail in the mid-part of Appendix 2-F) pretends that Paul was not "really" an anti-Semitic influence in the early church. Here, we shall deal with another argument: that, as Harvard's Krister Stendahl put it in part 6 of his 1963 Paul Among Jews and Gentiles, an affirmative answer should be given to the question, "If there had been no Paul, would Christianity have made it in the Gentile world?" and that "Paul's activities were actually a tremendously complicating factor rather than an asset for continued 173

14: How the Scientific Approach Differs From the Religious One a pragmatically successful missionary program." Stendahl (like each of the subsequent scholars who have supported this position), pretty much ignores the contrary evidence (coming from Paul, and from the later and certainly lessreliable source, Acts), and argues instead solely on the basis of contradictory shreds from Acts, supplemented by entirely undocumented generalizations, such as "Rome was a blossoming congregation, mainly Gentile, without his doing." (In contradiction, Jurgen Becker's 1993 Paul, p. 334, says, "It was a JewishChristian mission that was active in Rome.") Stendahl even claims, "What Paul brands 'Judaizing'circumcision and dietary laws for Gentileswas not a barrier to Christianity but quite attractive to Gentiles, who were enamored of what was Oriental. . . . Even ritual laws like those from the Old Testament were not a liability but an assetas any reader of Galatians can see." This speculation ignores all of the contrary evidenceincluding the most decisive Gal. 2:2, "1 did not want my work in the past or in the present to be a failure," and all the evidence that supports that, which we discuss, including, from the source that Stendahl himself inexplicably uses as his primary one, Acts 15:19, "that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God," which directly contradicts Stendahl. And where Stendahl does cite sources, he cites them indiscriminately as to their reliability even as that has been evaluated by scholars themselves: for example, his main source, Acts (which we rely on upon only for confirmation, rather than for assertion as he does) not only was written decades after the Pauline epistles, but John Townsend has presented some good reasons to believe that it may have been written a full century after Paul. The author of Acts, whoever he was, was more distant in time from the founding events that he describes than Paul was, notwithstanding that Paul was a person he greatly admired. "Luke" might have known Paul personally, but was certainly not as knowledgeable about Paul's life as was Paul. While both have to be treated very skeptically, the reliability of Paul's accounts is higher than is that of "Luke." Stendahl's influential essay also employs in an indiscriminate manner other unreliable and even suspect sources, such as 2 Peter, generally now considered to be from a much later author who had no possibility of even having met Paul, but which in 3:15-17 is employed by Stendahl to "document" about Paul (and is he here trying to convey that Paul had no important impact upon Christian theology, or precisely what?) that Paul's "thoughts about Jews and Gentiles, law and promise, justification and wrath, proved to be of small value. ... He was rather a complication, as 2 Peter indicates so kindly: our brother Paul is a little hard to understand (3:15f.). He was honored yet pushed aside." Moreover, that's not what the passage says: 2 Peter 3:15-17 can at least as reasonably be interpreted as an attack against those who misunderstand or distort Paul's interpretation of Jesus. Thus, not only does Stendahl cite sources indiscriminately as continued 174

14: How the Scientific Approach Differs From the Religious One to their reliability or even authenticity, but his citations themselves are unreliable; his paraphrases of their meaning are so extremely loose that they cannot be trusted; one must always examine the source itself (which, in this as in virtually all cases, Stendahl studiously avoids quoting, thus making that inconvenient to do). Elsewhere in the essay (part 2), Stendahl exhibits another common trick to make the early church (by which we mean Paul's church, and definitely not the Jesus-sect of Jews that had preceded it and that Paul's gang overthrew and replaced) appear not anti-Semitic: turning Paul's meaning on its head, such as he does by citing Philippians 3:8, which culminates a passage, 3:5-8, referring to Paul's Jewish heritage and his previous adherence to the Jewish Covenant by saying that now as a follower of Christ, he must conclude, "J consider it all as mere garbage." Here is how this arrogantly anti-Semitic statement comes out in Stendahl (p. 13 of the 1976 edition): "Few are those who can read their Bibles with sufficient simplicity as to understand what it is that Paul forgets: his achievements, not his shortcomings. It is all those achievements which he now says appear like rubbish (Phil. 3:8)." But obviously, the "achievements" that Paul here was repudiating, contemptuously, were his "achievements" as a Jew; they were not, humbly, his achievements as a Christian. Examine the passage yourself, and verify how baldfacedly a leading scholar turns truth on its head; contempt for Judaism into humility. And true to form, he refrained from providing his readers with the quotation he was lying about; that would have made it too easy for them to know that he was lying. But you can look at it; just open up your Bible. This is why our discussion of Paul does not cite the "experts" on Paul, but rather cites Paul himself.


15: Paul's Detailed Account of Christianity's Split from Judaism

The sources are important when one presents the history of the origins of Christianity as this story has never before been "told"even though the story actually was told, by Paul himself, in the New Testament; but perhaps scholars didn't want to understand the story, maybe because they worshipped Paul's "Jesus" and so were afraid to discover why Paul had invented Him; after all, this would mean that Paul in fact had invented Him, which a believer would quite naturally prefer not to know. Even within academe, faith is often studied in the supernaturalized light that religion claims to be appropriate, rather than in the naturalized light by which science views everything. Thus, the eye of science has been averted. Therefore, in order to assist New Testament scholars to understand what they would evidently rather not, I shall here facilitate such comprehension by providing the detailed exegesis for this history. In keeping with the difference between the way that a religion treats its Scripture, on the one hand, and the way that science treats any scripture, on the other in other words, in keeping with the distinction between blind faith in an allegedly "inerrant" Scripture from an "infallible" God, versus skeptical questioning and analysis of everythingPaul's writings will here be viewed as natural, rather than supernatural, entities that are part of the world, the society, and the times, in which they were written; the typical scholar s assumption that politics, wealth and personal power-cravings, played no 176

15: Paul's Detailed Account of Christianity's Split from Judaism role in Paul's writing of his epistles, which are "beyond such mundane considerations," will here be rejected. But we shall accept certain other things from the scholars. To start with, we are going to be as accommodating as facts permit regarding the pertinent historiographical foundations. We are going to accept, and not to challenge, the scholarly consensus favoring the authenticity, and Paul's authorship, of Paul's letter to the Galatians. We also shall accept the scholarly consensus dating the authentic Pauline letters earlier than the four Gospel accounts of Jesus. Finally, we are also going to accept the scholarly consensus (amounting virtually to a rule of logic itself) that later writings in the church are far likelier to follow in the tradition of their predecessor (earlier) writings than the reverse (in which a later writing is interpreted as having caused or shaped the account given in an earlier one). We thus accept the Christian historical priority of Paul's letters, even over the Gospels themselves; so that it is vastly likelier that Paul influenced the Gospels, than that the Gospels influenced Paul. We therefore share in the historiographical respect granted Paul's letters within Christianity. In sum, then: historiographically, we take no issue against contemporary scholarship. We seek merely to read the sources with closer attention to what they are saying. And so (please get out your Bible): In Galatians 1:13, we learn from Paul "how I used to live when I was devoted to the Jewish religion" (which means that Paul once was a Jew, but also that at the present stage of his followership of Jesus, Paul has renounced Judaism and no longer considers Christianity to be a sect of Judaism; i.e., his break with Judaism has already occurred); and also, "how I persecuted without mercy the church of God and did my best to destroy it" (which brings into focus his view that Jews are hostile to Christianitya theme that Paul reiterated in numerous contexts). In 1:14, Paul explains the "without mercy": "I was ahead of most fellow Jews of my age in my practice of the Jewish religion, and was much more devoted to the traditions of our ancestors." Not only is he here explaining the mercilessness of his early opposition to Christianity by reference to his Judaism, but he is setting the reader up for the coming onslaught against "the traditions of our ancestors"; i.e., against "the Law," in favor of faith and gracethe salvationdoctrine that he will introduce in its stead. This obviously serves a practical purpose in Paul's program toward the achievement of his ends. However, it might also have served for Paul an additional more personal function: to help him deal with feelings of guilt he might have then been experiencing on account of his having "persecuted 177

15: Paul's Detailed Account of Christianity's Split from Judaism without mercy the church of God" and done "my best to destroy it." Given that he now felt this way about what he had previously done, it is very likely that (unless he was now lying) he felt deep pangs of guilt about it. He now allays that, and places the blame instead upon his having been "devoted to the Jewish religion" and "the traditions of our ancestors." In 1:15, he is claiming to have been chosen by God "even before I was born," and is thus setting the reader up to accept his authority on a basis that only Jesus Himself had previously had with the reader. In 1:16, he is implicitly referring back to 1:1, to reassert that his letter comes "from Paul, whose call to be an apostle did not come from man by means of man, but from Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised Him from death." He is here reinforcing that even though he had never personally met Jesus, nor heard Him speak "from man by means of man" (thus belittling any competing claims to authority on the part of those, such as Paul's now-enemies the Jerusalem elders in the Jesus-sect of Jews, who had known and lived with and spoken with, Jesus, over years of intimate contact with Him), Paul was nonetheless authorized on even better groundsdirectly from God Himself and from the resurrected Jesusto speak for and on behalf of Jesus. Then, Paul tells of his mission assigned by Them: "that I might preach of Jesus and proclaim Him as the Christ among the Gentiles," and after this, Paul reasserts that, "I did not consult any man in order to do this," so as further to impress upon his readers that his authorization came from higher sources. In 1:17, he closes in on the coming issue, by stating, "nor did I go to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before me," referring here to the apostles (now Paul's own foes) who had actually met and intimately known and for years conversed with Jesus, rather than having supposedly encountered Him in "a revelation." These are the same people that Paul is setting the readers up to be breaking away from in 2:11-14, the New Testament climax and birth of Paulianity. But Paul now simply reinforces by implicit means a key point: that Paul was not speaking on behalf of those who had known and suffered along with Jesus but were still living and able to state from their own recollections what Jesus had actually said. By Paul's emphasizing that he had not even so much as consulted with these people, he reiterates his disrespect for themthus also helping to set the reader up to accept his superiority to them in the coming disagreement. 1:18 indicates that three years into his ministry, "I went to Jerusalem to get to know Peter [Cephas], and I stayed with him for two weeks." In Acts 10:34-11:18, Peter at about this time is described as having successfully 178

15: Paul's Detailed Account of Christianity's Split from Judaism preached to the Gentiles; and (11:2) "those who were in favor of circumcising Gentiles criticised him," but Peter managed at least temporarily to allay those concerns. In Galatians 1:18, it appears that Paul is finally coming to Jerusalem to receive acknowledgment and advice from his senior in his mission to the Gentiles. 1:19 states, "I did not see any other apostle except James, the Lord's brother." Finally, Paul here meets the leader of the Jesus-sect of Judaismthe man who is ultimately to be his nemesis in 2:12, and Acts 21:21 forward. But at this stage in Galatians, there is not yet a split between them. This might be the same visit to Jerusalem that is reported in Acts 9:26-30 and/or Acts 15, both of which might actually refer to the same visit of Paul to Jerusalem. In the latter (15), Paul received from James the qualified and tentative approval of his execution of his mission to the Gentiles, largely because Peter in 15:7-11 himself stood up for Paul's actions and policies, which were no different than Peter's as Paul's predecessor had been in 11:2. 1:20, "What I write is true. God knows that I am not lying!" shows that, as of the time of this letter, there had evidently been a contrary account of some sort circulating. The likeliest prospect here is the evident contradiction with both Acts 9:26-30 and 15, which show Paul meeting all of the elders, and in 15, Paul even standing up himself before them to present his case. If Paul in Galatians 1:20 is referring to the same occasion as either or both of those, he is saying that he did not; that he spoke then only with Peter and James. By inference, then, according to Paul's account, the speech by Peter in Acts 15:7-11if that is the same occasion constituted Paul's defense at this tribunal in the council of elders; Paul himself did not get to speak there; nor was he even present. However, in any event, Paul could not have here been intending to contradict any account given in Acts, which had not yet been written; instead, the Acts account would have been based upon the contrary story then circulating that Paul was claiming not to be accurate. 2:1, "Fourteen years later I went back to Jerusalem," indicates so very long a passage of time, that it seems inconceivable that the passage of yet more time would be required in order for Paul's admission of uncircumcised males into the sect to produce the crisis reported (correctly or not, we don't know) in Acts 15. This is quite likely it. By this time, according to Galatians 2:7, Peter has been reassigned "the task of preaching to the Jews"; Paul has now taken over Peter's former assignment. Now Peter is at least starting to feel the pressures from (circumcised) Jews to require all converts to Judaism to adhere to the Jewish faith, including 179

15: Paul's Detailed Account of Christianity's Split from Judaism circumcision; no longer from (uncircumcised) Gentiles refusing to be circumcised; so the schism with Peter is in the process of developing. The pressures coming from the two constituencies will shape and form the positions of their respective proponents. But Peter's memory of the Gentile's objections is still fresh; Peter is probably experiencing inner conflict during this transition-phase. 2:2 is hardly to be believed when Paul asserts "I went because God revealed to me that I should go"; obviously, there is a crisis brewing, which he has to resolve if he is to be able to continue his mission as a representative of the Jerusalem community. "In a private meeting with the leaders, I explained the gospel message that I preach to the Gentiles. I did not want my work in the past or present to be a failure." Here is an incredibly revealing admission: the stakes now, according to Paul's own testimony, are nothing less than the failure or success of his mission. The great issue all along has been circumcision. As Acts 15:1-3 was to put the matter, "Some men came from Judea to Antioch and started teaching the believers, 'You cannot be saved unless you are circumcised as the Law of Moses requires.'" (Actually, it was a Law of God, laid down long before Moses, in Genesis; this passage of Acts is clearly of Gentile origin.) "Paul and Barnabas got into a fierce argument with them about this, so it was decided that Paul, Barnabas, and some of the others in Antioch, should go to Jerusalem and see the apostles and elders about this matter. They were sent on their way by the church." This is the great crisis. 2:3-5 reports the scheming of his opponents to force Paul's Gentile companion to be circumcised. Circumcision is clearly the issue; the only one remaining. (Also see Acts 15:1-5.) 2:6, "But those who seemed to be the leadersI say this because it makes no difference to me what they really were," performs two functions. First, it raises the question in the reader's mind as to whether these people (who were soon to be his opponents) really were the leaders, and thus reinforces Paul's previously established disrespect for them; second, it restates by implication the point that Paul's own "leaders" were God and Christ, no mere mortals, and so Paul was oblivious as to whether or not any given person was a "leader" in Jerusalem; Paul was above such concerns. "God does not judge by outward appearances," also serves two goals. First, it identifies Paul, yet again, with the "authentic" followers of God; second, and with supreme subtlety, it again sets the reader up for the coming assault against judging by actions (here supposedly to be equated with "outward appearances"), versus (of course) faith (supposedly, inward reality). "Those leaders, I say, made no new suggestions to me." If this 180

15: Paul's Detailed Account of Christianity's Split from Judaism encounter is the same one reported in Acts 15, then Paul might here be referring to the Jerusalem leaders ultimately accepting (Acts 15:19) "that we should not trouble the Gentiles who are turning to God," and that therefore only the easier-tocomply-with commandments (dietary, etc.) should be enforced upon the Gentile converts. 2:7, "On the contrary, they saw that God had given me the task of preaching the gospel for the uncircumcised," reasserts that Paul's authority was granted not by mere men, such as his now-enemies James and the other elders; but instead directly by God, the Father and the Son."... just as He had given Peter the task of preaching the gospel for the circumcised," which the Galatian Christians probably assumed anyway, since Peter had far higher seniority than Paul, and was likely one of the original 12 apostles and known to the Galatians as such. It is also interesting here that Paul refers to Jews per se as "the circumcised," and to Gentiles as "the uncircumcised"; and that each of the two groups within the sect seems to have been preached different gospels. 2:8, "For by God's power I was made an apostle to the uncircumcised, just as Peter was made an apostle to the circumcised," presents Paul as equal in status to Peterwhich, within the sect he had clearly never been, on any grounds. 2:9, "James, Peter, and John, who seemed to be the leaders" again raises doubt for the Galatian Christians as to whether this triumvirate really were what they were reputed to benamely, the leaders; 2:6 is thus reinforced. ". . . recognized that God has given me this special task" reinforces yet again that Paul's own authority comes from God Himself rather than from Paul's merely mortal enemies. "... so they shook hands with Barnabas and me, as a sign that we were all partners," not only communicates that Paul had received the approval of his methods from the people that his readers had been accustomed to looking up to as their own religious leaders; it also makes Paul the "partner" of these individuals "who seemed to be the leaders" (2:6 & 2:9). "We agreed that Barnabas and I would work among the Gentiles and they among the Jews," very subtly boosts Paul's status yet again: instead of Paul's saying here, "We were instructed . . . ," Paul opens with "We agreed . . . ," thus yet again implicitly denying what is clearly the fact that the Jerusalem elders were his "leaders." This passage also informs us that Paul and Barnabas were equals within the organization; probably the Galatians already knew Barnabas to be at least Paul's equalPaul was not one to downplay his own status. Subsequent Christianity knows little of Barnabas; he has nothing in the canon, and only one epistle is attributed to him in the apocrypha. But 181

15: Paul's Detailed Account of Christianity's Split from Judaism it is possible that Paul was not even the leading evangelist to the Gentiles within the sect; we've no way of knowing independently of Paul and his followers, and those sources are not to be trusted on this. (Nonetheless, as the last boxed item at the end of Part II, on "What Kind of A Man Was Paul?" explains, Acts did inadvertently let slip in a strong piece of evidence that Barnabas was actually Paul's superior in the mission to the Gentiles.) "... that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised" repeats the respective assignments, and notably employs againas in 2:3, 2:7 and 2:8the equation of "the circumcised" with "the Jews," and of "the uncircumcised" with "the Gentiles"; thus again focussing on circumcision as the central issue. 2:10, "All they asked was that we should remember the needy in their group, which is the very thing I have been eager to do," contrasts strikingly with both Acts 15:23-9 and 21:25. (The latter, however, is dubious, since it doesn't even address the question of circumcision that had been raised in 21:21 as the only violation of Jewish Law that had been mentioned specifically as a charge against Paul; this is probably instead the event in 15but still, Paul's account of the agreement that was reached is at variance with Acts.) What we are told here is that James and the other elders decided, at least for the time being, not to prohibit Paul from accepting into the sect uncircumcised males. Paul's Gentile converts would be required, according to Paul's account here, to adhere to none of the Covenant; Paul is claiming that the Jerusalem community had capitulated totally, and that Paul's Gentile converts were freed totally from Jewish Law or Covenant. By contrast, Acts 15:20&29 says that Paul's Gentile converts must adhere to the food and sexual laws of Leviticus 17 and 18, as well as to the food-law of Exodus 34:15 against eating food (meat) that has been sacrificed (slaughtered) in worship of idols, but that (Acts 15:19) "we should impose no irksome requirements upon those of the Gentiles who are turning toward God," or in other words, that these converts need not go under the knife. Paul himself elsewhere informs us in J Corinthians 5, 8 and 10, that he had been imposing upon his converts at least Leviticus 18 and Exodus 34:15; he accepted the food and sexual laws, but clearly not the "irksome requirement" as Acts 15:19 put it. Thus, it seems reasonable to assume here that if Acts 15:19-29 is truthful and Gal. 2:10 is false, Paul was probably not being required, in any case, to impose upon his Gentile converts anything that he opposed. Thus far, then, there is no friction. However, from this point on, there is a very sudden transformation in the tone of Paul's account: without explanation, its mood changes from one of cooperation to one of fierce hostility and war. The likeliest explanation is 182

15: Paul's Detailed Account of Christianity's Split from Judaism that Paul is skipping a key intervening event: after Paul returns to Antioch, the debate within the Jerusalem community continues; in any event, James clearly changes his mind, and sends agents to Paul to instruct him that he must no longer accept the uncircumcised. 2:11-16 comprises Paul's account of the climactic break with the Jerusalem community of Jesus-followers. The event described here is nothing less than the birth of Christianity; its separation from Judaism. For unexplained reasons, Peter comes to Antioch, and Paul opposes him in public, about a subject that is unnamed. However, given 2:2-5, there can be little doubt as to what it had been that drove Paul to demand, "I did not want my work in the past or in the present to be a failure." 2:3 makes clear that the conflict was about circumcision. And when in 2:4 Paul went so far as to charge, "They wanted to make slaves of us," the threat of those who were demanding Paul's Gentile companion to be circumcised was starkly cast. Peter is at first portrayed here as accepting of Paul's uncircumcised Gentile converts. But then, in 2:12, "some men who had been sent by James arrived," as a result of which, Peter "drew back and would not eat with the Gentiles, because he was afraid of those who were in favor of circumcising them," who were clearly identical to the "men who had been sent by James." (If your Bible happens to be one of those that mistranslates this passage to have Peter here fearing not proponents of circumcision but instead anyone who happens to be Jewish or "circumcised," then see the next box on "A Fine Point of Translation.") A FINE POINT OF TRANSLATION When we read Paul (or any other translated source for that matter), part of that reading is necessarily of the translation itself. Paul wrote in ancient Greek, one of the two languages (the other being Latin) of his era's power-elite with whom Paul personally identified (as opposed, say, to Jesus' own Aramaic tongue, dominant among the Jewish poor). Here we shall explore the single biggest translation-problem in the New Testament, which concerns a phrase at the end of Galatians 2:12. Gal. 2:12 represents Paul's account of a turning point in his life: the moment at which he gave up on Jesus' Jewish sect and set forth to found his own faith worshipping Jesus Himself. It is a moment of very mixed emotions for the founder of "Christianity," because he knew that he was violating the instructions of Jesus' own religious organization, for which he felt embarrassed; yet he was also pioneering a new religious movement that he was convinced stood a far better chance than Jesus' own did of enshrining Jesus' name in the hearts and minds of billions of continued 183

15: Paul's Detailed Account of Christianity's Split from Judaism people in future generations, and for this he felt immensely proud. Consequently, Paul's conflicted emotions about this momentous event produced from Paul an ambiguous expression to describe it; and, as a result, bible-translations of this key passage vary significantly in their meaning. The biggest variance concerns the meaning of the end-part of 2:12, in which the Greek original can in a somewhat generic sense be said to refer to Peter's fear of the party of circumcision, which could possibly be interpreted either as fear of the circumcised ones, namely of the Jews; or else as fear of the proponents of circumcision, irrespective of whether such individuals might happen to have been Jews or rather Gentiles. In other words, Paul's phraseology here is ambiguous as to whether Peter was afraid of a group (the group from James) on account of whom they were (namely Jews), or rather on account of what they were advocating (namely circumcision). Although the context (e.g., Gal. 2:3 & 3:6-10 & 5:2-7; Acts 15:1-3 & 15:19; etc.) indicates clearly that proponents of circumcision, not mere Jews themselves, were the adversaries in this climactic incident, Paul refrained in Gal. 2:12 to employ words that would nail that meaning down. This has given scholars an opportunity to avoid dealing with the reality that Paul is referring to here. This opportunity was enhanced by Paul's passing reference in 2:12 to Peter's having been dining with Paul's Gentile followers, so that one could conceivably interpret the cause of this tumult to have been the Jewish dietary laws: Peter might have backed away from the table because James' men had caught him dining at an un-kosher table, not because Peter's dining-companions had not been circumcised. This changes the meaning of the entire passage, and scholars have overwhelmingly chosen this interpretation; but how likely is it to be true? Extremely unlikely. Here is why: According to Paul's own account (Gal. 2:10), the Jerusalem sect of Jesus-followers demanded of Paul only that he keep in mind the poor among the Jerusalem community of Jesus-followersnot that Paul's group adhere to any of the laws of the Jewish Covenant, neither the dietary laws, nor the circumcisionlaw, nor any other. And according to Acts 15:29, the Jerusalem sect required Paul's followers to adhere only to the dietary and sexual laws, but (considering 15:19) to permit violating the circumcision-law. Thus, according to both accounts, the standard scholars' interpretation of Gal. 2:12 makes no sense: if Peter was dining un-kosher, then that would not have been an issue in violation of Gal. 2:10, but only James ' change of mind on this would have beenbut Paul says nothing of that. And according to Acts 15:29, while it certainly would have been an issueof Paul's having violated his promise to the Jerusalem-sect eldersthis would not have been at all an issue of Peter's "cowardice" such as Paul is charging in Gal. 2:13; such a charge of cowardice can make sense continued 184

15: Paul's Detailed Account of Christianity's Split from Judaism only on the basis of Peter's now siding with the agents who came from James to report James' change of mind on the circumcision-issue: Paul would have felt furious at Peter (who had participated in James' prior decision favoring the relaxation of the circumcision-requirement for Paul's followers) for so suddenly siding with a view that Peter hadn't favored even when he himself (Acts 11:2) was proselytizing to Gentiles. In the full context it becomes clear why Paul is outraged at Peter here. Further evidence that circumcision was the issue here is that throughout Gal. 2:2-9, "the uncircumcised" is synonymous with "Gentiles," and "the circumcised" is synonymous with "Jews"not with "those who dine kosher" (or etc.). Some (but by no means all) of the standard Bible-translations reflect this studied obtuseness of the scholars. For example, the King James, New Catholic Edition, New American Bible for Catholics, New Jerusalem Bible, New Century Version, Contemporary English Version, and Revised English Bible, all present Peter (who himself was a circumcised Jew) in Gal. 2:12 as fearing simply Jews, not fearing advocates of circumcision. The New International Version is thoroughly ambiguous on this point undecided as to what Paul is saying here. The Revised Standard Version, New Revised Standard Version, and Amplified Bible, tilt in the direction of Peter's fearing advocates of circumcision, not Jews per se. And admirably, the New English Bible, Good News or Today's English Bible, and Jerusalem Bible, all get the meaning right here: they portray Peter as fearing proponents of circumcision, not Jews per se as an anti-Semite. The standard, old, directly anti-Semitic, interpretation of this passage (as also of Titus 1:10 and Acts 11:2), is simply false. Paul's followers are indicated in Gal. 2:11-4 to be violating the Covenant; the issue is merely which law they are violating. And regardless the answer to that, this passage describes the founding of "Christianity."

This is the explosive moment at which the Christian religion entered the world. Paul had first been introduced to Peter 14 years earlier as his own elder in the very same mission to convert Gentiles to this Jewish sect, and as one who (according to Acts 11:2) had back then himself accepted the same practises as Paul did now. Furthermore (again according to Acts, later, 15:7-12), this same Peter had himself defended Paul's practises in this very same regard. So it is understandable now why Paul would be calling Peter a "coward, ... and even Barnabas was swept along by their cowardly action." The "men who had been sent by James" were finally laying down the gauntlet to Paul, and demanding that his following of uncircumcised adult male Gentiles were either going to have to go under the knife, or else get out of the sect. If you try to place yourself in Paul's 185

15: Paul's Detailed Account of Christianity's Split from Judaism shoes, you will probably feel them pinch so tightly as to break your feet. Paul removed them. He was faced with either continuing a very "successful" mission, and enjoying the fellowship of followers whom he no doubt had grown to love, and who had looked up to and come to love if not to worship him; or else hewing to what every indication is had been the strict and unyielding teachings of Jesus himself, and failing. He chose the former. Paul chose "success." Years earlier, when Paul was still trying to work within the Jesus-sect, and before he was forced to make his choice between Jesus and "success," Paul had put the matter this way, in 1 Corinthians 9:22-25: "I have become all things to all men, so that by all possible means I might save some. I do this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings. Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one gets the prize? Run in such a way as to get the prize. Everyone who competes in the game undergoes strict training. They do it to win a crown that will not last. We, however, compete to win a crown that will last forever." Paul competed to win; he won. His prize has lasted for 2,000 years, and still counting. Now, Paul had to find a "justification" for what he had done. That is the rest of his mission, starting with 2:16: "A person is put right with God only through faith in Jesus Christ, never by doing what the Law requires," and going on 3:1-10, and in Romans 2:25-9 & 3:20-4:13, as well as elsewhere. Unlike the Jewish dietary laws, which were also a problem that was prominently mentioned as having been raised with regards to the missions to the Gentiles, the circumcision of adult males was a mortal threat in an era without antibiotics, and a living terror in an age without anaesthesia. It was the kind of issue that could very well tear this Jewish sect apart; and it did so. This is revealed unambiguously in the key phrase in 2:2, "I did not want my work in the past or in the present to be a failure." It is furthermore unambiguously and emphatically reiterated in 5:2-3: "Listen! I, Paul, tell you that if you allow yourselves to be circumcised, it means that Christ is of no use to you at all. Once more I warn any man who allows himself to be circumcised that he is obliged to obey the whole Law." With that, Paul explains why, in 2:2, the success or failure of his whole life's work is at stake in the circumcision-issue. Clearly, it was not the kosher laws that were behind the blowup in 2:12: Peter did not want to be seen dining with Paul's uncircumcised "converts." We can even go further to reconstruct the precise nature of the event that had precipitated Paul's writing this letter to the Galatians: this is 186

15: Paul's Detailed Account of Christianity's Split from Judaism revealed in 5:1-12, in which Paul warns the Galatian Christians of dire consequences "if you allow yourselves to be circumcised," then reminds them, "You were doing so well!" and asks them, "Who made you stop obeying the truth?" and concludes of those persons, "Let them go and castrate themselves!" which is one of Paul's strongest expressions of hate against the Jerusalem elders. It is clear from this that the Galatian community had presented Paul with the very real danger of its blowing apart on account of one or more of its Gentile members having accepted the Jerusalem elders' command to be circumcised. Once one follows, others who have not done so are faced with the necessity to decide whether it is that person, or rather they themselves, who are following the true Christian path. That is a prescription for the breakup of the community. Paul's stand on this issue was clear; if the Galatians had not gone along with it, he would have lost them. That is what had precipitated this letter. It was outright war against the Jewish Covenant. As Paul put the matter in 5:4, "Those of us who try to be put right with God by obeying the Law have cut yourselves off from Christ. You are outside God's grace." And now we also know why Paul had opened his letter to the Galatians the way he did: first, he claimed an authority to speak for Jesus that was higher than the authority of the Jerusalem elders who had ordered these people to be circumcised; then (1:6), he warned them that "by accepting another gospel," they would lose "the grace of Christ"; and, following that (1:13 onward), he detailed his own Jewish credentials and how hostile to the faith that all Christians share the Jewish faith is. He was, right from the letter's start, trying to convince his readers that he, Paul, knew Judaism as well as anyone, and that they could take his word for it that circumcision was not required, and that the Jerusalem elders were their enemies and that that is why those people demanded circumcision. Scholars cannot, and really do not try to, explain what occasioned this letter of Paul, what shaped it, and what its message was intended to be for its readers in the context of that occasion. But all these things are right there in the letter itself, for anyone who really wants to understand them. However, in order to read these things from it, one must read the letter as a document for scientific analysis, as an object of nature; not as a document for religious analysis, as an object of "the supernatural." The difference is like that between night and day. Why, then, does history not record that Paul's Jerusalem enemies ejected him from the Jesus-sect? The obvious reason is that Paul's followers succeeded in becoming the "Christianity" that we today know as such. However, there may well be another important reason: it is unlikely that 187

15: Paul's Detailed Account of Christianity's Split from Judaism Paul was ejected, for that would have meant ejecting also his thousands of followers as not true followers of the Jesus-sect. That could have meant ejecting a large portion of the sect's own "success." It is hard for any organization to fire its "best" salesperson and say to his customers, "Here's your money back; your salesman cheated you; he misrepresented the product; it's not what he said it is." And although the real "currency" that measures success in an evangelical organization is increase in the numbers of believers, money itself helps crucially in that; and Paul's mission (since it was directed at converting those who possessed money and power) was also valuable because it was bringing into the sect a much wealthier class of believers: Romans 15:27 states, "the Gentiles ought to use their material blessings to help the Jews," right after acknowledging in 15:26 the need "to help the poor among God's people in Jerusalem"; and 2 Cor. 8:13 says, "since you have plenty at this time, it is only fair that you help those in need." Therefore, quite possibly the events spoken of in Acts 21:21 forward, were viewed in an essentially passive way by the Jesus-sect elders; that they simply could not bring themselves publicly to repudiate this man Paul, even though he was so reviled by their own followers. Further indication of this is that Acts itself makes no reference at all to the event that Paul in Gal. 2:11-14 describes first-hand, the key moment in which Christianity was created, the moment when it broke away from being a sect of Judaism and became a new religion with its own new covenant. Acts 21:25 even, in effect, denies that the event occurred: it presents Paul, upon this subsequent trip to Jerusalem, as still being under the same requirement regarding Gentile converts as had been imposed upon his mission by James' letter printed in Acts 15:23-29, requiring that these converts adhere only to the sexual and dietary laws, but permitting their violation of the circumcision-law. This denies James' change-of-instructions on this that Paul reports in Gal. 2:11-14. If Paul had been outright expelled from Jesus' religious organization, then that fact would have been widely known throughout all the congregations; even after Paul's death, when Acts was almost certainly written, it would have been very publicly known that 21:25 was false and that Paul's instructions had been changed. Luke wouldn't have been able to get away with a falsehood like that. The fact that he was able to do so when he was writing those many decades later, means that Paul had not been expelled. Furthermore, if Paul had been officially expelled, then James would have circulated to all congregations a letter announcing the fact; all followers of the Jesus-sect would have known not to trust the account that Acts later memorialized. But that was not the case. The only way that Acts would have been able to pass off its omissions and falsehoods regarding 188

15: Paul's Detailed Account of Christianity's Split from Judaism these matters, is if the Jesus sect, acting through its leader James, failed to expel Paul for Paul's disobedience of their instructions to him. And it is tragically obvious why he might not have been expelled. That sect, in any event, died out; perhaps it was crushed by the Romans. Christianity, in fact and not only in name as in Acts 11:26, started in Antioch (present-day Antakya in Turkey, near the northeastern tip of the Mediterranean), at Paul's headquarters, at around 50 A.D.; not in and around Jerusalem during the lifetime of Jesus. It was Paul's followers and religious organization, not Jesus', who carried the Jesus-torch forward into the future, even if this would entail their using it to bludgeon the very people, Jews, that Jesus himself had been trying to save. Paul conquered Rome (posthumously after the Emperor Constantine legalized Christianity), by joining Rome in conquering the religious organization that had been founded by Jesus. The first step in Rome's conquest of the Jesus-sect was the crucifixion of Jesus; the second was the sacking of Jerusalem about 40 years later in 70 A.D., which apparently decimated this Jewish sect, destroying the surviving apostles and the leadership-structure, and left Paul's renegade faction of anti-Jesus "Christians" unopposed carrying the "Christian" torch forward into the future as the Roman Catholic Church and the subsequent numerous "Christian" churches, all constituting the "Christianity" known today, which was the third and final step that completed the work that the crucifixion began. Paul's followers who wrote the Gospels went far beyond Paul in providing detail to the myth of Paul's own 1 Thessalonians 2:14-5 and Galatians 6:12, that "the Jews" crucified Christ; this was just a single event, and the public had no way to know its details, and so virtually anything that the Gospel writers wrote about it would have been believable if it included such basics as the "King of the Jews" charge and the crucifixion things that were then sufficiently common knowledge that they could not in that era have been explicitly denied. Likewise, what Jesus Himself preached, and especially his core message, were too well known then to place Paul's core message into Jesus' mouth, and they did not do so. The only constraint was that such lies in their accounts would have immediately discredited them. This is why Paul's small-"g" gospel of salvation by faith alone (and God's grace) as the core of the message of "Christ," did not end up in "Christ's" mouth. The Gospel writers went as far as they could in Paulifying "Christ"but there were limits.


16: Christianity's War Against Judaism

Acts 21:21 forward portrays Paul as the subject of Jewish riots against him over Paul's preachments and policies regarding circumcision and the Covenant. This general thrust of Acts can probably be believed; these were highly publiceven massevents, so that if they had not occurred then Acts' pure invention of them would have been widely recognized even in Luke's era. Furthermore, given that Paul had been preaching that the Jewish Covenant had been terminated by God, so that the religion these people believed in and practised was now mere "garbage" (or "refuse," or "excrement," according to Philippians 3:8), it is certainly understandable that Paul would elicit riots from Jews. And what Acts describes here is nothing less than a state of war between Paul and the Jewsnot just the Christian sect of Jews; all Jews. Paul was fortunate enough to survive these riots and escape; but his hatred of Jews and of Judaism both Jesus-followers and not (e.g., 1 Thessalonians 2:15-6, Galatians 6:12, 2 Corinthians 11:13-23, and Philippians 3:2&8)can only have been increased thereby. And this hatred also freed him to go all-out to win the Romans and thus ultimately the entire Empire, by absolving the Roman regime of the crucifixion and pinning the Deicide upon Paul's own enemies, "the Jews." The only highwire routine he had to worry about from now on was (as in Romans 9-11) keeping the few Jews who were in his congregations. But the anti-Semitic die was cast. According to many scholars, 1 Thessalonians was the earliest written of all Paul's epistles, and the earliest of all the books of the New 190

16: Christianity's War Against Judaism Testament. (I believe that 1 Corinthians contains parts of a letter that Paul probably wrote even earlier.) 1 Thessalonians was quite possibly written shortly after the event that is described in Galatians 2:11-6the creation of the "Christian" faith, which itself occurred immediately after Paul had defended his practises to the Jesus-sect elders at the council in Jerusalem. It thus is quite understandable that 1 Thessalonians might contain Paul's first rabidly antiSemitic outburstwhich it did, in 2:15-6, referred to "the Jews," saying that they were the ones "who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and persecuted us. How displeasing they are to God! They are the enemies of all Mankind! They even tried to stop us from preaching to the Gentiles the message that would bring them salvation. All this time they have been filling their guilt to the fullest, and now God's retribution has at last come down upon them!" In Paul's view, the delegation to Antioch headed by Peter and sent by James, ordering that all of Paul's adult male Gentile converts must be circumcised, was a clear demonstration that "They even tried to stop us from preaching to the Gentiles the message that would bring them salvation"i.e., that circumcision is not required. And, in keeping with Paul's repeatedly expressed belief (e.g., Romans 13:1-4) that political rulers are God's agents on Earth carrying out God's divine justice, it seems that Paul is here probably interpreting as an example of precisely such divine justice, the expulsion of the Jews from Rome at around 49 A.D. by the Emperor Claudius that is recounted both in Acts 18:2 and in the 25th chapter of Suetonius' biography of that ruler. Suetonius says that Claudius carried out this expulsion out of fear of commotions that were caused specifically by the Jewish followers of "Chrestus." At that time, the common term for "Christ" was "Chrest," and his followers were known as "Chrestians"; "Chrestus" was almost surely Christ. Thus, it would appear that Paul's gloating at the misfortunes of Jews, expressed in 1 Thessalonians 2:16, "and now God's retribution has at last come down upon them," probably referred to this Jewish expulsion from the imperial capital, and was probably heightened by Paul's knowledge that all Jews in Rome were suffering on account of only the Jesus-sect Jews, whom Paul especially hated. And that is how it came to be that Christianity emerged as the religion that we know todaya religion for example, in which its great saints, at around 400 A.D., set the following ideal of what it means to be a "model Christian," as recounted on pages 78-80 of Grosser and Halperin's 1976 Anti-Semitism: St. John Chrysostom: "God always hated the Jews. It is obligatory for all Christians to hate the Jews." 191

16: Christianity's War Against Judaism St. Ambrose: "I hereby declare that I set fire to the synagogue." St. Augustine: "The true image of the Hebrew is Judas, who sells the Lord for silver. The Jew will forever bear the guilt for the death of Jesus." St. Jerome: "Jews are congenital liars." In fact, within even less than a single century from Paul's own time, there appeared the following from St. Justin (or Justin Martyr) addressing his enemy in Ch. 16 of his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew; For the circumcision according to the flesh, which is from Abraham, was given in order to mark you, to separate you from other people, and from us; so that you may be made to suffer that which you now justly suffer, that your land may be made desolate and your cities set aflame, while strangers eat your fruit before your own eyes. ... These things have happened to you in fairness and justice, for you have slain the Lord. All of these writers were followers of the tradition started by Paul, even those (such as Justin) who (just as Paul himself had done) attempted (as in 1 Cor. 9:22-25 & 10:33) to "become all things to all men," and so to be accepting of any Jew who capitulated to Paul's new covenant and became a Christian; but that was the condition: only followers of Paulianity were "God's people." In fact, by Justin's time, this had been so institutionalized that it was no longer even necessary to mention Paul's name as authority for it; Paul's doctrines had become the doctrines of "Jesus" Himself; "Christianity" itself was anti-Semitic; Paul's war was now the war of "Jesus Christ." All these saints of "Christianity" were actually saints of Paulianity. And thus, by official status beatified upon them by "Christianity," the men who wrote these hateful things were not sinners (bigotry of any kind, in fact, is not even listed among the traditional "7 Sins"); they were "saints," canonized by the Church as models of virtue, and venerated as such by believers in the faith. Yet these "saints" libeled and provoked the destruction of Jesus' own people. Strange to say, the world has ever since borne the consequences, of widely diverse kinds, including Naziism, and even Marxism (see Appendix 2B), as perhaps the two biggest examples; but also on a more-modest scale, every Christian church and ritual observance. And perhaps for the future the grandest outcome of all being Islam, which absorbed so much of Christianity, inserting it into the beliefs of additional billions of Mankind. 192

16: Christianity's War Against Judaism We all live in the wake of Paul's choice. And many millions have been forced to die in its wake. And that is how it came to be that the people who today consider themselves to be Christians, don't actually worship Jesus of Nazareth; they worship Paul of Tarsus' fantasy of a man he never met. Paul's choice was decisive for all history: at the very moment, in Galatians 2:16, when Paul chose to go his own way, and to cut his umbilical cord, the Covenant, tying him to Judaism and to all unconverted Jews, he was, in effect, declaring war. His was the new covenant, and the new people of God; the only basis now upon which he could accept anyone born a Jew, was by that individual's capitulating to Paul's new covenant, as Paul himself explained in Galatians 3:23-5 and Romans 7:6 & 9:31-10:12. The only way a scholar like Lloyd Gaston in his 1987 Paul and the Torah can deny this (e.g., p. 14: "Paul's quarrel with his fellow Jews is never about Judaism as such but rather about a Jewish understanding of Gentiles") is by blatant falsehood; Paul made the opposite clear (as in the places just cited). But scholars persist. When Gaston comes to key passages that disprove his thesis, he simply elides the contradiction, as with Romans 10:4, normally translated as saying that the Jewish Covenant has been brought to an end by Christand thus that "Paul's quarrel" is indeed "about Judaism as such"but which Gaston retranslates (p. 130) as, "For the goal of the law, Christ, is righteousness of God for every believer," which still leaves nonbelievers in the Jesus-Messiah, including Jewish non-believers, "outside God's grace," as Paul expressed in Gal. 5:4 and explained in Romans 3:23-4, both of which Gaston's "Paul" contradicts. Similarly, Gaston's exegesis (p. 136) of Philippians 3:5-8 which Paul concludes by calling Judaism "garbage"or, even worse in Gaston's own translation: "excrement"inexplicably interprets as: "It seems that it is possible to have a status of righteousness from either of two sources, from the law (in the sense of the covenant) or from the faithfulness of Christ. Paul once had the former and has shifted to the latter. He does not say that he wishes other Jews to do the same." So, following Gaston, even when Paul calls Judaism by a formal nine-letter version of a certain common four-letter Word, the meaning is not only to praise but to praise as one among only two pathways to God and to salvation, and Paul wasn't intending to claim his "Christianity" to be any superior to that "excrement." Then, in turn, other scholars build upon Gaston's own and other brands ofagain using Gaston's term of praisesuch scholarly "excrement," as John Gager does in the concluding part of his 1983 The Origins of Anti-Semitism, arguing that Paul himself had nothing to do with it other than unfortunately being 193

16: Christianity's War Against Judaism misunderstood by others. Just as David Irving, Robert Faurisson, and other deniers or apologists of the Holocaust air-brush the image of Hitler; so, too, do Lloyd Gaston, Krister Stendahl, and other deniers or apologists of its origins airbrush the image of Paul. In any case, we'll stick with reading Paul, and let the scholars read each other. They re-write Paul, as Paul rewrote Jesus and others re-write the Holocaust. It's all re-writing history, We'd rather let history speak for itself. Of course, scholars will say that it is this that is the re-writing of history, because this re-writes their "history" that propagandizes Paul's legitimacy and that sustains Paul's hoax. Scholars insist on accepting Paul's line, that Paul rejected the circumcision-law because Paul rejected the Jewish Covenant. That hoax has here been exposed, and we have shown that instead Paul rejected the Jewish Covenant because he rejected the circumcision-law. But no re-writing of history was needed in order to show this: the history was written by Paul himself; he buried it in his epistles because he wrote so early that he implicitly had to acknowledge it. We merely unearthed it. According to this analysis of the origins of "Christianity," Paul's enemy was James above all else; it was Jesus' own brother, the head of the Jesus-sect, who had finally laid down the gauntlet, enforced the Covenant, and forced Paul to make a choice between "success" and Jesus. There can be no question but that this is indicated in the Scriptures themselves; the only thing that might be questioned is whether it was primarily the circumcision-issue or that of the dietary and sexual laws, that precipitated the crisis. According to both Galatians and Acts, circumcision was the last issue to be resolved; and in both accounts it precipitated intense conflicts when it finally was. In fact, in Paul's letter to the Philippians 3:2-9, Paul is simply livid at James over this matter, saying of him, and of the other Jews who demanded that circumcision be done: "Watch out for those who do evil things, those dogs, those men who insist on cutting the body. It is we, not they, who have received the true circumcision, for we worship God by means of his Spirit." It is an outpouring of hatred. And Galatians itself closes with a peroration, 6:12-17, against "the people who are trying to force you to be circumcised," calling them, "the ones who want to show off and boast about external matters. They do it, however, only so that they may not be persecuted for the cross of Christ"; thereby indicating that the myth that the crucifixion of Jesus had been done for Jewish rather than for Roman purposes is already part of Paul's ideological armamentarium against "the Jews," and of course especially against "the people who are trying to force you to be circumcised," meaning Jesus' own brother James, and the 194

16: Christianity's War Against Judaism rest of the Jerusalem Jesus-sect community, including all members still living from amongst the original 12 apostlesall of whom this man Paul, who never even knew Jesus, is here accusing of Jesus' crucifixion. (Paul had also, in 1 Thessalonians 2:15, elsewhere made this key anti-Semitic charge; these were the first two historical occurrences of the Deicide-charge against the Jews, so central to Hitler's formulating the Holocaust.) Can there then really be any doubt that Paul is accusing the authorized representatives of these very same elders in the sect when he also warns in 2 Corinthians 11:13-15, "Those men are not true apostlesthey are false apostles, who lie about their work and disguise themselves to look like real apostles of Christ. Well, no wonder! Even Satan can disguise himself to look like an angel of light! So it is no great thing if his servants disguise themselves to look like servants of righteousness." Now the emissaries from James represent the devil; here is the precursor to the writing of John 8:44. 2 Cor. continues 11:22 forward, identifying these "false apostles"who, as John 8:44 also describes the crucifiers of Jesus, are liars representing Satanas being Jewish Christians. And they "boast" (11:18&21&30). About what do they boastperhaps that they had gotten their commissions from Jesus himself? So, just as Paul does in Galatians, he boasts himself (2 Cor. 12:1-6) about his own "revelation" from the risen Jesus; only here Paul recites it in the third person (switching it to first person in 12:7), and makes the shocking admission that "1 do not know whether this actually happened." Parts of the Corinthian letters (like 1 7:19) were early; parts (like 2 12:1-7) were middle, and parts (like 2 3:5-9 & 11:13-15) were late period; at least three letters are parsed into the two; unlike Galatians, they are Pauline pastiches. They include materials mixed together from various stages along Paul's road to schism. In the beginninglike 1 10:33, "I try to please everyone in all that I do"he tried to please both Jews and Gentiles. As schism came near, James' people emerged as representatives of Satan. Finally, James himself also did. I believe that the evidence in favor of circumcision as the issue that split Christianity off from Judaism is overwhelming; but what cannot be questioned at all reasonably is that these are the passages within the New Testament that describe the true foundations of Christianity. And this necessarily entails a reading of the New Testament as anti-Semitic propaganda, turning away not only from Judaism, but from Jesus himself. Jesus had been the anchor; Paul cut it loose and set sail with no anchor into the Roman-Empire sea. Scholars ignore this evidence. It is too devastating to their own religious commitments, which take precedence over any pretenses toward 195

16: Christianity's War Against Judaism a scientific commitmenta distant second-place finisher, if even that. Above all, they simply don't want to see the evidence, spread amply in Acts and the epistles, that circumcision was so important. For example, scholars, against vast evidence to the contrary, insist on seeing Gal. 2:12 as being about the Jewish dietary (kosher) laws, not about circumcision, even though all that we know about the agents "who came from James" is that they were "advocates of circumcision." (See previous box for the evidence.) Scholars also choose not even to see the possibility that in Philippians 3:1-3, when Paul warns his adult male Gentile followers that, "you will be safer" to "beware of those evil ones, those dogs, who insist on cutting the body" or "mutilating the flesh" by "circumcision," he is reminding them of the dangers of the medical operation to their physical safety in an era prior to the advent of antibiotics. Scholars are willfully blind. But we are not. Scholars invent a term to refer to the Jesus-sect of Jews, the Jesusestablished organization of Jesus' followers, whom Paul had joined and then subsequently overthrown and replaced: "Judaizers," or "Judaizing Christians." They virtually put the term into Paul's mouth; it's not in any of his letters, because if he had used this term (or phrase) in his own time, everyone would have known that it was not just false but ludicrous. But this enables the scholars to say that Paul's enemies were "Judaizers," rather than Jews. What they actually were is simply the followers of Jesus. That's the scholars' word-game, whose function is to hide history and distort it; not to representmuch less explainit accurately. It's one thing when theologians do this; quite another when scholars do; or are both groups the same? A likely outcome of such origins to "Christianity" would be also a turning away from Jesus' own family. Clearly, Jesus' brother James would be repudiated, and wasas we have just noted, he was even tarred with the charge of having participated in Jesus' crucifixion. Throughout the writings of Paul as the earliest known artifacts of what we now know as "Christianity," James is presented as the discredited original leader of the Jesus-sect after Jesus' own death; by the time that Paul's followers were writing the four Gospels, James has been written even out of that capacity, and we now have the myth of Mat. 16:18, with Jesus appointing as his successor Peter, not Jamesand who was Peter? According to Paul, and also to Acts, Peter was Paul's own immediate predecessor as the chief evangelist to the Gentiles; right away, Paul made that mission the core of his new church; James now became a non-person. After Paul's followers having placed words into Jesus' mouth naming Peter as his agentwhich, 196

16: Christianity's War Against Judaism if they had been true, would have meant that James would not have been Peter's superior in command within the sect after Jesus' death, which even Acts and Paul's own letters acknowledge James to have beenthey had Jesus empower Peter in a way that only God's agent over Mankind could possibly be: Mat. 16:19 has Jesus telling Peter, "I will give you the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven; what you prohibit on earth will be prohibited in heaven, and what you permit on earth will be permitted in heaven." Paul was now not only Peter's successor in the Jewish sect's mission to the Gentiles; he was, in fact (thanks to his admiring, grateful, and dutiful followers), in essence, the second Pope in his own new church. Paul was retrospectively handed "keys" that even Jesus' authentic agent, James, had never possessed. It was a religious coup d'etat with a flourish. What, then, about Jesus' other relatives? Did Paul and his followers follow through with them as wellwith Mary, for example, and with Jesus' other brothers? (Any of his sisters who were not legitimate mothers would have been non-persons in the culture anyway.) Let's see: Mark 3:21 has Jesus being "taken charge of by "his family" when trying to start his ministry. 3:31-5 has Jesus, essentially, repudiating his family: "Then Jesus' mother and brothers arrived. They stood outside the house and sent in a message, asking for Him. A crowd was sitting around Jesus, and they said to Him, 'Look, your mother and your brothers and sisters are outside, and they want you.' Jesus answered, 'Who is my mother? Who are my brothers?' He looked at the people sitting around Him and said, 'Look! Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does what God wants him to do is my brother, my sister, my mother.'" In Luke 8:21, Jesus is instead quoted here, '"My mother and brothers are those who hear the Word of God and obey it,'" clearly implying that Jesus' own "blood" (Hitler's "the Jews") did not. Matthew 10:34-37 could not be clearer on this score: '"Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the world. No, I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. I came to set sons against their fathers, daughters against their mothers, daughters-in-law against their mothers-in-law; a man's worst enemies will be the members of his own family. Whoever loves his father or mother more than he loves me is not fit to be my disciple; whoever loves his son or daughter more than he loves me is not fit to be my disciple.'" Are these authentic quotes from Jesus? The indications are that the "not peace but a sword" probably is; but the precise object of Jesus' opposition here is highly unlikely, because everything that is authentically known about the historical Jesus, and even some strong statements that 197

16: Christianity's War Against Judaism are attributed to him in the New Testament itself, present Jesus as an extremely ardent proponent of the Covenant; e.g., "Not the least point nor the smallest detail of the Law will be done away withnot until the end of all things." And, of course, one among the Ten Commandments is "Respect your father and your mother." Mark 3:31-5, and Luke 8:21 & 11:27-8 have Jesus himself violating one of the Ten Commandments by his outright repudiating his own mother, Paulianity's "Virgin Mary," no less. In addition, Richard Bauckham published in 1990 the most intensive study yet on Jude and The Relatives of Jesus in the Early Church, in which he concluded (pp. 131, 374), "the evidence . . . establishes the very considerable importance of the relatives of Jesus in the mission and leadership of the churches of Palestine in the first century after the death and resurrection of Jesus. ... Both in Jerusalem and in Galilee, until the Bar Kokhba war, the family of Jesus were the most influential and respected leaders of Jewish Christianity, at first along with members of the twelve, later more exclusively." Bauckham established beyond any reasonable doubt that not only James, Jude and Jesus' other brothers, but his sisters, uncles, aunts, and mother, were leaders in the sect, and that many of them are documented to have attended Jesus at the cross. To a large extent, the Jesus-sect of Jews was a family operation, extending well beyond merely Jesus and James. Thus, it is clear that the New Testament's portrayal of Jesus' repudiation of his blood-relatives was simply part-and-parcel of Paul's own anti-Semitic program, the coup d'etat by means of which Paul managed ultimately to replace James the brother of Jesus, with himself, and the remainder of Jesus' birth-family and other disciples, with his own followers, some of whom Paul refers to at the ends of Philemon and of Colossians as "my fellow workers," listing (among others) both times someone called "Mark" and another person by the name of "Luke," who just might possibly be the Mark who wrote the earliest of the canonical Gospels, and the Luke who wrote another of the four and also Acts. By no coincidence, one of the people that, by implication, Mark 3:31 5 and Luke 8:21 describe Jesus as repudiating, happens to be the very same James with whom Paul was competing for the leadership of what Paul was planning to be an entirely new church, Roman Catholicism. This casting-aside of Jesus' own blood-relatives additionally served another very important purpose for Paul: it helped prepare the way for the Roman conquerors of the Jews to accept ultimately as their own savior the very same person that (just as they had routinely done with all other persons who had claimed to be "King of the Jews" without Rome's appointment as such) they had crucified. It therefore is probable that Jesus' brother James was not Jesus' 198

16: Christianity's War Against Judaism enemy at the outset of Jesus' ministry as these passages imply, nor guilty of Jesus' crucifixion as Paul's Galatians 6:12 implies, and that these charges themselves violated the Commandment, "Accuse no one falsely." Paul had a mission to do, and he did it with great "success." At the very moment when Paul gave birth to the Roman Catholic Church, he slaughtered Christianity. The real "Judas" was Saint Paul, the founder of "Christianity." What the crucifixion itself had started, Paul finished. The Romans now had won not just the battle; they had won the war. But Paul's war had just started. The seeds of the Holocaust had been planted. Nor was there a drought before Hitler's flood. And that is how it came to be that the mother-church founded by Paul, the Roman Catholic Church, did not have its headquarters in Jerusalem, where Jesus' own religious organization did, but was instead headquartered in Rome, which not only was a place that Jesus never visited; it was the headquarters of the authorities who crucified him. There has been scholarly debate about whether the charge that was made in 1 Thessalonians 2:14-5 and elsewhere in the New Testament accusing "the Jews" and not "the Romans" of the Deicide was true. However, no one has explored the more-basic question of why the Roman involvement in the crucifixionwhich is accepted even by the Gospels was not so much as in a single instance in the New Testament broadened or generalized into a condemnation or damnation of all of "the Roman people" as was done there to "the Jews." Nowhere in the New Testament were they called such things as "snakes and sons of snakes" (Mat. 23:33) and "children of the devil" (John 8:44). To the contrary, passages such as Romans 13:1-7 pay homage to the Roman authorities as an agency of God Himself. That is an astounding anomaly. Yet scholars have been quiet about it. Even the fact that in Mat. 27:25 "the whole people" of "the Jews" willingly accept the hereditary nature of their own presumed guilt in the Deicide, while there is not so much as a hint anywhere in the New Testament of a comparable hereditary damnation of "the Romans," has been essentially ignored. But scholars have gone even further: in order to protect the New Testament from the charge of anti-Semitism, they have tried to push as late a date as possible for the inception of the Deicide-accusation in the New Testament. With no evidence whatsoever, many scholars have chosen to assume that 1 Thessalonians 2:14-6 was a later insertion, not by Paul himself, and that the punishment of "the Jews" that it gloats over in 2:16 is Rome's sacking of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. (and therefore 199

16: Christianity's War Against Judaism after Paul's death), instead of the expulsion of all Jews from Rome in 49 A.D. (and therefore an event that occurred shortly prior to the writing of 1 Thessalonians). The absurdity of that position is blatant not only because no evidence has ever been presented to support it, but also because 1 Thessalonians 2:14-6 itself is an integral part of the personal story and personal justification of himself and of his own actions that Paul presents in the broader passage, 1 Thes. 2:1-16. Indeed, 2:14-16 is the culmination of that passage. That fraud/cover-up passes as scholarship. Its real function is a crucial PR-one for the Christian faith itself: to pretend that so evil a thing as anti-Semitism does not go all the way back to this faith's founding, but was rather a later distortion, and thus not intrinsic to Paul's "Christianity." In fact, this passage is threatening to the scholars' cover-up also because of the direct evidence it supplies about the reason behind Paul's antiSemitism and behind his founding "Christianity" as an anti-Semitic religion: 2:16 blurts out, "They [the Jews] even tried to stop us from preaching to the Gentiles the message that would bring them salvation." It was not just the Jesus-following Jews that were rioting against Paul in Acts 21:21 forward; all Jews were outraged at Paul's preachments that God had renounced the Covenant and replaced it with a new one, superseding their religion and themselves as "God's Chosen People." Thus, with the exception of the small number of former Jews who remained in Paul's congregations and whom Paul tried to pacify with statements such as Romans 9-11, all Jews and not only the Jesus-following ones "tried to stop us from preaching to the Gentiles the message that would bring them salvation," as Paul put it. The scholars thus cannot accept the plain meaning of 1 Thes. 2:14-6 for two reasons: first, that it introduces the anti-Semitic Deicide-charge too early in the new faith's founding to suit their liking, inasmuch as the falsity of that charge is now blatant even to most of them; and second, that it blurts out the real reason behind that anti-Semitism, and thus exposes also the real reason behind the founding of the world's largest religion. And, of course, one way that scholars have tried to deal with these problems is to declare 2:14-16 to have been a later insertion. So this is done not actually to protect Paulianity, but rather to protect the credibility of religion itself. Thus scholarship contorts itself to accommodate the needs of the respectability of the myths of the predominantly religious culture in which it is embedded, rather than the needs or requirements of science. The result is scholarship, as ever, as a Ptolemaic monstrosity, which collapses from its ever-increasing weight of external falsehoods and internal contradictions. The present book holds up a mirror to it. The unvarnished reality is that, far from Paul's not having been an anti-Semite, the removal 200

16: Christianity's War Against Judaism of anti-Semitism from his "Christianity" would leave it an empty hulk; the faith's entire cargo depends upon that dangerous and false ingredient. Scholarship, by its proposing, and subsequent failure to discredit and condemn, such cover-ups as the dismissal of 1 Thes. 2:14-16 as "not authentic," actually acquiesces in religious bigotry out of obeisance to religion per se, more than to any particular faith such as "Christianity" itself. That is how corrupt the institution of scholarship is: its commitment is not to any particular faith against others, but to faith itself against science. That is epistemological corruption; and a more-profound corruption cannot exist. Paul's continuing "success" has come to depend upon precisely such epistemological corruption. And that is how it came to be that Jesus of Nazareth, who lived and died as the founder/leader of a tiny sect within a religion whose First Commandment was "Worship no God but Me. ... Do not bow down to any idol or worship it, because I am the Lord your God and I tolerate no rivals," came himself to be worshipped after his death as an idol not just in his own person but in "graven images" to which worshippers even did "bow down," in direct violation of the chief requirement of the faith he practised and preached his own life, and to have as professed followers adherents not to this faith, but rather to a different one founded after his death, whose teachings, and whose very symbols of the crucifix and the blood of this very same Jesus of Nazareth, were built largely upon the demonization of the faith that he had spent his own life struggling to protect and to promote. To hate Jews is to hate Jesus; and Saint Paul's "success" was to trick billions of people into worshipping his mythological Jesus by actually hating the real, flesh-and-blood, historical Jesus, the Jew. Indeed, it is perhaps the supreme irony of all history, that in order for Paul to succeed in deceiving billions of people to worship his concocted Jesus, he made them hate, as supposed Christ-killers and children of Satan, Jews, who included the authentic Jesussomeone these "Christians" consequently were profoundly alienated from. This was a cosmic tragedy, with massive historical victimization not only of Jews, but of "Christians" as well. If the Antichrist were not a fictional character, created by whomever was the actual author of 1 John, then, in fact, the AntiChrist would be Saint Paul, the founder of "Christianity," and the real inspirer of 1 John and of nearly all the rest of the New Testament. In this sense, Hitler can be viewed as the greatest fool of the AntiChrist. But really, he was just Paul's greatest foolsuch a great dupe in fact that Hitler not only became convinced that the "Jesus" that Paul 201

16: Christianity's War Against Judaism had invented was not a Jew, but that Hitler condemned Paul himself for having been born a Jew. Perhaps Paul today would consider that he had been too successful. But then again, perhaps not, for Paul had said in 1 Corinthians 9:257: "Every athlete in training submits to strict discipline, in order to be crowned with a wreath that will not last; but we do it for one that will last forever. This is why I run straight for the finish line; this is why I am like a boxer who does not waste his punches. I harden my body with blows and bring it under complete control, to keep myself from being disqualified after having called others to the contest." If Hitler answered this call with total commitment, then did not Paul "harden my body with blows" sufficient to absorb a blow even from such a team-mate? We shall never know, for Paul has left us. It is only his heritage that lives on. That heritage includes, among other things, a focus on personally winning a place in heaven, the "afterlife" that Hitler said that all truly religious people, such as himself, believed in and aim for. As Paul put it, in Philippians 3:14, "I run straight toward the goal in order to win the prize, which is God's call through Jesus Christ to the life above." Paul was going to "win" the "prize" by converting the world to his invented "Christ." Hitler was going to win it by exterminating Satan's spawn, according to that invented "Christ." As for the real Jesus, Paul was so extremely successful that that person has been lost to history, except by what he was notsuch as that he was never a "Christian," and that if he were ever to come back to Earth, then this "King of the Jews" and "Savior of the Jewish people" would likely drop his sword (if he ever really carried one) and weep uncontrollably. PAUL'S FOLLOWERS FOLLOW THROUGH STRIPPING JESUS OF HIS FAMILY Paul had only begun the job of de-naturalizing Jesus so as to remove him from his family and from other Jews. Key follow-throughs. carried out by Paul's followers, consisted of the introduction of the myth of the Virgin Birth, which severed the blood-line on Jesus' father's side, including the descent from King David, the supposed prophesied ancestor of all subsequent legitimate Kings of the Jews; and the Resurrection-myth; and also, quite possibly, the wholesale invention of a certain character named "Zebedee." We will take the last of these first, since it picks up directly from Paul's own efforts to diminish James. Although Paul, writing at a relatively early time, could not be credible without acknowledging, as he did in Galatians 1:19, that even only shortly after Jesus' death, James was not only "the Lord's brother," continued 202

16: Christianity's War Against Judaism but was also an "apostle," and even a leading one if not in fact the leading one; the four Gospel authors were not subject to such constraints: their readers had no personal recollections of such matters. Consequently, John, produced the last of all, was even able to say, in 7:5, "Not even His brothers believed in Him"; in other words, that no brother of Jesus was among the 12 apostles. The way that the Gospel writers removed James from that group, while at the same time not blatantly violating such written records as then still existed, was by acknowledging that the three leading apostles of Jesus were named "James," "John," and "Peter," but calling this "James" (and also his brother John) "sons of Zebedee," meaning "sons of God's gift," which in those times could have been understood as consistent with their being, in fact, sons of Joseph, Jesus' own father. Thus, passages such as Mark 5:37,9:2,13:3,14:33; Matthew 17:1 & 26:37; and Luke 8:51 & 9:28all acknowledging that the three leading apostles were named Peter, James, and Johnmight have been referring to the very same three leaders of the sect that Paul himself identified in Galatians 2:9. Acts 12:2 would then be fictitious. The "Virgin Mary" matter concerns Joseph in a different way: it was he who carried the prophesied Davidic blood-connection. In order for a believing Jew to accept Jesus as the foretold Jewish Messiah who would save the Jews from the suffering and injustice of their being subject to alien kings and restore the Davidic line, such a believing Jew would have to reject this severing of Jesus' bloodline-connection and consider Jesus to have been truly the son of his human father, Joseph, who of course carried that bloodline-connection according even to the standard Christian accounts. And thus, in order for a believing Jew to accept Jesus as the foretold Jewish messiah, he/she would have to reject the virginity of Jesus' birth. The Virgin-Birth myth, therefore, established an unbreachable wall separating Jews from accepting Jesus as the Jewish messiah, and thus from Christian salvation. If the First-Commandment prohibition against worshipping anything other than the one, unitary, Jewish God were not enough to lock Jews out of Christianity, then the Christian doctrine of the Virgin-Birth alone would have sufficed to do the job. Of course, Paul's followers did not want to make it obvious to non-Jews that Jews were being locked out of the Christian faith; after all, this faith was itself based on the myth that it was the very fulfillment of Jewish Scripture. That, in fact, was its claim to legitimacy. It therefore became necessary for Paul's followers to find within Jewish Scripture a supposed prophesy if not requirement for the virginity of Jesus' birth. Unfortunately, no such prophesy, much less requirement, existed there; so one had to be invented. Isaiah 7:14 was settled upon for the purpose. It said that "a young woman who is pregnant will have a son and will name him 'Immanuel' [meaning 'God is with us']." The original is in Hebrew, and uses the term continued 203

16: Christianity's War Against Judaism "almah," which meant "young woman" or "maiden," such as virtually all women were then who were giving birth. There was nothing extraordinary about that aspect of the prediction; for a young woman to give birth was commonplace. However, Paul's followers retrospectively changed the prediction to the supremely extraordinary "a virgin who is pregnant will have a son," and this was not only extraordinaryit was miraculous; it was thoroughly unnatural, if not outright impossible. The Hebrew term for "virgin" was "bethulah." As was mentioned, "almah" was the term used in Isaiah 7:14. But no matter: a "young woman" became a "virgin," just so that Joseph and thus King David could be obliterated from Jesus' biological family and thus from Paul's enemies in Paul's own time. (Some of the newer translations of the Bible have restored the original reference here to that of a young woman: The Good News or Today's English Version, Revised Standard Version, New English Bible, and Jerusalem Bible.) Perhaps this is one reason why the Church didn't mind that whereas in Matthew 1:1-17, fewer than 30 generations separated Jesus from King David, more than 40 generations did so in Luke 3:23-38. This was just a Jewish matter anyway; the followers of Paul didn't really care about it. As the courageous renegade Bishop John Shelby Spong noted in his 1992 Born of a Woman (p. 79), Isaiah 7:14 actually had nothing to do with the birth of Jesus of Nazareth. "The Virgin Mary" was a purely Christian myth. However, it also served other purposes that we have not mentioned: the Church extended this "virginity" to Mary's last days, just so that James, Jude, and perhaps other reallife brothers and sisters of Jesus, could be said not to have been blood-relatives, but rather "adopted" siblings. According to the Church, Mary never had sexual intercourse (except, perhaps, with God); her marriage to Joseph was unconsummated. In a less obvious way, the myth of physical Resurrection served also to separate Jesus from his actual followers: as explained by Elaine Pagels in her 1989 The Gnostic Gospels (pp. 6-ff), this myth "legitimizes the authority of certain men who claim to exercise exclusive leadership over the churches as the successors of the apostle Peter. From the second century, the doctrine has served to validate the apostolic succession of bishops, the basis of papal authority to this day." In other words, it assisted Paul's coup d 'etat against the religious organization that Jesus had founded and that had been headed by Jesus' brother James after Jesus' own death. From these examples, as well as those of Paul's own time, such as the replacement of circumcision by baptism, it can be seen that the process of religious myth-construction can be shaped by clear-cut political designs and agendas, which then may reverberate amongst the fooled ones and their victims for thousands of years afterwards.


16: Christianity's War Against Judaism PAUL'S FOLLOWERS FOLLOW THROUGH WITH PAUL'S UNCONCERN FOR TRUTH Paul had set the tone: Winning isn't the main thing, it's the only thing; scapegoat "the Jews" so as to be able to win the non-Jews; fabricate whatever you must in order to win "the prize" (as 1 Cor. 9:22-25 had put it). In line with this, it seems not to have mattered at all to Paul's followers writing the Gospels, when they placed words into the mouth of Jesus that presented Jesus as lying just as they and their leader Paul didsuch as in the following instances: '"I pass judgment on no one.'" Jesus in John 8:15. "T have much to say in judgment of you.'" Jesus in John 8:26. They can't both be true; they logically contradict each other; in order for one of these statements to be true, the other must be false. In which of these two instances is this "Jesus" lying? And in which of these two: "'Why do you disobey God's command and follow your own teaching? For God said, "Respect your father and your mother." ... But you teach that if a person has something he could use to help his father or mother, but says, "This belongs to God," he does not need to honor his father. In this way you disregard God's command in order to follow your own teaching. You hypocrites!'" Jesus in Matthew 15:3-7. "'I came to set sons against their fathers, daughters against their mothers...; a man's worst enemies will be the members of his own family. Whoever loves his father or mother more than he loves me is not fit to be my disciple.'" Jesus in Matthew 10:35-37. They can't both be true. Which "Jesus" in Matthew's account is lying? Their real model, of course, was not the real Jesus, but the real Paulthe Paul who, in 1 Cor. 9:22-25, said, "I become all things to all men," and who, a few verses later, in 10:33, instructed his followers, "Just do as I do; I try to please everyone." But when Paul then said, "Imitate me, just as I imitate Christ," perhaps there was a twinkle in his eye; and maybe this was even accompanied by knowing chuckles from the real authors of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. For example, as "Luke" wrote in Acts, his "history" of the founding of "Christianity," at 9:15, concerning Jesus' supposed posthumous appearance to a "Christian" in a vision, instructing continued 205

16: Christianity's War Against Judaism him to follow Paul: "The Lord said to him, 'Go to Paul, because I have chosen him to serve me, to make my name known to Gentiles and kings and to the people of Israel.'" Of course, nobody is laughing today: The joke's on us; Paul's victory came at our expense.

THE CENTRAL QUESTIONS THAT PAULINE SCHOLARS CHOOSE TO AVOID In order for things to have continued this long to be the way they are, it has been necessary for Pauline scholars to avoid dealing with the mostimportant questions concerning Paul and the founding of "Christianity." One of the reasons these great issues are ignoredor, at best, addressed only in passing and timorously to no conclusionmight be the revolving door that sometimes exists between positions of partisan theological employment on the one hand, and supposedly "objective" scholarly university appointments on the other. For example, one prominent Pauline scholar, Krister Stendahl (referred to herein in two other places than this), was ordained as a priest in one church in 1944, then in another in 1951, then taught at Harvard Divinity School starting in 1954, became a Guggenheim Fellow in 1959, served as the Vice President of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences from 1968-72, joined the Executive Council of the Lutheran Church in America in 1968, became Dean of Harvard Divinity School from 1968-79, was again appointed a Guggenheim Fellow in 1974. and became consecrated as Bishop of Stockholm in 1984. In affairs between government and industry, the revolving door is publicly criticized, but here we have a person who elicited no complaint as to his scholarly objectivity when alternating as "investigator" and preacher of Paul's doctrines. These are the central questions that such people avoid: 1) If Paul's own testimony concedes that he was required to justify to the leaders of the Jesus-sect of Jewsthe Jesus appointed James and the other followers of JesusPaul's abandonment of the Genesis 17:14 circumcisionrequirement, then does not this fact, reluctantly admitted even by Paul, prove that Jesus had himself been the founder of a sect of Judaism, not of Paul's "Christianity"; and why do you not even discuss the possibility of such a religious coup d'etat by Paul? continued 206

16: Christianity's War Against Judaism 2) If Paul's arguments in favor of elimination of the circumcisionrequirement relied for their authority not on Jesus but on Jewish Scripture, then does this not indicate that his audience recognized themselves to be followers in a Jewish sect, not in a new religion; and what does this implicit acknowledgement by Paul of lack of authorization from Jesus for Paul's abandonment of the Jewish Covenant indicate about the authenticity of Paul's claim to be a follower of Jesus? 3) Why do you interpret the conflicts over circumcision as being a result of Paul's abandonment of the Jewish Covenant, when vast evidence, even within Paul's own writings, indicates instead that Paul's abandonment of the Jewish Covenant was the result of the conflicts over circumcision; and why do you not even discuss the possibility that that is the case? 4) Why do you ignore that the circumcision-requirement constituted an inevitable threat to Paul's ability to succeed at his mission in life of converting large numbers of Gentile adult males in an era that knew no anaesthesia, and not even antibiotics? 5) Why do you ignore Paul's citing Jewish Scripture rather than Jesus' words and arguments, as authority for Paul's new "Christian" covenant of faithand-grace; and what do you think is indicated about the authenticity of this "Christian" covenant by Paul's pathetic attempt to ground it in Jewish Scripture rather than in Jesus? 6) If you nonetheless continue to believe that Jesus established "Christianity," then when and how did he do it; at what point did he break away from the claim of being King of the Jews, to claiming and being the Lord of all Mankind and of all creation; and from supporting the Jewish Covenant, to replacing that with salvation by faith-and-grace alone? 7) If Jesus established "Christianity," then why was his successor, his own brother James, the head of a Jewish sect, rather than of this new religion with a new covenant? 8) If despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, such as Galatians and Acts both portraying James as superior in the organization to Peter, you nonetheless believe that Peter rather than James was Jesus' appointed successor, then what evidence can you present that Peter was officiating in that capacity in a new religion rather than in a sect of Judaism? continued


16: Christianity's War Against Judaism Those are the key questions. I ask them here not as a scholar, but as a scientist who is also an investigative reporter. Thus far, the scholars have remained silent. Perhaps you will have better luck: if other members of the general public than simply myself confront the "experts" with these questions, then perhaps the "experts" will answer. The middle-part of Appendix 2-F probes further the scandalousness of Pauline scholarship.

THE CENTRAL POINT AT ISSUE Suppose that we grant the scholars their basic point; namely that Paul's conflict with the Jerusalem community was about the entire Covenant, rather than about the circumcision-law (Genesis 17:14). In other words, suppose that we were to follow the scholars' line, that Paul's objection to the Covenant was sincerely principled as he claimed, even if the Torah-arguments that Paul presented to support it were invalid, and that his objection to the Covenant was not just a pretext he employed in order to free his adult male Gentile "converts" from the requirement that they go under the knife in an era that knew neither anaesthesia nor antibiotics. Would we then end up with their conclusion; namely that Paul's claim to be following the faith that Jesus had promulgated was not a hoax? Not at all. Here is why: We are now accepting the scholars' line, that Paul really did see the threat to the success of his life's mission, indicated in Galatians 2:2, as being all the laws of the Covenant, not merely the circumcision-law. We are accepting, in other words, the sincerity of Paul's repeated assertions that not even Jews have succeeded at following the Covenant, and the implication that prospective Gentile converts were rejecting the Covenant as impossible to follow. We are specifically interpreting the blowup, at Galatians 2:12, as being about not the circumcision-law, but some other law or laws, such as kashruth, the dietary laws (Leviticus 17), such as the requirement to drain a carcass' blood before serving it as meat. Supposedly, it was these things, not even circumcision, that Paul's "converts" would not do, and which were causing them to communicate to Paul that they would join or stay in Paul's faith only if the faith did not require them to do these thingsnot to "love your neighbor as yourself," etc., but rather not to eat un-kosher food, etc. In other words, according to the scholars' interpretation, not only was the barrier not the prospective converts' fear of the pain and danger of the circumcision-operation, and not only was it not their unwillingness continued 208

16: Christianity's War Against Judaism to follow the moral rules such as Leviticus 19:18 ("love your neighbor as yourself), but these people weren't willing to make even a few minor dietary changes in order to win their salvation as Paul's "Christians." That's how low Paul set the bar. This is according to the scholars. According to the scholars, Paul's "converts" would not follow even the easiest-to-follow laws, which Jews themselves had no difficulty following. It was over these "converts" that Paul and James came to their blowup in Galatians 2:12. According to the scholars. Not only do the scholars posit a slimier, more repulsive, Paul, than I do; but at the same time they imply a Jamesand entire Jesus-communitywho themselves were so low that they would even have seriously considered "converts" on such ultra-cheap terms. There is no evidence (unless Paul's own, and the scholars', bizarre twistings of terms and of meanings, constitute "evidence") that the actual followers of Jesus were like that. Furthermore, it is unlikely that Paul himself was so thoroughly despicable as the scholars are implicitly assuming: Paul, far from being so utterly unprincipled that his objection to the Covenant was sincerely "principled" on the scholars' terms (and we are talking here of the unsustainability of their assumptions in terms of their logical inconsistency, quite apart from their content), was a totally dedicated man, very hardworking, and willing to place himself in great physical jeopardy in order to advance his cause. Of course, so too are some very evil people, such as Adolf Hitler, or some leaders of organized crime. Even those people do not fit the implicit caricature of Paul that is buried in scholars' analyses. To assume that the blowup in Galatians 2:12 was over mere "tablefellowship," or that Paul would have been unwilling to demand of his "converts" even their adherence to the kosher-lawsmuch less their undergoing the knife is simply unrealistic. There is no evidence that that was the case. Paul was faced with a very real problem, which the scholars consistently underestimate: the success of his life's mission required him to abandon Genesis 17:14. Since this was a Jewish sect, Paul was compelled to make a case for doing so based upon the Torah. He quickly came to the realization that he could not even make a phony Torah-case for this, without his arguing for the invalidity of the entire Covenant: if the Covenant was still binding, then Paul would have to put his "converts" under the knife, which would scare practically all of them away. Thus, clearly, Paul had to argue that the Covenant was no longer binding. And he had to accept the continuing authority of the Torah as his basis for terminating the Covenant. The scholars' position is unsustainable. Of course, they will say that what is unsustainable is the present attack against their views on these matters. That kind of fraud will succeed for a while; but the world is increasingly battering down the walls of that prison called "authority." No fraud can remain safe. 209

16: Christianity's War Against Judaism

OTHER LIES AND DISTORTIONS FROM THE "EXPERTS" The middle part of Appendix 2-F provides further explorations into a number of other falsehoods that scholars have prominently peddled so as to sustain a favorable image of Saint Paul. The interested reader is referred there for discussions of: the falsehood that Paul's vicious statements shouldn't be taken seriously, because he was writing figuratively not literally the falsehood that Paul's rejection of "works" and "the Law" referred only to religious ceremonies and rituals, and did not pertain to moral laws the falsehood that Paul's rejection of "works" and "the Law" referred only to ethnocentrically exclusionary aspects of Judaism the falsehood that Paul's opponents whom he wrote condemning as Judaizing Christians were Gentile Christians, not Jewish ones the falsehood that Paul was not an anti-Semite, but instead a great proponent of Jews and Judaism within early Christianity the falsehood that the historical truth about Christianity is unimportant or even irrelevant because religion is supernatural or "spiritual." Appendix 2-F exposes the scholarly community as being no more-reliable a source of "information" about religionor about the Christian religion in particularthan the manufacturer of a commercial product is about its product. One should not ignore such "information" from a product's manufacturer, but one should expect it to be very biased. And if there is no legal or regulatory liability for a manufacturer's lies about its products, then one should expect such "information" to include lies. The scholarly community's assertions about Christianity are subject to no external liability for lies, and thus are as unreliable as manufacturers' assertions under the worst of circumstances. The six falsehoods listed here are examples.


16: Christianity's War Against Judaism THE CRUDENESS OF THE SCHOLARS The many problems that have here been noted regarding Pauline and early Christian scholarship share in common a cultural crudeness, a failure to consider the circumstances in which the Jews, the Gentiles, the Jesus-followers, the Roman rulers, and even Paul himself, had to function. The scholars have treated the Jews as if "the Law" could be overthrown and even stamped upon contemptuously, without overthrowing and disrespecting their very religion. The scholars have ignored that, for the Jews of that time, repudiation of the laws that were promulgated in the Pentateuch or Torah, meant repudiation of what these people held to be their Covenant with God, their religion, Judaism itself, the values that they held dearest of all. Many scholars have even treated what was at issue for the Jews as if only Jewish rituals were at stakerituals that these scholars disrespectedwhen the actual stakes were the entire religion, including all but the first of the Ten Commandments, because Paul was saying that salvation now no longer required obedience to the other commandments. It was these people's religion that Paul was trashing. The scholars have failed also to put themselves into the place of adult male Gentiles living in an era that knew neither anaesthesia nor antibiotics, who were asked to have their penises cut as a precondition to enter the faith. The scholars have utterly failed to integrate into their understanding of the Jesus-followers in the First Century, that they worshipped a man whom the Roman Empire had executed for sedition. These people were in a very politically charged situation as regards Rome. Paul is treated as if it were not inevitable that his pro-Roman orientation would brand him among Jews as a traitor. The scholars have discussed the Roman rulers as if they had any alternative but to treat Jesus and his followersand all other independenceoriented Jewsas enemies. The scholars have discussed Paul as if his mission to the Gentiles, under these circumstances, were not a political and cultural minefield. Scholarship on Paul accepts all-too-readily Paul's own etherialized, supernatural, presentation of himself, rather than even attempts to understand the man and his writings in the context of his situation. In these respects, the cultural crudeness of the scholars can reasonably be compared with the cultural crudeness of Adolf Hitler, who also had a blindness to the cultural situation of individuals and peoples who faced challenges different from his own.


16: Christianity's War Against Judaism

THE PATENT FALSENESS OF THE SCHOLARS Scholars disagree among themselves. But in order for them, as a professional sub-culture, to hold fast to Paul's fraud that the religion he was preaching was founded by Jesus of Nazareth rather than by himself as perpetrator of a coup d'etat against the religious organization that had been established by Jesus, all scholars have selected to promote and endorse one or more of the following falsehoods: 1: 1 Thessalonians 2:14-6 was a later insertion, not by Paul. 2: Galatians 2:2 is not referring to the conflict over circumcision. 3: Circumcision was an issue because the Covenant was an issue. 4: The "garbage" that Paul discarded in Philippians 3:8 was not Judaism. 5: Paul's opponents were not Jews. 6: Jesus' followers when Paul joined the faith were not Jews. 7: Jesus was crucified under Jewish Law, not Roman Law. 8: Circumcision was no big problem for Paul's "converts." 9: Paul's "gospel" was that of Jesus, not created by Paul himself. 10: Jesus passed leadership to Peter, not to James. 11: Paul's "gospel" was not intended to supersede the Jewish Covenant. 12: Galatians 2:12 does not represent the birth of Paul's "Christianity." 13: The four Gospel writers were followers of Jesus, not of Paul. 14: The doctrine of the Virgin-Birth is not anti-Semitic. 15: The choice of the Crucifix as the faith's symbol was not anti-Semitic. 16: The wine as Christ's blood at Mass was also not anti-Semitically intended. 17: Galatians 6:12 does not refer to what 1 Thessalonians 2:15 does: Deicide-guilt. Those will suffice for starters. Can anyone specify any other field of scholarly "expertise" that has a greater reliance upon a greater number of falsehoods than does Pauline/early-Christian-history scholarship? What could account for such a heavy dependence upon so many falsehoods? The answer is obvious.


16: Christianity's War Against Judaism

WHAT KIND OF A MAN WAS PAUL? It is hardperhaps impossibleto imagine a human being more effective, or even one might say more powerful, than Paul. His impact upon the world has been awesome. Other than in occasional bragging about his "revelation" he was modest, making no claim to be a God. He acknowledged his own humanity, even his frailty. But when in 1 Cor. 9:25 he asserted that he was competing to be crowned with a prize "that will last forever," even this proved to be mere idle boast, but rather the expression of an iron will, backed up by a boundless ambition, that was harnessed to a foresightfulness and an ability that even the largest modern corporation could only dream of attracting to its chiefexecutiveship. But compared with any mere tycoon in history, Paul was simply in a different league, and played for vastly higher stakes. Thus, if sheer ability is to be measured by its impact, then Paul was perhaps the most able human being in history. In 2 Corinthians, Paul describes his own appearance and even sound: 10:10 asserts, "they say, 'Paul's letters are weighty and powerful, but his appearance is weak, and as a speaker he is beneath contempt'"; 11:6, that "What I may lack as a speaker, I make up for in knowledge." Acts, written by Paul's follower Luke, in 14:12 states that at Iconium the crowd called Paul's partner Barnabas "Zeus," the mighty king of the gods, whereas Paul himself was referred to as "Hermes," the small, wiry and articulate messenger who carried communications amongst the gods. This man who probably made a bigger impact upon human history than any other person who ever lived, was obviously not physically imposing to either the eyes or ears. His letters speak with unimpeachable authority about the man's values. He sought mutual love and harmony amongst his co-believers, irrespective of their nationality or background, including both Jews and Gentiles. Yet he still supported status-distinctions that transcended whether you were "with him" or "against him" in terms of religion: not even all "Christians" were full-fledged members of "the People of God," and differences of intrinsic individual rights and obligations existed for him even amongst his followers. Here are some prominent examples: Romans 13:1-3: "Let everyone obey the authorities that are over him, for there is no authority except from God, and all authority that exists is established by God. As a consequence, he who opposes authority rebels against God, and draws damnation upon himself. For those with power are feared only by the evil ones." 1 Corinthians 11:3&7&8&9: "God is supreme over Christ, Christ is supreme over every man, and every man is supreme over his wife. ... A man reflects the image and glory of God. But a woman reflects the glory of continued 213

16: Christianity's War Against Judaism a man; for man was not created from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man created to serve woman, but woman was created to serve man." Romans 1:27&32: "Men give up natural sexual relations with women and burn with passion for each other. . .. They deserve to die." If one is to include the "Paul" of the epistles whose authorship by him is in doubt, then the following as well: Ephesians 6:5: "Slaves, obey your human masters with fear and trembling; and do it with a sincere heart, as thought you were serving Christ." (See also Col. 3:22, 1 Tim. 6:1, & Tit. 2:9.) 1 Timothy 2:11-15: "Women should learn in silence and all humility. I do not allow them to teach or to have authority over men. For Adam was created first, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and broke God's law. But a woman will be saved through having children." Ephesians 5:22: "Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands as to the Lord." (See also Col. 3:18.) Likewise of questioned authenticity and doubted authority, but about Paul rather than asserted to be by him, is Acts, which purports to contain information about Paul's biography (beyond that which we have already presented, with more-certain veracity, from Paul himself). Especially pertinent to Paul's values is the following: Acts calls Paul by the name of "Saul" up until 13:9, at which point it makes the change simply by saying, "... then Saul, also known as Paul, . . ." The Context of the change suggests an explanation for the change: 13:7-9, discussing Paul's early career as an evangelist for Jesus as the Christ, introduces a certain Scrgius Paulus, "who was an intelligent man," and who was Rome's appointed governor of Crete. By 13:12, Paul has succeeded in converting Paulus. The general inference has been that Saul dropped his Jewish name for a Greco-Roman one, "Paul," in honor of his first major Gentile convert. Perhaps at that very moment he had dreams of ultimately converting all the Roman rulers. Elsewhere in Acts (e.g., 22:25 & 23:27), we learn that Paul had been born not just a Jew but a "Roman citizen," and received privileged Roman treatment for that, which was not available to just normal Jews. In other words, right from the start, it seems that Paul knew where the power lay, and that he went for it. To Paul: Where power was, God was.




17: Bringing It All Together

Historical causation is complex in ways that theorists have never imagined: If the First-Century man we know as Paul of Tarsus had placed honor above success, then the 20th-Century man we know as Adolf Hitler would never have perpetrated the Holocaust, and would quite possibly never have come to power at all in Germany, because Hitler's mission in life would never have had the raison d'etre, the reason-to-be, that drove himhe said like a sleepwalker to need that power. Furthermore, Hitler, without that Jew-hatred, would never have been so obsessed with the possibility of his having had a Jewish grandfather, as to have had leeches "purify" his blood, and finally as to organize the Holocausta massive campaign to "purify" Germany itself of what Hitler viewed as its "blood poisoning." Nor would the German masses have hated Jews eitherthey, too, after all, had gotten their anti-Semitism from the same ultimate source as had Hitler himself. And that source was Paul. In fact, if Paul had placed honor above success, thenunless someone else had taken his place and done what he did; which is highly unlikely, since what Paul did was really quite oddhistory itself would have been different in more ways than we can even imagine. Christmas would have continued to have been celebrated as the birthday of Mithras and of Sol Invictus; art would have had different iconography; the Crusades as we know them would never have been; etc. Would Western culture have risen to dominate the world as it has done? Perhaps more so; perhaps less so; it is hard enough to explain what has happened; only a god itself would be able to explain what would have happened, if... For example, 216

17: Bringing It All Together what would have happened if there had never been a Holocaust? Would one of the people that Hitler exterminated have become the next Albert Einstein and the greatest physicist of the 20th Century? No one knows; no one will ever know. The road not taken, is the road never known. Robert Frost captured this in his poem, "The Road Not Taken": Two roads diverged in a yellow wood, And sorry I could not travel both And be one traveler, long I stood And looked down one as far as I could To where it bent in the undergrowth; ... I shall be telling this with a sigh Somewhere ages and ages hence: Two roads diverged in a wood, and I I took the one less traveled by, And that has made all the difference. Decisions make a difference in historya big difference. It's not only guns, germs, and steel; it's also ideas, will, and individuals. Whoever imagines otherwise, does not understand history. The Holocaust was the result of decisions made not only by Hitler and, without a doubt, he was the indispensable componentbut by millions of Germans, who voted for him; and by conservative German politicians such as von Papen and Hindenburg, who helped bring Hitler to power. It was also the result of decisions by Germans to cany out Hitler's will; but once Hitler had obtained power, the fate of German Jews was as certain as is the fate of a mouse being carried in the mouth of a cat who has caught it. Only details had then to be settled upon: how he would kill them. Surely, though, Hitler did intend to kill them; we know this not only by his having sometimes acknowledged the fact, but, even more importantly, by his obsessive desire to scoop Jews up from France and his other conquered countries, so as to ship them off to his death-factories. JudenreinJew-cleansedwas Hitler's policy not merely for Germany, but for the world. Of the estimated near-six-million Jews that Hitler slaughtered, only about 210,000 (3 1/2%) were Germans. (This number represented 91% of pre-Holocaust German Jewry.) In fact, if anything distinguishes the Holocaust from other genocides (besides the mere fact that this one was by far the largest), it was precisely the transcendence in this case of purely national borders. That distinction is basic. However, Hitler was not so naive or callow a leader as to imagine 217

17: Bringing It All Together that such an unprecedented bureaucratization of mass death could simply be imposed upon a nation at one fell swoop as a mere Fuhrer-decree; not only his own nation but the entire world had to be made ready for so drastic a measure. As a gifted and masterful leader, he understood implicitly the leader's function: to build consensus around the ultimate objective that he was convinced was required; to bring his people along, by a succession of steps, toward that ultimate policy as a natural outcome; indeed, as an emerging national consensus, at least of his nation's leadership-group. Hitler did this effectively: his "final solution" became the only solution. The consensus with which he started was only for the elimination of the Jews, which could mean either expulsion or extermination. (Stcrlizing the Jews was ruled out by Hitler: as an alternative to extermination, it might have drawn too much support.) Expulsion obviously had to be presented as having been tried but failed; only then could the entire hierarchy unite behind Hitler's plan to carry out God's "admonition finally to put an end to the permanently continuous original sin of a race poisoning and to give the Almighty Creator beings as He Himself created them." Mere expulsion could provide no such assurance. But a display nonetheless had to be made. By January 1939, Hitler's official policy was for the expulsion of all Jews. By June 1940, it was for their expulsion specifically to Madagascar a goal even less practicable than expulsion itself, since the "Madagascar Plan" required as prerequisites the defeat of both France and England, and could thus realistically not even be considered as a short-term measure which is what it was presented as being. Hitler knew better. And along the way, he skillfully set up numerous highly visible public displays of the unwillingness of foreign nations to accept the flood of dispossessed Jews that he was offering as refugees. (As Rudolph Binion noted in his 1976 Hitler Among the Germans, pp. 29-30, Hitler had even fired Reichsbank chief Hjalmar Schacht early in 1939 because Schacht had been too effective in promoting the expulsion of Jews; and both Binion, and Richard Breitman's 1991 The Architect of Genocide, pp. 50-1, documented that even Hitler had acknowledged that expulsion of Jews was really intended as nothing more than "exporting anti-Semitism.") Hitler gleefully observed the embarrassment of other countries that proclaimed their opposition to antiSemitism but that turned a cold shoulder to these desperate refugees. Hitler was trying expulsion; other nations just refused to receive what he was offering them. The United States, for example, not only did not increase its immigration-quota for Jews; it failed even to admit as many Jews as the official quota permitted. David S. Wyman's 1984 The Abandonment of 218

17: Bringing It All Together the Jews documents (pp. 100, 365, 410) the repeated refusal of President Franklin D. Roosevelt to meet with Jewish leaders to deal with the problem, and also establishes the President's own personal knowledge of the Nazis' antiSemitic exterminations. For Hitler, such international response was itself part of the "sleepwalking" toward genocide. By the time of the Wannsee Conference on 20 January 1942 to coordinate the actions of all state agencies involved with the "final solution," all participants were reading their respective roles from a playbook written by none other than the Fuhrer himself. And by that time, they were all prepared for those rolesknew them by heart, actually. When three days later, on 23 January, Hitler in his Secret Conversations (Table-Talk) addressed Himmler sarcastically about the matter, Himmler understood very well what he meant by saying of his policy toward the Jews, "I'm extraordinarily humane. . . . But if they refuse to leave voluntarily, I see no other solution than extermination." The Jews never were to be expelled; the entire world was to be made Judenrein. The universalism of this policy was, itself, a sign of its religious origin: Hitler, like any fundamentalist, was convinced of the universality of the moral principles that motivated him. This universalism was shared by the medieval Crusaders who had sought to win the world to God. For Hitler, it was not enough merely to "purify" Germany; his vision was global because it was universal, founded upon the bedrock moral principles with which he had been raised. Adolf Hitler was a Crusader. One might reasonably be uncertain, however, regarding the extent to which Hitler was actually concerned with anyone's welfare but his own; after all, the Holocaust was his personal ticket to salvationan eternity in heaven rather than in the Jews' hell where he would be surrounded by other "people of the devil." If the cost of his ticket of eternal membership was to be the deaths of millionsnot only Jews, but others that he viewed as imperfect, diseased, defective, and not such as to "give the Almighty Creator beings as He Himself created them"then so much the better; for all these were "people of the devil"; Hitler's God would smile upon his great service in carrying out upon them the vengeance of the Lord. The more horrifying that vengeance, the better. Imperfections did not exist in the Garden of Eden; Hitler would see to it that God was once again pleased. He was the good boy, doing what Daddy in heaven wanted done; he would "shoulder this burden" so as to please his Father in heaven. Was this self-serving? That depends on how you look at it. He served God in order to join Him in heaven. Heaven was Hitler's sought-for payoff. The Holocaust was his ticket to heaven, his proudest service to Christ. 219

17: Bringing It All Together In Mein Kampf, Hitler said something intimately revealing about his most personal, and even deeply private, religious convictions: after asserting of "the Jew," that he "does not recognize any belief in the hereafter," he stated, "But in the Aryan conception one cannot conceive of a religion which lacks the conviction of the continuation of life after death." He did not say anything about what this heaven, or afterlife, was like; but he clearly, as an "Aryan," prided himself on a belief in it, "in some form." And also, by the distinction he was here making, between "the Jew" and "the Aryan," this "afterlife" was supposed to be distinct from merely the blessed earthly "Paradise" referenced several times in Mein Kampf. The inference is thus likely that Hitler's Christian fundamentalism extended to an acceptance not only of earthly Paradise, but of unearthly heavena place where God Himself dwells, and to which His "Chosen People" go after death, in eternity. This was to be Hitler's personal reward, after death, for his restoring Paradise here on earth. It is indeed ironic that Hitler perpetrated the earthly hell of the Holocaust just so that he could avoid a supernatural hell, whose prospect terrified him, surrounded by Jews for all eternity. Even though it disagreed with Hitler about who should be bossing whom, the Roman Catholic ChurchPaul's church, definitely not that of Jesus recognized in Hitler a faithful son, which is why it held a Requiem Mass in his honor on 6 May 1945, even despite Hitler's having committed suicide. And it also honored his memory in other ways, of more "worldly" character, such as assisting his war-criminals to flee prosecution. Some of the most-sensitive government-files on these sorts of cases are only now starting to be made public, one instance of which was covered in a featurestory by a team of reporters in U.S. News & World Report on 30 March 1998, under the heading, "A vow of silence." It concerned the Vatican's alleged protection immediately after World War II, of leading members of Yugoslavia's former Nazi government, which had reigned as the Ustasha political party, some of whose top figures were Croat Roman Catholic priests. According to the article, "Through an underground railroad of sympathetic priests, . . . virtually the entire Ustasha leadership went free." It describes "Ustashas being hidden at the pope's summer residence at Castel Gandolfo," and notes that, "Ustashas ate at the papal mess." The piece cites OSS (pre-CIA) and other recently declassified documents claiming that a prominent priest "was supplying false passports and money to members of the Ustasha," and that "Catholic officials were funneling money to war criminals even after they escaped to Argentina." An official of the World Jewish Congress was quoted as charging that, "Because of 220

17: Bringing It All Together their silence in the face of accumulating evidence, the failure to uncover the truth can only be laid at the doors of the Vatican." The Vatican's response to the recent inquiries was that, "Vatican officials insist they are hiding nothing because they have nothing to hide, but they say they cannot allow outside researchers free access to their archives because the collection contains sensitive personnel files." Yet the reporters noted, "One state after another has opened its archives and banking records to aid the search" for the vast sums in loot stolen from victims by the Ustashas, "with one glaring exception: the Vatican." This is the church of Paul, not the synagogue of Jesus: "Stand by your man." Hitler, however, was not only a man of the Roman Catholic Churchof Paul's mother-churchbut was more-ecumenical than that: as he said in Mein Kampf, "What is important for the earth's future is not whether Protestants vanquish Catholics or Catholics vanquish Protestants, but whether Aryan humanity maintains itself or dies out." Hitler embraced the entire Pauline family, with the aim of ultimately "purifying" it. He earned his Requiem Mass not merely as a Catholic, but as a Christian. He never really was aiming to serve the German people; it was his own personal agenda that drove him; it was between himself and God. Hitler held himself accountable to God; not to the German people. In his view, he was like a possessed person at a seance; it is in this way that he was "sleepwalking" through politics, as merely the medium through which God executed His will on earth. Hitler was the humble chosen one, following in the footsteps of Jesus Christ Himself, serving the Father in heaven, as he had to in order to work off "this curse," and so "atone." If even the German people themselves ended up being bombed or destroyed, then so what? Anyone who disappoints God must experience the wrath of God. Hitler tried to please God, but this did not guarantee that the German people would be up to the challenge; if they weren't, only God could deal with that. This was a Wagnerian vision; and like Wagner's, it was weaned on the Bible. As Paul himself had said in Romans 13:4, the Fuhrer "is the servant of God, an agent of wrath to bring punishment upon the evil ones." Hitler practised for what he saw as his Providential role: when he was described by Eckart in the account of Hanfstaengel as "striding up and down in the courtyard here with that damned whip of his and shouting, 'I must enter Berlin like Christ in the Temple at Jerusalem,'" he was preparing himself to becomes God's agent of wrath. The Bible supplied the myths that he had acquired from the crib and his mother, and that were thus the most deepset within him. But these myths were then overlaid in adulthood 221

17: Bringing It All Together also with Nordic mythswhite myths, very white, the white of snow, and of blondes; people as unlike "the people of the devil" as Adolf could imagine, and did. Thus, his vision combined folk culture with Christian mythology, fusing the two into one, "Aryan," ideal. But all of the moral fuel for this engine of fantasy, came straight out of the Bible. That is, straight out of Hitler's early childhood. In that childhood, from all around him, came the Bible, and especially the New Testament, containing Paul's teachings. Adolf Hitler applied Paul's teachings with as much consistency as Paul himself taught them. Hitler pondered those teachings, including those of Paul's followers who authored the Gospels. The Holocaust was the result. Adolf Hitler was a man with a big vision, founded on lies, which he believed with all his mind (until 1937) and all his heart (until he died). By no means was he the only agent of Saint Paul's revenge, but he certainly was the most effective. Would Paul have minded that the biggest agent of his own wrath would turn out to hate even Paul for his Jewish origin? They were just two people trying to "atone" for their Jewish roots. To Paul, it meant devoting his life to the cause of winning over ultimately even the Roman conquerors themselves to the new, anti-Semitic, faith that he was establishing. To Hitler, it meant his devoting his life to his own anti-Semitic salvation. Hitler's model in life was his fantasy of Jesus. Saint Paul was the original source of it. (Hitler never knew that, of course; he became Paul's unwitting tool, Paul's greatest fool.) However, the two men had different reasons for shaping that fantasy not as Jewish but as anti-Semitic. This caused Hitler to deny that the fantasy-figure had ever been a Jew. Paul, on the other hand, was too close in time to Jesus for that lie to have been a workable option for him. Paul knew that the only way he was going to stand even a chance of converting the world, was if he could fashion a "Jesus" who would serve as a model to the Romans, since they were the ones who ruled the world. But the Romans knew that Jesus had at least been born a Jew. And, since they were not anti-Semitic (Paul, after all. was to shape Rome's future culture; not its past one), that fact was entirely unobjectionable to them. (For example, as Rosemary Ruether observed in her 1974 Faith and Fratricide, p. 28, "It was a pagan Rome that found formulae of special accommodation of Jewish ways within Greco-Roman society, while it was Christian Rome that gradually repealed this protected status and began to create the legal instruments of the ghetto.") So Paul did not have to design an anti-Semitic "Jesus" in order to appeal to anti-Semitic Romans, since the Romans of his time were not anti-Semitic. (Not, 222

17: Bringing It All Together that is to say, any more than they and all other ethnic groups of that era criticized and felt themselves superior to just about every other ethnic group; but nothing like the Christian anti-Semitism.) The Romans, however, were the conquerors, and Paul knew that he would have great difficulty in getting the Romans to accept Jesus as their model if it were to be acknowledged that the Roman imperial regime had itself been responsible for Jesus' execution. Paul knew what he had to do in order to make Jesus become ultimately the Roman God. And he did it. Paul's plan was brilliant: in order for him to be able to convert the adult Roman males who controlled the world, he had to throw out Genesis 17:14. And in order for him actually to win those conversions, he had to pin Jesus' execution on Jesus' own people whom Jesus had been aiming to be the salvation for. Paul mastered step two of the plan, just as well as step one; he knew that the Romans were not going to accept as a model a man who had led an anti-Roman rebellion and whom the Romans had executed for that. The Romans would have been no more open-minded to such conversions than, say, Americans would be likely to convert to worshipping Osama Bin Laden as God. Though Jesus might have been entirely unlike that Mideastern terrorist, this analogy between the two of them at least is sound: it is ridiculous to expect to be able to convert people to worship someone whom they know as their own enemy. Paul understood this elementary fact, and he acted on it. He created the kind of Roman model that Romans could worship. Of course, Paul made accommodations in other ways as well. For example, he was certainly catering to the rulers when he said in his letter to the Romans 13:1-6, "Let everyone obey the authorities that are over him, for there is no authority except from God, and all authority that exists is established by God. As a result, he who opposes authority rebels against God, and draws damnation upon himself. For those with power are feared only by the evil ones." But still, Paul's chief hurdle was to overthrow Genesis 17:14: That came first. If Genesis 17:14 had not existed as part of the Jews' Covenant with God, Paul would not have had to take the drastic steps he had to take in order for him to be able ultimately to convert large numbers of the non-Jewish world into what in that time was a Jewish sect. The dietary and sexual commandments in the Covenant posed no insuperable barrier to otherwise-willing Gentiles (according to Acts 15:20&29). This, in fact, is why Paul succeeded in developing the following he did: his converts accepted those rules of the Jewish faith; these rules would "not trouble the Gentiles who are turning to God" (Acts 15:19). But circumcision was another matter 223

17: Bringing It All Together entirely. Without the barrier of Genesis 17:14, there would have been no motivation, and certainly no need, for Paul to go the anti-Semitic route that he did. He would still have had to present to his prospective Gentile converts to this Jewish sect an explanation for Jesus' crucifixion that would have condemned some Jews, but only those whounlike the Jesus-following sectrejected Jesus as the Jewish Messiah. A people would not have been condemned; only Jews who did not agree with the Jesus-sect viewpoint on this would have been scapegoated. Christianity would then have evolved truly as a sect of Judaism; not as the separate and constitutionally anti-Semitic religion that it became. What we would today know as "Christianity" would have had the same general relationship to (the rest of) Judaism that, say, the Protestant religions do to Roman Catholicism. This does not mean that there would not have developed some differences that could have led ultimately to massacres of some sort; after all, millions were slaughtered in Europe's largely religious Thirty Years War, 1618-48, Catholic vs. Protestant. But that was not a "blood" conflict; not "racial"; not a war against an entire "people," such as inevitably evolved out of Galtians 6:12, 1 Thessalonians 2:15-16, Mark 3:31-35, Luke 8:21, Matthew 27:25, and John 8:44, by means of which, belief-distinctions became distinctions of "blood" or "race," especially within the context of Paul's efforts to convert the Roman rulers. It would have been the standard religious-based bloodshed, nothing more. But circumcision did not permit Paul so (relatively) benign a "win." His only choice was either to fail, or else to go the anti-Semitic route and succeed. He chose the latter path; Paul chose "success" (Galatians 2:2, 1 Corinthians 9:23-27, and Philippians 3:12-14). Ultimately, he was even willing to overthrow Jesus' own religious organization to achieve this "win." At first, however, he had tried to stay within Judaism, and to obtain acceptance of his uncircumcised adult male Jesus-followers as Jews. They would adopt Jesus as the model in all respects save one: unlike Jesus, who was circumcised, they would not be. Paul pursued this approach for as long as he was permitted to. And it seems that while he did so, he felt no need to proclaim his "revelation" from the risen Jesus to have been genuine rather than delusional ("inside the body" in the terms of 2 Cor. 12:2); he had his own doubts about that, and expressed them then, even if in cloaked language. But after Paul was semiforced out of the sect, that "revelation" became the essential personal authority by means of which he could credibly assert foundations to his own new church: if he was not the prophet from God, then he was now nothing at all. So Paul never again would refer to his 224

17: Bringing It All Together experience of Jesus as having been of questionable authenticity. But before that break with Judaism came, Paul would "try to please everyone in all that I do" (1 Cor. 10:33) and would "become all things to all men" (1 Cor. 9:22). And as he did so, he alienated the members of the Jewish sect that had been Jesus' followers all along. They had been circumcised as infants; and notwithstanding how painful such an operation would be to adult male Gentile converts in an era with no medicine and not even anaesthesia, the Jesus-followers demanded that these adult newcomers must likewise comply with the Jewish Covenant that they and their model Jesus did; which meant that these newcomers, too, must be circumcised. Another factor appears also to have been at work here, reinforcing this pressure. As indicated in Acts 21:21 forward, non-Christian, or non-Jesus-sect, Jews also were opposed to Paul's plan to admit into Judaism uncircumcised adult male Gentiles. The Jesus-sect Jews had already experienced difficulties converting their fellow-Jews to this Jewish sect; Paul's plan, obviously, increased the skepticism of Jews that the Jesus-sect represented the right path for Jews to follow: the Covenant itself was being challenged here. It's no wonder, then, that Paul felt himself to be at war against the Covenant, because he was: it was blocking his own "success." And when the Jewish mobs rioted against him (as reported after Acts 21:21) and the leader of the Jesus-sect, James himself, ordered Paul to have all his male "converts" circumcised, as Paul himself reported in Galatians 2:12, Paul's choice of success instead of honor, ricocheted down through the millennia to Hitler and beyond. This choice, to abandon the Covenant and start his own church, was the decisive one for Christianity. Paul was now free to invite the Roman conquerors into his faith with the Roman regime's complete absolution of the crucifixion of Jesus; and thenceforth the scapegoat for that was no longer to be merely some Jewsthose who rejected Jesus as their Messiahbut rather all Jews, the Jewish people, whom Jesus had been trying to save. From this point on, the chief focus of the new faith was to be the winning-over of the same Roman regime that had executed Jesus, to their worship of him; for which purpose a new, made-over, Jesus was shaped, fashioned, and molded, custom-tailored to serve as the model for the Roman conquerors. Romans 13:1-4, seen in this light, represented Paul's most cravenous capitulation and even sycophancy toward the the actual crucifiers of the historical Jesus, and most thoroughgoing condemnation of the real Jesus as an individual who did "evil." 225

17: Bringing It All Together Little could Saint Paul have imagined how effective that model would eventually turn out to be for a German Caesar two millennia later. And little could whoever authored Genesis 17:14 have imagined the outcome either. "Two roads diverged in a yellow wood . . ."

A SEPARATE WAY IN WHICH GENESIS 17:14 LED TO THE HOLOCAUST There was also another pathway by means of which the circumcisioncommandment ended up producing tragedy for the Jewish people: as a barrier against entry into the faith of adult males from the dominant cultures amongst whom Jews lived as a minority population, circumcision helped to isolate the Jewish people from those majority-populations and cultures, and so to keep Jews as a minority, and as a separate people, a separate nationality living amongst the majority, everywhere that Jews lived. This feature of Judaism, which worked so much to the detriment of the faith's followers, was itself exacerbated by yet another distinctive feature of the faith: its theocratic nature, in which the ultimate source of the laws by which the people committed themselves to adjudicate their own social intercourse with one another, was not the state in which they lived, but was instead their God. When Jews were controlling their own state, their Israel, as their own majority, there was no tension between the state and the god as the source of the laws; the two were one. But the situation was very different everywhere and any time when Jews lived as a minority amongst some other majority, in which case the ultimate source of the laws was the state, meaning either the potentate himself (if a totalitarian regime) or else the people (if a democracy). The Jewish Covenant itself was theocratic: God made the laws. And part of this Covenant was circumcision. Both the Covenant itself, and that particular law in it in particular, served to isolate Jews off from the majority-population everywhere Jews were a minority. This toxic combination of theocracy in general and of circumcision in particular, segregated Jews off as a "separate people," as an "alien" minority living amongst the majority to whom legal loyalty was solely to the state; for Jews, loyalty was split, to the state and to a god. Adolf Hitler's concept of what constituted a "race" was based on ancient myths that long predated the scientific study of biology; we indicated this in the first part. Hitler's concept, in fact, has a very different lineage, going back to ancient times, including biblical times, referring to a "people," or then synonymously to a "race," as a national, then meancontinued 226

17: Bringing It All Together ing a cultural, entity, which today is actually far more like what cultural anthropologists typically mean by the term "culture," than what a contemporary biologist would mean by using any term of biological distinction. It was actually in this sense that Hitler hated Jews, as a culture/ nation, "the people of Satan," who lived amongst "God's People" and "polluted" them with both their ways and, worst of all (given Hitler's personal fear), their "blood" via "miscegenation" (which latter made this, for him, a physical, biological, matter). Thus, the link between Hitler's view of "the Jews" and the Jewish circumcision/theocracy features, was direct. Paul made the link fatal. The writings of the ancient Jewish historian, Josephus, who was a contemporary of Paul's, display sometimes even better than does the Bible itself, the operations of both the theocratic and the circumcision features of the faith, that segregated Jews off from the majority-populations amongst whom they lived. The entire conclusion of his Against Apion (11:184-) is intended by him as a defense of the theocratic aspect of Judaism, so as to explain in a favorable light this feature of the Jewish "race," or "nation," or "people" (as he himself refers to Judaism from the very first sentence in the work). But inadvertently in doing so, it documents the very problem that I have mentioned concerning God as the source of the laws. And as regards circumcision itself specifically, Josephus in his Antiquities, Book 20 (paragraph 4), describes an instance in which a certain adult malea Roman king, no lessallegedly wanted to become a Jew, and whose mother, who herself "was highly pleased with Jewish ways," nonetheless warned her son that circumcision "would be dangerous," yet he nonetheless "sent for a surgeon" and had the "operation" performed. If circumcision had not been part of the Covenant, conversion to Judaism would have been vastly easier at least for the people "who mattered" in the society of those times; the rate of conversion of non-Jews would thus have been vastly higher. Consequently, there would have been a much greater influx from these surrounding populations constantly joining the "Jewish people" and so enabling Judaism to integrate better with other societies, not separate itself off as a different, and so "alien," cultural entity. Only the theocratic matter would then have presented a problem. That describes a second way in which Genesis 17:14 contributed towards the Holocaust. Paul took advantage of both these vulnerabilities of Judaism, not only by his separating his "Christianity" from them and thus freeing his new faith to integrate itself with the power-structure anywhere, but by his effort ultimately to achieve such integration at the expense of such perfect scapegoats whose resistance to his new faith was not only an enormous thorn in his side personally, but in the final analysis even a physical threat to himself. Paul, of course, was not responsible for the vulnerabilities of Judaism; he simply exploited them brilliantly and with a vengeance (e.g., 1 continued 227

17: Bringing It All Together Thessalonians 2:15-16). By doing so, he not only freed his new religion of Judaism's intrinsic vulnerabilities, but he employed those vulnerabilities to scapegoat Judaism so as to win ultimately the entire Roman Empire as the Holy Roman Empire. Like Hitler, Paul was a leader of immense achievement, which served to make his crime likewise immense. Both leaders were driven by very personal motives to perpetrate their evils, and blindly joined hands over the millennia, "sleepwalking" toward genocide.


18: Of Smoking Guns and Hot Bullets

Despite the transparent frauds of the Holocaust-deniers inside and outside acadcmia, there is no serious question that the Holocaust existed and that it constituted a crime of unimaginably vast scope. Equally without doubtagain notwithstanding hoaxers both inside and outside the universitiesis the fact that Adolf Hitler held the motive for the crime, and that the Nazi Party and the other perpetrators "on the ground" were his instruments in carrying it out. According to Adolf Eichmann, Chief of the Bureau for Jewish Affairs at the Reich Security Headquarters, in his 1983 Eichmann Interrogated (p. 75), it was in August or September 1941 that his boss "Heydrich sent for me. I reported. ... He began with a little speech, then said, 'The Fuhrer has ordered physical extermination.' These were his words. ... The Fuhrer had ordered the physical extermination of the Jews." And (xxii, 92) Eichmann also acknowledged that by no later than 21 September 1939, Heydrich had made known to him the "basic conception" of "the physical extermination of the Jews" as "the ultimate aim" that was "promulgated by Hitler." Eichmann's recollection was exact to the day: Heydrich's official order, referring to "the final goal (which will require a lengthy period)," was dated 21 September 1939. On 31 July 1941 Goring instructed Heydrich to draw up detailed plans for "the desired final solution of the Jewish question" (document 710-PS in Trial of the Major War Criminals). Hitler's signature even appears on the document (630-PS) dated 1 September 1939 authorizing the "euthanasia" of the disabled and other "incurables." The physicians had wanted that in writing, and got 229

18: Of Smoking Guns and Hot Bullets it. And in his Secret Conversations (Table Talk) of 21 October 1941, he concluded his long tirade against Jews: "By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea." Hitler publicly stated in a speech on 24 February 1943 that this was necessary in order to have "exterminated a bacterium because we do not want in the end to be infected by the bacterium and die of it." Hitler's guilt in the Holocaust is beyond any reasonable doubt, regardless of what neo-Nazis say. Nor can there realistically be any doubt such as structuralist historians seek to spread, concerning whether Hitler might have been satisfied merely with expelling Europe's Jews to such a place as Palestine, or whether his animus was only towards Europe's Jews, and not towards Jews everywhere. According to the notes of Hitler's admirer the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, on the occasion of his meeting with Hitler on 28 November 1941, the Fuhrer privately promised to exterminate all Jews in Palestine as soon as his Nazi regime finished off the Jews of Europe. Thus, even if Hitler was seriously considering the explusion of Jews to Palestine, Madegascar, or elsewhere, there is every indication that he was nonetheless still planning the extermination of all Jews ultimately. In what sense, then, might there be said to be a search for "smoking guns and hot bullets" in regards to a crime of this nature? The real search has always been for the motive. Few people have wanted to engage in that search, because the closer one gets to the motive, the more forcefully is drawn into question the culturally dominant approach to morality itself: religion. Anyone with even so much as a trace of normality in this regard, would rather avoid the issue and leave the motive for this crime as it has been left till now: in the dark. This, however, is an affront to the victims; it is complicity with Hitler, who never wanted them to know, even though he was proud to explain it to "my people." The present author will not participate in that vile chicanery; the present book is the result. Thus, the "smoking guns and hot bullets" in this crime are matters of motivation; and this book has focussed upon motivation. The guns and bullets that are to be found in this case are not physical; they are within the hearts and minds of the motivators. This is a very different kind of "smoking guns and hot bullets" from that of a normal crime; and we have found both a "smoking gun" and a "hot bullet" that meet all the requirements. This book has presented the case; now, finally, it identifies, on the basis of that case, both the "smoking gun" and the "hot bullet": 230

18: Of Smoking Guns and Hot Bullets The smoking gun is: "The BibleMonumental History of Mankind" (Hitler). The hot bullet is: "I did not want my work in the past or in the present to be a failure" (Saint Paul). Of course, there arc other pieces of evidence as wellthe kinds of evidence that supplement the smoking gun and the hot bullet so as to make those the clinchers to the case. In a motivational case such as this, the kinds of evidence have an analogue from the physical world of "Who done it?" into our world of" Why was it done?" that is in accord with the standard four kinds of evidence: (1) documentary; (2) witness; (3) physical; and, (4) circumstantial. Regarding motivation itself, in the present instance, the documentary evidence is Hitler's own statements made in his private notes to himself, and also in any form when he was addressing his friends and supporters. This documentary record has been amply provided here. The witness evidence consists in such things as the notes by Hitler's friends such as Putzi Hanfstaengel, and the testimony of others such as Dietrich Eckart regarding Hitler's religiosity and anti-Semitism. This witness record, too, has been cited amply here. The physical and circumstantial evidence in a motivational case like the present one constitute a single category, comprising a wide range, extending all the way from the habit of Hitler to "purify" his blood by using leeches, to Hitler's use of the whip to model himself symbolically upon the Jesus of John to "enter Berlin like Christ," to the actual way that Hitler chose to "purify" the world of the "blood poisoning" of the "people of the devil"namely, by torturous extermination designed to punish "Satan's people," rather than by the far kinder means of merely sterilizing them. In other words, the torturous killing-program itself was powerful physical/ circumstantial evidence that Hitler saw Jews as being what he claimed they were: "people of the devil." Thus, this case is solved with every kind of motivational evidence. Whereas the identification of the smoking gun and of the hot bullet in solving a normal crime requires a keen eye, it requires instead a keen mind when the type of evidence that is being sought is motivational rather than physical; this is the most difficult type of crime to solve. Nonetheless, it is solved; case closed. Science has closed it. This does not mean proof to a certainty, which is the standard of infallibility, of "Truth," that is asserted by religious faith, immovable by any reason for doubt. Law, like science, requires instead the more-realistic standard: proof beyond a reasonable doubt. This standard has here been 231

18: Of Smoking Guns and Hot Bullets amply met.

And so: Where lies guilt? And what do we learn from this? The time has finally come. After two-thousand years, the Holocaust was the final straw: "The BibleMonumental History of Mankind" is a dangerous falsehood. The Bible is "history" told as religion tells it. WHY The Holocaust Happened is history told as science tells it. History told as religion tells it, is at last encountering history told as science tells it; the difference turns out to be like night and day. No longer is the challenge to the religious account just Copernicus and Galileothe Bible got the cosmology wrong. No longer is the challenge to the religious account just Darwin and Mendel the Bible got the prehistory (i.e., evolution) wrong. Now it's history itself that is at stake; the final figleaf covering the old myth is ripped away; and what stands exposed this time is rape: people's minds have been raped by a historical account that lied; and now we know why it lied, and that the Holocaust was its result. Never again. That is what we learn from this. Illusion in the First Century; disillusion in the Twenty-First Century. The time has finally come for science. Illusion is not good; it is vastly worse than disillusion. Best is never to have been illusioned in the first place; best is to start with science, not just end with it.

Religious myths are not benign; only they are carefully crafted to appear that way. The big problem comes when people behave on the basis of them. Maybe even hypocrisy is less bad. Why is this? One must understand the real source of religion's authority. From what derives the moral authority of any religion? Logically, it derives from the syllogism that: (1) God is all-powerful; (2) The all-powerful defines what is "right"; (3) Therefore, God defines what is "right." (The second of these propositions is actually itself a compound of two: (a) Might is right; and, (b) An all-powerful being exists.) Thus, God's moral monopoly in religion. But for public relations purposes, that is too raw: each religion has its own way of cooking this logic, so as to make a differentand palatable 232

18: Of Smoking Guns and Hot Bullets moral meal, on the basis of which people will grant it moral authority. In Paul's "Christianity," a key part of the recipe is the claim that Jesus died not for what he did (since he was God and so can do no wrong), but for who he was (namely, God). Jesus was the archetypal innocent victim. Now, Roman rule was barbaric, and in the highest sense Jesus might have been doing the noblest thing to try to lead his people to freedom from that rule under self-rule, with him as the Jewish king. But in his effort to do thatin his asserting himself as "King of the Jews"Jesus was doing something; and for doing it, he was crucified. Roman culpability for the crucifixion can therefore not be accepted in order for Paul's recipe to work. And, as we know, Paul was determined, as evangelist to the Romans, to deny Roman culpability for crucifixion. Thus, this recipe made a perfect fit. It "cooked" the facts just right for his purpose. But in reality, can one even imagine move-innocent victims than the approximately six million Jews who died in the Holocaust? These were no gods just normal peopleand they were no more nor less perfect human beings than others less-unfortunate. But what defined every single one of them is that he/she was brutally murdered not for what he/she did, but for who he/she was: "a Jew." There were millions of others that Hitler also killed, and we might even call many of those "heroes" because they were Christians who resisted Hitler's monstrous regime; but still no one can say that those people died for who they were rather than for what they did. And there were also the morons, cripples, homosexuals, Gypsies, and other "defectives" that Hitler also killed; they were not "in the image of God," not "God's people;" they were lesser "Jews," who also died for whom they were rather than for what they did. Thus, every one of the millions of peopleJews and other "imperfects"who perished in the Holocaust not for what they did but for who they were, is more-truly modelled upon the "Christian" God than is the real Jesus. By no means does this imply that they were any better than the real Jesus; and they might have been worse; but in terms of real moral authority, that cross was multiplied millions of times, and those people-not Jesus of Nazarethare upon it. And now we know that Paul and Hitler placed them there.

In solving this case, whom or what are we really convictingand of what? 233

18: Of Smoking Guns and Hot Bullets We are convicting "Christianity" of having caused the Holocaust. We are convicting Paul of having perpetrated a huge fraud upon his "Christians" that caused so many of themespecially Hitlerto have done it. Each has individual responsibility for what he did; and this includes Paul. "Christianity" did it. ********** Science has closed this case. Science has closed its case against "Christianity." Science has closed another case against religion.

Every day that you read the newspapers, or hear a politician on television extoll religion as the foundation of moral behavior, or attend a religious service in which a clergy person does the same, you are exposed to the defense of religion, the selling of religion, the merchandising of religion; you arc exposed to the opposite position from what has been documented here in relation to the Holocaust. Scholars have written and spoken voluminously to provide intellectual support to this general cultural endorsement of religion as the basis for morality, for love, for compassion, and for tolerance. Your whole life, you have been exposed to the opposite position from what has been presented here. Now, you have had the views and the documentations from both sides: from everyone else defending religion in general (and Christianity itself perhaps most of all), and finally, now, setting forth the case against Christianity in particular as the cause of the Holocaust. You now know both sides. Your whole life you have known the religious side; nowas with Galileo and Darwin on earlier historical occasions and on different subjectsthe side of science has been introduced. You are the jury, and the decision is yours to make. *************** The myth-making machine still has a future, in backward parts of the world. But elsewherewhere people increasingly know the case against itthings are different. ********** 234

18: Of Smoking Guns and Hot Bullets

The final solution is truth. The way is science.

Science has disclosed why the Holocaust happened: it has disclosed that the Holocaust happened because of anti-Semitic beliefs that are themselves based on lies. Science has disclosed the falsity of religious moral beliefs that are based on false history. Religious moral beliefs are always based on a historical account. The alleged "inerrancy" of Scripture is always attributed to that Scripture's origins, typically in a supernatural God. In religion, morality is based on history. If that history is false, then the morality has not just no scientific foundation; it has no rational foundation, not even a non-scientific rational one. By contrast, science itself would repudiate the very idea that morality should be based on historynot even on true history. Religion might be considered, in that sense, a sub-category of a form of morality that in principle scientists cannot accept: moralities that are based upon historical accounts or "stories." Even if the story is true, such a morality is groundless. Instead, to a scientist, morality must derive from ethics, not from history. It must derive from abstract principles, not from a specific story. Those abstract principles, like any in science, must themselves be true; they cannot just be any abstract principles for moralityprinciples such as philosophers have called "ethics." Science sets a far higher, and more rigorous, standard. But the point here is simply that any religious or other history-based morality is of a totally different kind. It is because of history-based morality that Serbs and Croats murdered one another in the former Yugoslavia, that Catholics and Protestants murdered one another in Northern Ireland, that Jews and Moslems killed each other in Israel, that Hutus slaughtered Tutsis in Rwanda, etc., etc. Usually, a religious-based morality was at fault; always, history-based morality was. No authentic scientist can accept such a morality. ********** The Age of Science is only an infant in swaddling clothes. The Age of Religion is in its maturity, right after its peak during the Middle Ages, and will control even long after we are dead. 235

18: Of Smoking Guns and Hot Bullets The dawn is coming. It will be a better day. ********** We live in our day; our responsibility is to that coming dawn; our responsibility is to the ugly truth of our present night, the Age of Religion: "Christianity" did it. "Christianity" caused the Holocaust. We know why, and we know how. That verdictthat recognitionwill help bring the dawn. The choice is ours, now. Might the Holocaust happen again? Decisions make a difference in historya big difference. The dawn is ours to makeor not. The victims of the night need a verdict for the dawn. Our grandchildren will need it too. Even Jesusthe real one would probably demand it, passionately.

Or, are we so committed to that which caused the Holocaust, that we cannot do our duty? The choice is ours, now. We have had all the evidence presented to us, and the arguments and the counter-arguments (from all the scholars cited), and the counter-counterarguments. The time for a verdict has finally come. In accord with the consistent massive evidence, including the smoking gun and the hot bullet, and carrying out the responsibility justice bears to the millions who were crucified in the Holocaust's crematoria, the verdict of history is: "Christianity" caused the Holocaust. ********** One might disagree with certain aspects of this verdict; one might say that it goes too far; or that the good aspects of Saint Paul's "Christianity" overcome the outrages it has perpetrated upon and in the name of the actual, historical, Jesus; or that the massive suffering of millions of innocents in the pogroms, the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Holocaust, and other mass horrors, can perhaps more reasonably be considered as having been an unfortunate, but nonetheless worthwhile, price to pay for the benefits 236

18: Of Smoking Guns and Hot Bullets Christianity has brought to others, who were the beneficiaries of this particular faith. Obviously, the present writer does not agree with these viewsnot even with their mere moral acceptability, inasmuch as the interests of the victims are being subordinated to those of the victimizers, which alone should utterly disqualify the position. But in addition, all of these victims suffered for reasons that the modern age recognizes to be entirely innocent, such as their not having been of "the right" faith (irrespective of any actual sins that theyjust as the peipetrators themselvesmight otherwise have committed, which have no bearing on the matter, just as the irrelevant virtues of both the victims and the victimizers do not). However, these matters can still be reasonably debated. But what cannot be reasonably disputed at all, is that the accountability for the Holocaust that was imposed at the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials fell far short of full measure, considering the monumental nature of the crime. A few people were executed; in no way is such punishment proportionate to so enormous a crime. Indeed, the very idea of achieving a proportionality by means of deathsentences would have been absurd. Yet did Nuremberg aspire to more than that? What was present at those trials was far less than what was missing. We today live in the shadow of what was never there. And it was this: The victimizers took to the grave the secret of their ultimate motive, which some of them perhaps did not know, because they did not know Hitler's motive, even though that motive became theirs by obedience and by bureaucratic fiat. In a bureaucracy, you do not need to know the motive of the chief executive officer, even though it guides your own actions just as if it were your own motive which, practically speaking, it is. And, just as Hitler was determined that his victims, and his enemies, would never know his motive, Hitler's henchmen themselves carried it with them to their graves, to the extent that even they knew it. This was Hitler's supreme victory. And what was absent at Nuremberg was what would have been Hitler's final defeat: the exposing, to all the world, of the true motive behind the greatest single crime in all of human historythat is to say, the making public of the reason why the biggest single organized mass-murder and mass-theft was perpetrated. Hitler lost the war, but he won much: his ultimate goal was to die in the conviction that he was going to heaven where God's People are, rather than to hell to spend an eternity with the Jews who are the people of Satanand Hitler probably was indeed able to console himself with such an expectation as he committed suicide in his bunker in 1945. Hitler's final 237

18: Of Smoking Guns and Hot Bullets Political Testament shows that he still retained the hope: he himself would die, so as not to give his enemies the satisfaction of downing him; but he yet retained the hope that "Providence" would carry out his victory, after his passing. His final act before his suicide was not to order his people to surrender, but rather to order them to continue the struggle until their final victory. He died with hope. Least of all, would Hitler have wanted defeat that was combined with the final expose of his motive. Nuremberg complied: Hitler's motive was not exposed; this was because Hitler's motive was not discovered. What Nuremberg lacked, has been presented here: the motive for the crime. Hitler perpetrated the Holocaustand his people overwhelmingly followed his will in itbecause Hitler was a Christian who passionately wanted to go to a Christian heaven, and because his country was itself Christian. And it is in this sense that we can say with confidence: "'Christianity' perpetrated the Holocaust. We know why, and we know how."

Here is why this verdict is important not just as the culmination and missing component in the Nuremberg process regarding the accountability for crimes that were in the past, but also as the groundwork for a better future for Mankind: First, this verdict crucially helps to define what a better future itself consists of. Hitler, of course, thought that a better future consisted of racial purification, in favor of "God's People." After World War II, in places such as the Balkans and Rwanda, his vision of "a better future" has continued to be put into practiseto similar disastrous effect. This verdict counters that result. And secondand perhaps even more importantlyif we do not truly understand the past, then we can reasonably only expect to repeat it (assuming, of course, that our future as a species will not be unexpectedly brief). Control presumes understandingis impossible without it. This point warrants amplification: Some would say that control of Mankind by Mankind itself is unnecessaryperhaps even foolhardy: "Leave it to God." We have shown that Hitler, in fact, accepted God's control, implicitly and explicitly. We have shown what the result of that view has been: it is not good for Man; one reason is that it is based on lies. 238

18: Of Smoking Guns and Hot Bullets Others would say that such control is unnecessary because democratic process alone will suffice to protect Man's interests. Yet Adolf Hitler came to power by means of democratic elections, and with the support of mainstream conservative parties and politicians, not only of his own Nazi Party. Conservatives could do the same in the United States, Britain, or any other country, under comparable circumstances. Indeed, the same religious mythology is potent now that was potent then. Conservatism embraces ithere and now, just as there and then. One might even conclude that a democratic countryby virtue of its being sois inevitably vulnerable to whatever defects might happen to exist in its particular dominant culture's mythology, for it will be this mythology that will have prepared the people when they enter the votingbooths to cast their ballots, and that has prepared the leading candidates and political parties, and their platforms. Thus, democracy itself is not a protection. But we go further, and assert that, in a democracy, the only protection is the present kind of expose. The reason is that the goal of expose is to uncover the truthand control is impossible for anyone who does not know the truth. And that is why the opponents of control of Man by Mankind itself, are opponents of expose: it leads to truth, which leads to such control, which they oppose. ********** Unfortunately, academia has assisted the cover-up, rather than the expose. The public expects academia to behave in the opposite manner; scholars are looked to as authorities, as individuals who are knowledgeable and unbiased, as honest brokers in the marketplace of ideas; this is a myth, sustained in colleges and universities by scholars themselves. Why do scholars violate their public trust? What benefit do they expect to gain by doing so? I have asked that question of a fair number of them, concerning specifically the two pivotal figures in the present work, Hitler and Saint Paul. Of course, I was speaking with specialists, who are enormously well read on one or the other of these two figures. (These are also scholars who have read my work.) As might be expected, I have never gotten a direct answer; but the answers that I have gleaned by listening "between the lines" have been a variant or mixture of the following three: The scholar is a Jew who does not want to offend Christians. The scholar is a Christian who does not want Christians to know that Hitler was a Christian, and/or who does not want Christians to know that antiSemitism was part of the Christian faith from the start. The 239

18: Of Smoking Guns and Hot Bullets motivation, in both instances, seems to be generally along the lines of, "I am smart enough and/or good enough not to become an anti-Semite from such knowledge, but other people might not be." The scholar does not want to offend and to become an outcast from his/her professional colleagues by being known to support an interpretation of Hitler and/or Saint Paul that they all repudiate. All three reasons share one thing in common: the overriding consideration is not truth, but rather how people will react to it. Essentially, conformism overrides the scholars' pretenses at science. But how have people, in fact, been reacting to the scholars' distortions, lies, and cover-ups? If the reactions of people are more important than is science itself, then what have been the reactions of peopleof the broader society, including beyond the battlements of the ivory towerto the scholars' cover-up? Look at Bosnia. Look at Rwanda. Look at Kosovo. Look at Northern Ireland. Look at Israel. What do you see? "God's People" and "the men of Satan" may, in some instances, have different identities than they did in the 1930's and 40's, but has Man learned from the Holocaust the lessons that have been required in order to provide any reasonable assurance that it will not recur? The identities of the victims may be differentbut that is irrelevant.

Thus far, culture has controlled Man. The purpose of authentic social science is to change that: Mankind is now challenged to control its own culture. But in order to do that, truthful understanding of Mankind's major blunders and societally imposed horrorssuch as the Holocaust is the indispensable prerequisite. This is thus Man's ultimate challenge. In other words, Man's ultimate challenge is to control his culture, rather than to be blindly controlled by it (as has been the case in all past history). And to meet this challenge, Man must first see realistically what the consequences can beand have beenwhen culture controls Man. In previous eras, Man could plead ignorance, even if this was a willful ignorance. What would be the excuse next time?


19: Completing the Work of Nuremberg

We have spoken in general terms of the incompleteness, and of the insufficiency, of the work of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg. Now this will be brought down to earth, and made concrete and specific: The chief war-criminal, Adolf Hitler himself, was not put on trial, because he escaped prosecutionhe committed suicide. What is the significance of that fact? It is this: Hitler held the motive for the crime; and so without trying him, the crime s motive could not be legally established. The defendants who were convicted were found guilty of having obeyed criminal commands; their motive, to obey those criminal commands, was a criminal motive. But in order to convict Hitler himself, his criminal motive would have had to have been established, in order for him not to have been found to have been criminally insane, and thus not guilty by reason of insanity. If he were to have gone to trial and no motive were found, but psychiatrists were to adjudge him to have been sanewhich he was then the trial of Hitler would have been in crisis. To convict Hitler on undiminished charges would have required, as all criminal convictions do, proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, of the standard three things: motive, means, and opportunity. Even a routine criminal trial is challenged to prove all three, or else to find the defendant not guiltyeven if, in a few cases, not guilty by reason of insanity. 241

19: Completing the Work of Nuremberg Thus, Hitler's motive would have had to have been established, or else the gross injustice of a "not guilty" verdict would have been legally required on the full charges. Mankind, in such a trial, would have been presented with a moral and legal crisis of virtually unimaginable proportions; the verdict of history itself would have been convulsed. But it did not happen, for a reason that is even worse: Hitler himself was never tried, and therefore the criminality of the Holocaust's motive was never able to be addressed at Nuremberg. This is not a crisis; it is a continuing curse, because Mankind has still not had an opportunity to deal with the criminality of the Holocaust's motive. Was the Holocaust really a crime, or just a tragedy? Nuremberg never answered that question, because Hitler shot himself and thus stole away with the motive into death's dark night. This situation serves the interests of today's anti-Semites, neo-Nazis, and Hitler-supporters. It also serves the interests of the scholars, who have continued to cover up Hitler's Holocaust-motive. But obviously, it does not serve the interests of Mankind, or of science, or of truth, or of the advancement of knowledge, or of justice, or of posterity. And the victims of this are all the victims of the failure, including everyone whose lives are damaged and destroyed by mass bigotry, whether that be in Bosnia, Kosovo, Iran, Israel, Russia, Rwanda, Northern Ireland, or wherever. Consequently, this book has presented the Prosecution's case establishing Hitler's motivethe case that Hitler, by his suicide, stole from the world at Nuremberg, and that therefore now has to be presented by an investigative journalist so long after the fact. Fortunately, Hitler's testimony does exist after all; it pre-existed his death, and is presented here. There is no statute of limitations on this. The trial is one of public opinionthe judgment by history itself, by posterity. You, the readers of this book, are the jurors, and you have just rendered your verdict on Hitler's casethe verdict that Hitler himself deprived the world from being rendered at Nuremberg (if it even would have been). Hitler's caseagainst the motive's having been Christianity itself, and for the motive not having been established and the case against him having failed for lack of having established a motive for the crimehas already been presented by the scholars. The prosecution, here in this book, has argued against Hitler's case. You have rendered your verdict. If you have decided for Hitler, then the Holocaust has been ruled by history to have been, perhaps, a great tragedy, but not a crime, because 242

19: Completing the Work of Nuremberg ultimately no criminal motive was behind it. In that event, perhaps the NeoNazis are right, that Jews are children of Satan; the Bible is inerrant because it is the Word of God; and Hitler was merely carrying out the will of The Lord, whatever else one may say of the Holocaust. The scholars Hitler's defensecounsel at this trialaccommodated their accounts and arguments to at least the feasibility of the fundamentalist Christian position, which was behind the Holocaust. But they have not accommodated their accounts and arguments to the feasibility of the prosecution case, presented here, that Hitler's motive was criminal because the Bible lied. According to Hitler's defense-case, either the motive was not established, or else the motive was not criminal. If you accept the scholars' case, then Hitler is not guilty because the prosecution has failed here to establish one or both of these prerequisites for a "guilty" verdict: the motive itself, or its criminality. The Hitler/Holocaust scholars have tried to persuade the world that Christianity was not Hitler's motive for the Holocaust; and the Pauline/Christian scholars have tried to support the culturally pre-existing viewpoint that Christianity, as that has been left to us by Paul and the authors of the Gospels, is not itself criminal, but is either truthful or else at least thoroughly benignly intended by those writers. You have reviewed all the evidence and arguments, and rendered your verdict. If that verdict has been in the prosecution's favor, and against Hitler and Saint Paul, then there are policy-implications, which arc discussed in the closing chapter that follows.


20: Policy-Implications

This historical verdict will free Mankind from the shackles composed of the falsehoods of the past, as well as of the ongoing bigotries that are based upon them. It will permit policies to be constructed on the basis of true understandingnot only of the Holocaust, but of genocide in its more universal sense, applicable in the past, present, and future. Here is that understanding: The religious mentality entails an acceptance of infallible authority that leads to the conceptualization of co-believers as (in effect, if not literally) '"God's People." Scapegoating of others not "God's People" is a natural result. The Holocaust, and other genocides, are end-products of such essentially religious thinking. Individuals whose primary social conceptual categories are not individual-behavioral (thief, generous, kind, cruel, etc.) but group-ethnic (German, Jew, Hutu, Chechen, Serb, Christian, etc.) accept Hitler's most basic conceptual view: "we" are "God's People"; "they" are not. If such a person would not initiate or lead a genocide, he/she would at least follow or participate in one given ripe circumstances to do so. It thus is of paramount socio-political importance to prevent such people where possible (such as by educating them about the falsity of such views), and to strip them of voting-rights and other rights to participate in politics where not; because the collective possibility of genocide exists always in such individuals, no matter how democratic the country might be. For them, the ballotbox is a weapon against whomever is so unfortunate as not to be "God's People." Such victims could be immigrants; or they could be Jews, Muslims, Christians, Blacks, Whites, or any other minority 244

20: Policy-Implications group, whatever the particular majority group might happen to be. How then can such bigots and potential bigots be identified? Only behavioral (including verbal) indices will succeed; non-behavioral markers would even be bigoted themselves. Thus, to take the simplest example, conviction for discrimination, hate-crime, etc., ought certainly to qualify a person for the withdrawal of his/her right to vote or to participate in politics in any other way, inasmuch as such an individual's participation in politics would constitute a threat to the whole society. Beyond that simplest example, however, new precedent would have to be established for the forms of bigotry that are not already subject to legal sanctions; but this should not be difficult to do in a scientific society, where prejudice, which is belief that violates science and even scientific modes of thought, is unacceptable because it is incompatible with science in the broadest sense. Bigotry is obviously a form of prejudice, and so it is appropriate that in a scientific society bigotry should be viewed as a violation of the most-basic accepted norms. However, no new precedent is needed in order to deal with criminals. This would establish in the law the basic social restraining principle against the expression of bigotry in state-policy. Afterwards, application of this principle in less-patent instances could be debated in the light of that initial step. It is the first step along the path, by means of which the direction of social policy is established. The first step should thus be the one that is clearest within the context of the pre-existing legal precedents. Fortunately, certain criminals already provide this opportunity. There is pre-existing legal precedent here because some convicts and exconvicts are already stripped of their voting-rights. At present, the legal authority to do this is unfortunately actually arbitrary, but the key thing in the current context is simply that this precedent already exists. The step proposed here would be a non-arbitrary application of that preexisting basic legal authority. Since convicts and ex-convicts can already have their voting-rights withdrawn, any such individuals whose conviction was for a "bias" crime can already be prohibited from voting. Therefore, since even at present, even ex-convicts can be legally prohibited from voting, it would be possible to apply that policy to all ex-convicts whose conviction was for a bias-crime. That should certainly be done, as a start. More-broadly considered, such already-existing voting-prohibitions also affirm that the right to vote is itself conditional, and is thus simultaneously not only a right but also a privilege. In any democracy, it must be both at once. This is furthermore made clear in that children, and certain other individuals, are likewise prohibited from voting. 245

20: Policy-Implications The real question, therefore, is how to make the right to vote a rationally conditional righthow to condition the privilege in a rational way. In this context, perhaps the principal principle of all is: Bigots have no right to the voting-privilege. However, in order to apply this basic principle, it is essential that bigotry itself must possess a legal definition, specifying which acts are "bigoted" and thus constitute disqualifications from the voting-privilege. Bias crimes, as mentioned, are the pre-given "starters." However, the concept of what constitutes a "bias crime" is actually in flux, and is generally expanding to encompass a growing number and range of behaviors. Amongst all forms of behaviors there is, of course, a very special category, of speech-behavior, such as libel, or crying "Fire!" in a crowded theater. We shall discuss that category momentarily. It is going to be the most difficult. Next would come the logically derivative further restrictions for which the pre-existing legal precedents might presently be lacking: prohibitions against bigots participating in politics at all. If it is accepted that convicted bigots ought not to be permitted to vote in governmental affairs, then from there the case can be made that any convicted bigot ought not to be permitted to contribute financially to a governmental political campaign, and also that convicted bigots ought not to qualify as candidates for any public office. This brings us directly to the freedom-of-speech issue. Even in countries such as the United States, where Constitutional provisions protect the freedom of speechand especially of political speechthere would not necessarily be an insuperable bar against restraining principles protecting all individuals and the society-at-large from the political predations of bigots, because even in such societies there do already exist constitutionally acceptable limitations upon that freedom. For example, in no nation is there an unlimited freedom to threaten. Nor is there, in any country, an unlimited freedom to libel or slander individuals or corporations. Furthermore, in every country, it is accepted that everyone is held legally responsible for the consequences of speech that incites riots or other acts of violence, for which the victims of such acts have claims extending not only to the direct perpetrators but also to their inciters. Bigoted statements constitute threats against an entire group; they also defame an entire group; and they also sometimes incite riots, etc., against an entire group. Threat, defamation, and incitement-to-riot, are already subject to legal liability, even in nations with the strongest free-speech protections. Therefore, the only question is 246

20: Policy-Implications whether bigoted expressions, which threaten, defame and/or incite to riot, ought to receive protections that are not granted to other forms of speech. There is no reason whatsoever why bigoted expressions ought to be granted a protected, privileged, status. To the contrary: bigoted expressions, if anything, ought to be granted less legal protection than any other speech, because no other speech is as dangerous and harmful, producing riots, lynchings, and even genocides. It is essential to make clear that what is being proposed here is not a proposal to extend or expand the concept of crime; that is, of a violation against the state: a state-violation. Not at all! Some readers might understandably find this confusing, because we were speaking just before about bias-crimes, but those are bias-crime laws that already exist, not new ones that are being proposed here. Instead, those proposals concern solely restrictions of political participationand even those restrictions would be in addition to the ones that already exist. Nor is this a proposal to extend or expand the concept of tort; that is, of a violation against the individual: a civil violation. Instead of being a proposal to extend or expand the concept of either kind of violation, this is a proposal to refine or make more specific the concept of democracythe body-politic itself in the Scientific Age. In the Religious Age, the body-politic was top-down, from the supernatural God, the natural Marx, or some other "inerrant" source of right and wrong. In the Scientific Age, the bodypolitic is bottom-up, from the individuals or "people" themselves, deciding, by themselves, what is "right" and "wrong." Here, there is no "inerrant" source none at all. Even the Constitution in a scientific/democratic society has real provisions for its own amendment. Even the Constitution is not "inerrant." No one but God can revise the Ten Commandments. However, in a democratic state, the people do have the means to revise their own charter of basic laws, their "constitution." In no way is a constitutional democracy comparable to a theocracy, in which the fundamental Law comes from God, not from the people themselves. Fundamentalistswhether they be Christian, Marxist, or of whatever kindadhere to a body of basic Law that is found in already-existing "inerrant" Scripture. This cannot be altered; it is already "inerrant," so there is no reason why it ought to be altered. That is the theocratic State the totalitarian state. It is "perfect." It is religious. It is mythological. Regardless whether the dictator is Ayatollah Khomeni, Kim II Sung, Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tung, Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, or some medieval Emperor or King or whomever, that "glory" is based upon myth; it is a lie. Science meets it. 247

20: Policy-Implications The totalitarian state is the vehicle by means of which bigotry becomes politically institutionalized. In communist states, this has been bigotry against a class of people who are economically defined, as the owners of the means of productionprivate employers, such as Stalin rounded up in the Soviet Union as "kulaks" and exterminated. In Nazi Germany and to a lesser extent some other of the right-wing totalitarian states, the bigotry has instead been, in line with the Bible or some other Scripture, geneologically or "'racially" (or by "blood") defined, as "God's People." Holy wars, whether Crusades, Jihads, communist takeovers, or whatever, were the natural result. But in the Scientific Age, that meta-myth or myth-generating super-myththe myth of the "inerrant" source is struck down. There is no inerrant source; it does not exist. Democracy, just as its foundation which is science, rests ultimately upon a recognition that no one possesses capital-T Truth. Instead, in scientific society, the search for an ever-refined, small-t, truth, is what progress is based upon: that is science itself. In Afghanistan todaya Moslem statethe victims of bigotry arc not restricted only to individuals of other faiths (a virtually non-existent group there anyway) but also include all females, half of the population, who are prohibited from being educated and from competing on an equal basis in the economy. And that is not only a Moslem form of bigotry. Many conservative or fundamentalist Christians in Western nations likewise believe in law-imposed gender-inequality. So too do many conservative Jews, Hindus, etc. So too, of course, did Hitler. The cultural tendency toward backsliding is natural during our transitional age. The question is how we can refine our concept of the scientific state, or democracy, so as to protect ourselves against those natural holdover forces, so as to move forward more readily and more rapidly into stable democracies. Such stability is greatly threatened in our present transitional age. This instability produces many civil wars. Occasionally (such as during the Third Reich) it also produces international wars. The concept of democracy has to be refined, so as to reduce that instability and thus those civil and international wars. Everywhere we look in the world, this is the great problem, the great threat. Even in the most democratic nations, there are racial and "foreigner" conflicts that occasionally break out into riots. Thus, it is crucial to make clear here that no change is being proposed to either the criminal or tort laws per se, but that restrictions are instead being proposed upon the political franchise, or political participation of persons found guilty of having violated anti-bias laws that 248

20: Policy-Implications already exist. Furthermore, these restrictions themselves would be in addition to the political franchise restrictions that already exist. It is only this that is at issue here. But this is important. Rather than a matter of criminal or tort law, we face here a constitutional matter. The purpose here is to begin a constitutional debate, which would be of long standing, about a certain type of constitutional amendment. Such restraining principles would have an enormous impact. For example, if in force during the Weimar Republic, the Holocaust would have been prevented: Hitler and the Nazi Party would have been disqualified from politics. Should it have been the case that a rabidly anti-Semitic political party qualified to compete in German elections? Should people like Hitler have even qualified to vote'? It might reasonably be objected that such policies would boost the vote of mainstream conservative parties, since the bigoted far-right would be disabled. However, those mainstream conservative parties would likewise be prohibited from promoting bigotryor at least would face barriers in that respect, to the extent that anti-bigotry laws, such as in any case already exist, themselves have teeth and are enforced. And the same restrictions would exercise the same effect against the bigoted (e.g., Marxist) left, as well. It might be objected that bigots would "just be driven underground." But that is not true at all; bigots would still have the same freedoms to express their views that they have always had. They just would not be able to participate in politics; they would, in this respect, be the same as foreigners are today. Nothing that is being advocated here would restrict freedom-of-expression. But should people like Adolf Hitler qualify to vote or to run for public office, if they advocate bigotry against a group of people? If such politicians were placed under the restrictions here proposed, the entire political debate would transform. Politicians could still freely make chargesany that they wished. But if representatives of any attacked group were able to demonstrate in a court of law that the charges, as stated, were maliciously false, then the politicians or political party that had made those charges would be ruled guilty of group-libel and disqualified from politics. In other words, the entire political dialogue would be affected: extremism would decline. The question for the society-at-large is simply this: Is there anything constructive and valuable that would be lost by removing bigotry from politics? I maintain that there is notnothing at all. But even if that were not the caseeven, in other words, if bigotry played 249

20: Policy-Implications a valuable role in politicsthen there would still be the question of whether that role were so valuable as to warrant race-riots, genocides, and other such mass violence and victimizations. Scapegoatingwhether of Jews, Blacks, Whites, Moslems, Christians, immigrants, business-owners, or any other group)does not only destroy "the devil's people"; it fails to address the real problems of "God's People" (whomever they might consider themselves to be). It furthermore adds to those real problems. The means exist to prevent genocides and other, lesser, state-encouraged or sponsored mass violence. Those means consist of the introduction of the concept of bigotry itself into constitutional law, by extension from already existing laws, as a disqualification from political participation. This can be done only by way of an extended public debate. In a constitutional democracy, that is how such things are done. It is easy to avoid such deep issues, and to deal instead only with whatever are the latest political hot-button issues of the day, such as flag-burning amendments, anti-abortion amendments, etc. All of those intiatives come from conservatives, who want to roll back the clock. Progressives will have to find their own voice, at long last, not merely to react to such reactions. If these available means are not employed, then it is only to be expected that such wanton horrors as genocides and race-riots will continue to occur. The smug ones in liberal democracies say, "It could never happen here." But "never" is a very long time. Maybe such lemmings are right about the timeframe of the next five, ten, or even twenty years. Perhaps even within their own lifetimes they are right. But that is not "never." Is it only people such as Hitler who are concerned about future generations; are not progressives also concerned about the long term? Cannot they, too, initiate, or do they only react to the reactionists? Is it really only the reactionists who care about what might happen to their children and their children's children? Such a public debate must begin now. If democratic countries do not resolve this matter now, when times are good, then later will surely be too late. And what will the smug say then? What would be the excuse next time? Only: "We did not care." Because from now on, that is what it is coming down to: Do we even really care? Of course, it is easier to care when things get desperate, and the 250

20: Policy-Implications economy and even the whole world seems to be falling apart. Yet that is exactly what was happening during the Third Reich and the Great Depression. But even so, the world stood back, and did not respond. During the 1930's and 40's, even in the most-liberal nations, the public-at-large clearly did not care. This posed an excruciating predicament for U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, as revealed in Robert B. Stinnett's Day of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor, published in the final month of the Millennium. It documented that the American public did not care about Hitler's threat enough to favor the country's going to war to stop it; so that the American President and his Administration had no other alternative for stopping Hitler, but to provoke a Japanese attack and to assure its success by preventing the military commanders at Pearl Harbor from defending against it. The Pearl Harbor attack, and all the loss of American life and weaponry that it entailed, were the successful outcome of an eight-step secret U.S. Naval Intelligence strategic memo that President Roosevelt began implementing in October 1940, in recognition of the fact that unless the U.S. quickly joined the war against the Axis powers, the Axis (including especially Hitler) would win; and that the only way possible to turn American public opinion around from its then-existing isolationist consensus toward supporting America's going to war against Hitler, was by means of such a successful and apparently unprovoked Axis attack; any other route would take too long, by which time Hitler would already have won the war. Jules Archer's 1973 masterpiece, The Plot to Seize the White House, established the immense political dangers that FDR faced domestically: a cabal of America's wealthiest families were pouring millions of dollars into a scheme for a coup d'etat to overthrow him militarily and to impose a U.S. dictator patterned after the European fascist models, and both religious liberals and religious conservatives were passionately organizing groups for pacifism and isolationism to prevent the United States from joining the war. If such efforts had succeeded, then Hitler would have won. Even if only the pacifist/isolationist efforts had succeeded, while the oligarchic coup attempt had not, Hitler would have won, and the United States would have been faced subsequently with the necessity to go to war all alone against the Axis powers in order to maintain freedom and democracy at home in the United States. This would have meant an American war against a united fascist Europe and Asia. America would have been forced to fight virtually the entire world in order to maintain its 251

20: Policy-Implications own democracy and independence, because the Axis would already have beaten England and the Soviet Union he/ore the United States joined the war too late as the lone bastion of freedom and independence. Franklin Delano Roosevelt had to deceive his own peopleboth religious conservatives and religious liberalsby sacrificing Pearl Harbor to the Japanese in order to save for us and for all future generations the world that we have today. Probably no political leader in history has ever had to face such a painful choice. It is only because America did not join the war too late, that fascist rule over the entire world was able to be averted. The public did not care enough, because the publicboth religious liberals and religious conservativesdid not understand what the stakes really were. Religion has never, in any country, been so reality-oriented as to educate the public about what really counts. When Franklin Delano Roosevelt made the decision to sacrifice Pearl Harbor to the Japanese the greatest political decision in historythe U.S. White House must have seemed a very lonely place indeed. So the question, from today forward, is: Do we even really care! Now do we care? After all, if an equivalent challenge ever happens again, we might not be so lucky as to have in the U.S. White House a President of FDR's caliber. What then! With the advancement of technology, the stakes become ever-larger. Is Mankind itself up to the challenge? What is needed, from this point forward, is nothing less thanat long lastthe completion of the epistemological transformation of the species that commenced when the Renaissance itself did: the transformation from the Religious to the Scientific Age. It had better happen soon; we can't much longer rely just on luck. The stakes are simply becoming too large for that to be tenable any longer. This is the warning.


APPENDICES Random thoughts on other causative factors behind the Holocaust, and a guide to the best works published relative to causation: 1: 2: Hitler's Essay, "My Theory of Eugenics" A: Is bigotry associated with fundamentalist religion? B: Is atheism the solution to bigotry? C: Naziism and psychopathy D: Why did the German people support Hitler? E: The majoritarian arrogance of German mass-culture F: The great failure of intellectuals and the academy G: Mass-media peddling of lies H: The role nationalism plays in genocide I: The future of the social sciences 254 277 294 298 304 314 325 340 344 346


APPENDIX 1: "My Theory of Eugenics" by Adolf Hitler (Extracted from Mein Kampf, Hitler presents here the theory behind the Holocaustthe reason why he was subsequently proud to organize the selection of millions of people for systematic slaughter. This theory had a bigger impact than virtually any other theory in all history; perhaps only Karl Marx's stupidity surpassed it. At the foundation of Hitler's theory was the conviction that Hitler expressed several times elsewhere, and that was most dramatically captured by Hermann Rauschning's account of Hitler in conversation, that, "There cannot be two Chosen People. We are God's People"; and that, while Aryans are "the men of God," Jews are "the men of Satan." Hitler, in brief, aimed to "purify" the human "race" or actually species, by exterminating "the men of Satan"and by breeding "the men of God," to restore in a contemporary setting the Garden of Eden. Here in Mein Kampf he fills in the details of this theory for the Holocaust that he had previously merely outlined in his private notes in 1919, for The Germanic Revolution, Volume I. However, unlike in those private notes, where he credited his source, "The BibleMonumental History of Mankind," all that you will see here is unattributed borrowings from that source. Nowhere in Mein Kampf which of course was public, does Hitler credit or acknowledge his source, much less cite the specific chapters and verses from it that he is using.) (The following is excerpted from the 1939 Houghton Mifflin edition of Mein Kampf pages in the following order: 610,606,608-9,288-9,604-5, 826-7,4489,434-5,675-7, 960-1,421-3, 336-7, 78, 338-9, 344-5, 612-3, 3469,621,452,396,452, 390,400, 581,406, 392,390,392,993.) 254

Appendix 1: "My Theory of Eugenics"

In the folkish State the folkish view of life has finally to succeed in bringing about that nobler era when men see their care no longer in the better breeding of dogs, horses and cats, but rather in the uplifting of mankind itself, an era in which the one knowingly and silently renounces, and the other gladly gives and sacrifices. That this is possible must not be denied in a world in which hundreds and hundreds of thousands of men voluntarily impose celibacy upon themselves, obliged and bound by nothing but a command of the Church. Should not the same renunciation be possible if it is replaced by the admonition finally to put an end to the permanently continuous original sin of a race poisoning and to give the Almighty Creator beings as He Himself created them? *** There is only one most sacred human right, and this right is at the same time the most sacred obligation, namely: to see to it that the blood is preserved pure, so that by the preservation of the best human material a possibility is given for a more noble development of these human beings. Thus a folkish State primarily will have to lift marriage out of the level of a permanent race degradation in order to give it the consecration of that institution which is called upon to beget images of the Lord and not deformities half man and half ape

The folkish State has to make up for what is today neglected in this field in all directions. It has to put the race into the center of life in general. It has to care for its preservation in purity. It has to make the child the most precious possession of a people. It has to 255

Appendix I: Hitler's Essay, "My Theory of Eugenics" take care that only the healthy beget children; that there is only one disgrace: to be sick and to bring children into the world despite one s own deficiencies; but the one highest honor; to renounce this. Further, on the other hand this has to be looked upon as objectionable; to keep healthy children from the nation. Thereby the State has to appear as the guardian of a thousand years' future, in the face of which the wish and the egoism of the individual appears as nothing and has to submit. It has to put the most modern medical means at the service of this knowledge. It has to declare unfit for propagation everybody who is visibly ill and has inherited a disease and it has to carry this out in practice. On the other hand, it has to care that the fertility of the healthy woman is not limited by the financial mismanagement of a State regime which makes children a curse for the parents. It has to do away with that foul, nay criminal, indifference with which today the social presumptions of a family with many children is treated, and in its place it has to consider itself the guardian of this precious blessing of a people. Its care belongs more to the child than to the adult He who is not physically and mentally healthy and worthy must not perpetuate his misery in the body of his child. Here the folkish State has to achieve the most enormous work of education. Some day it will appear as a greater deed than the most victorious wars of our present bourgeois era. By education it has to teach the individual that it is not a disgrace but only a regrettable misfortune to be sick and weakly, but that it is a crime and therefore at the same time a disgrace to dishonor this misfortune by one's egoism by burdening it again upon an innocent being; that in the face of this it gives proof of a nobility of the highest mind and of most admirable humaneness if the innocently sick, by renouncing his own child, gives his love and tenderness to an unknown, poor young descendant of his nationality, whose health promises that one day he will become a vigorous member of a 256

Appendix I: Hitler's Essay, "My Theory of Eugenics" powerful community. With this work of education the State has to render the purely spiritual supplement of its practical activity. Without considering understanding or non-understanding, approval or disapproval, it has to act in this sense. The prevention of the procreative faculty and possibility on the part of physically degenerated and mentally sick people, for only six hundred years, would not only free mankind of immeasurable misfortune, but would also contribute to a restoration that appears hardly believable today. If thus the conscious methodical promotion of the fertility of the most healthy bearers of the nationality is realized, the result will be a race which, at least at first, will have eliminated the germs of our present physical, and with it of the spiritual, decline. For once a people and a State have set out in this way, then one will direct one's eyes at increasing the racially most valuable nucleus of the people and its very fertility, so that finally the entire nationality may share the blessing of a highbred racial treasure. *** What we have to fight for is the security of the existence and the increase of our race and our people, the nourishment of its children and the preservation of the purity of the blood, the freedom and independence of the fatherland in order to enable our people to mature for the fulfillment of the mission which the Creator of the universe has allotted also to them. Every thought and every idea, every doctrine and all knowledge, have to serve this purpose. *** One can establish the following valid conclusion: Every race-crossing leads necessarily sooner or later to the decline of the mixed product, as long as the higher part of this crossing still exists in some racially pure unity. The danger for the mixed product is abolished 257

Appendix I: Hitler's Essay, "My Theory of Eugenics" only in the moment of the bastardization of the last higher, racially pure element. In this is rooted a slow yet natural process of regeneration which gradually eliminates racial poisonings, as long as there still exists a basic stock of racially pure elements and no further bastardization takes place. *** Let the desolation which Jewish hybridization daily visits on our nation be clearly seen, this blood-poisoning that can be removed from our body national only after centuries or nevermore; let it be pondered, further, how racial decay drags down, indeed often annuls, the final Aryan values of our German nation, so that our force as a culture-bearing people is visibly more and more in retreat and we run the great danger of ending up, at least in our great cities, where southern Italy already is today. This infection of our blood, which hundreds of thousands of our people overlook as though blind, is, moreover, promoted systematically by the Jews today. Systematically these black parasites of the nations ravish our innocent young, blonde girls and thus destroy something that can never again be replaced in this world. Both, yes, both Christian denominations regard with indifference this desecration and annihilation of a noble and unique race to whom the earth was given by the grace of God. What is important for the earth's future is not whether Protestants vanquish Catholics or Catholics vanquish Protestants, but whether Aryan humanity maintains itself or dies out. Nevertheless, today the two denominations do not fight against the despoiler of this humanity, but strive to destroy one another. Precisely he who is folkishly oriented has the most sacred duty, each within his own denomination, to see to it that God's will is not simply talked about outwardly, but that God s will is also fulfilled and God s labor not ravished. Because God's will once gave men their form, their being, and their faculties. Who destroys His work thereby declares war on the creation of the Lord, the devine will. 258

Appendix I: Hitler's Essay, "My Theory of Eugenics" *** For hours the black-haired Jew boy, diabolic joy in his face, waits in ambush for the unsuspecting girl whom he defiles with his blood and thus robs her from her people. With the aid of all means he tries to ruin the racial foundations of the people to be enslaved. Exactly as he himself systematically demoralizes women and girls, he is not scared from pulling down the barriers of blood and race for others on a large scale. It was and is the Jews who bring the negro to the Rhine, always with the same concealed thought and the clear goal of destroying, by the bastardization which would necessarily set in, the white race which they hate, to throw it down from its cultural and political height and in turn to rise personally to the position of master. For a racially pure people, conscious of its blood, can never be enslaved by the Jew. It will forever only be the master of bastards in this world. Thus he systematically tries to lower the racial level by a permanent poisoning of the individual. *** He poisons the blood of others, but he guards his own. The Jew does not marry a Christian woman, but always the Christian a Jewess. Yet the bastards take to the Jewish side. Especially a part of the higher nobility degrades itself completely. He knows this only too well, and for this reason he systematically carries out this kind of 'disarmament' of the spiritually leading class of his racial adversaries. Yet, in order to disguise his activity and to put his victims to sleep, he speaks now more and more of the equality of all men, without consideration of race or color. And those who are stupid begin to believe him.

For a view of life is intolerant and cannot be content 259

Appendix I: Hitler's Essay, "My Theory of Eugenics" with the role of a 'party among others,' but it demands dictatorially that it be acknowledged exclusively and completely and that the entire public life be completely readjusted according to its own views. Therefore it cannot tolerate the simultaneous existence of a representation of the fonner condition. Exactly the same applies to religions. Christianity also could not content itself with building up its own altar, it was compelled to proceed to destroying the heathen altars. Only out of this fanatical intolerance could an apodictic creed form itself, and this intolerance is even its absolute presupposition. Now one may very well raise the objection that with such phenomena in world history one has mostly to do with those of specifically Jewish ways of thinking; that indeed this kind of intolerance and fanaticism incorporates the very Jewish nature. This may be right a thousand times, and one may well regret this fact deeply and state its appearance in the history of mankind with only too justified annoyance as something that had been unknown to history thus faryet this does not change the fact that this condition does exist today. The men who want to redeem our German people from its present condition must not torture their heads with thinking about how splendid it would be if this or that did not exist, but they must try to find out how one can abolish given facts. A view of life, filled with infernal intolerance, will be broken only by a new idea that is driven forward by a similar spirit, is fought for with the same strongest will, but is pure and genuine throughout. The individual may state with pain today that with the appearance of Christianity the first spiritual terror has been brought into the much freer old world, but he will not be able to deny the fact that since then the world has been threatened and dominated by this compulsion, and that compulsion is broken only by compulsion, and terror by terror. Only then can a new condition be created by construction. Political parties are inclined towards compromises, views of life never. Political parties count with opponents, views of life proclaim their infallibility. 260

Appendix I: Hitler's Essay, "My Theory of Eugenics" Political parties too have originally always the intention of coming to sole despotic domination; nearly always they harbor a minor impulse towards a view of life. But the very narrowness of their programs robs them of the heroism that a view of life demands. The conciliating measures of their intention leads to them the petty and weak minds with whom one cannot make crusades. Thus in most cases they soon get stuck in their own pitiable pettiness. By this, however, they renounce the fight for a view of life and instead by so-called 'positive cooperation' they try to conquer as quickly as possible a place at the food trough of existing institutions and to remain there as long as possible. This, then, is their only endeavor.

The impotence of nations, their own death of old age, however, comes from the abandonment of their purity of blood. And the Jew guards this better than any other people of the earth. Thereby he continues to move farther on his fatal course, until another force opposes him and, in a mighty struggle, once more pitches the stormer of the heavens back to Lucifer. Germany is today the next great battle aim of bolshevism. It requires all the force of a young missionary idea once again to inspire our nation to break out of the snare of this international snake and internally to check the tainting of our blood, so that the nation's forces can thereby be devoted to the securing of our nationality, which may make it possible to prevent a repetition of the final catastrophe until the end of time. But if one pursues this goal, then it is insanity to ally oneself with a power which has as its rulers the mortal enemy of our own future. How shall our own nation be freed from the chains of this poisonous embrace if we hand ourselves over to it? How reveal bolshevism to the individual German worker as an accursed crime against humanity if we ally ourselves with the organizations of this spawn of hell, and thereby recognize it as a whole? With what right shall we then 261

Appendix I: Hitler's Essay, "My Theory of Eugenics" condemn members of the broad masses for their sympathy for a view of life if the very leaders of the State choose the representatives of this view of life as allies? The struggle against Jewish bolshevization of the world requires a clear attitude towards Soviet Russia. You cannot drive out the Devil with Beelzebub. *** We must not forget that the international Jew, who today rules Russia absolutely, sees in Germany, not an ally, but a State marked for the same destiny. *** In Russian bolshevism we must see Jewry's twentieth-century effort to take world dominion unto itself. *** The Jews were always a people with definite racial qualities and never a religion, only their progress made them probably look very early for a means which could divert disagreeable attention from their person. But what would have been more useful and at the same time more harmless than the 'purloining' of the appearance of being a religious community? For here, too, everything is purloined, or rather, stolen. But resulting from his own original nature the Jew cannot possess a religious institution for the very reason that he lacks all idealism in any form and that he also does not recognize any belief in the hereafter. But in the Aryan conception one cannot conceive of a religion which lacks the conviction of the continuation of life after death in some form. Indeed, the Talmud is then not a book for the preparation for the life to come, but rather for a practical and bearable life in this world. The Jewish religious doctrine is primarily a direction for preserving the purity of the blood of Judaism 262

Appendix I: Hitler's Essay, "My Theory of Eugenics" as well as for the regulation of the Jews' intercourse with one another, but even more in connection with the rest of the world, that means, with non-Jews. But here, too, the problems involved are not at all ethical, but rather extremely modest economic ones. About the moral value of the Jewish religious instructions there exist today and there have existed at all times rather exhaustive studies (on the non-Jewish side; the drivel of the Jews themselves about this is, of course, cut to the purpose) which make this kind of 'religion' appear even odious from Aryan viewpoints. But the best stamp is given by the product of this 'religious' education, the Jew himself. His life is really only of this world, and his spirit is as alien to true Christianity, for instance, as his nature was two thousand years ago to the Sublime Founder of the new doctrine. Of course, the latter made no secret of His disposition towards the Jewish people, and when necessary He even took to the whip in order to drive out of the Lord's temple this adversary of all humanity, who even then as always saw in religion only a means for his business existence. But for this, of course, Christ was crucified, while our present party Christianity disgraces itself by begging for Jewish votes in the elections and later tries to conduct political wirepulling with atheistic Jewish parties, and this against their own nation. Upon this first and greatest lie, that the Jew is not a race but simply a religion, further lies are then built up in necessary consequence. To them also belongs the language spoken at the time by the Jew. For him it is never a means of expressing his thoughts, but for hiding them. When he speaks French, he thinks Jewish, and when he turns out German poetry, he only gives an outlet to the nature of his people. *** Parallel with the political and moral infection of the people went a no less terrible poisoning of the health of the national body. Syphilis began to spread more and more, especially in the great cities, while tuberculosis was 263

Appendix I: Hitler's Essay, "My Theory of Eugenics" steadily reaping its harvest of death almost throughout the entire country. Although in both cases the consequences for the nation were terrible, one could no longer bring oneself to take decisive measures. Towards syphilis especially one can describe the attitude of the national and State authority only with the words, complete capitulation. If one wanted to fight it seriously, one had to take quite different steps than was actually the case. The invention of a remedy of a questionable character as well as the commercial exploitation of the latter are able to help but little with this plague. Also here only the fight against the causes should be considered and not the abolition of the symptoms. The cause, however, lies primarily in our prostitution of love. Even if the result of this were not this terrible disease, yet it would still be of deepest danger for the people, for the moral devastation which this depravity brings with it are sufficient to destroy a people slowly but surely. The Judaization of our spiritual life and the mammonization [sic] of our mating impulse sooner or later befouls our entire new generation, for instead of vigorous children of natural feeling, only the miserable specimens of financial expedience come forth. *** [When I lived in Vienna,] the life in the street gave some really evil demonstrations. In no other city of western Europe could the relationship between Jewry and prostitution, and even now the white slave traffic, be studied better than in Vienna, with the possible exception of the seaports of Southern France. When walking at night through the streets and alleys of the Leopoldsstadt, with every step one could witness things which were unknown to the greater part of the German nation until the war gave the soldiers on the Easter Front an opportunity to see similar things, or rather forced them to see them. An icy shudder ran down my spine when seeing 264

Appendix I: Hitler's Essay, "My Theory of Eugenics" for the first time the Jew as a cool, shameless, and calculating manager of this shocking vice, the outcome of the scum of the big city. But then my indignation flared up. Now I did not evade the discussion of the Jewish question any longer; no, I sought it out. As I learned to look for the Jew in every field of our cultural and artistic life, I suddenly bumped against him in a place where I had never suspected. The scales dropped from my eyes when I found the Jew as the leader of Social Democracy. This put an end to a long internal struggle. *** The fact that the population of our big cities is prostituted more and more in its love life, and that just through this it falls victim to syphilis in more and wider circles, cannot just be abolished by denying it; it is there. The most obvious results of this mass contagion can be found on the one hand in the lunatic asylums, and on the other, unfortunately, in ourchildren. These especially are the sad certificates of misery of the irresistibly advancing tainting of our sexual life; in the diseases of the children the vices of the parents are revealed. Now there are different ways to reconcile oneself with this disagreeable, even terrible fact: some do not see anything at all, or rather they do not want to see anything: this is of course by far the most simple and cheapest 'attitude'; others wrap themselves in a saintly cloak of prudishness that is as ridiculous as it is also mendacious; they only talk of this entire domain as if it were a great sin, and, above all, in the presence of every sinner caught in the act, they express their deeply felt inner indignation in order then to close their eyes in pious disgust towards this vicious disease and to ask God (if possible after their own death) to rain fire and brimstone upon this Sodom and Gomorrah in order once again to make an elevating example of this disgraceful mankind; a third group see very well the terrible consequences which this disease is 265

Appendix I: Hitler's Essay, "My Theory of Eugenics" bound to, and will, bring with it, but nevertheless they only shrug their shoulders, convinced that they can do nothing against this danger, anyhow, so that one has to let things go as they are going. *** However, the question is then all the more which nation first and by itself is able to master this plague, and which nations cannot help perishing. That is what matters in the end. This also is only a touchstone for the value of a race, and that race which does not pass the test will die and make room for races healthier or at least tougher and of greater resistance. For, since this question primarily concerns the coming generation, it belongs to those of whom it is said, with terrible correctness, that the sins of the fathers are visited upon the tenth generation. But this is valid only for the sins against blood and race. The sin against the blood and the degradation of the race are the hereditary sin of this world and the end of a mankind surrendering to them.

Therefore, one can approach a real fight against prostitution only if, by a fundamental change of social conditions, earlier marriage than can take place now is made generally possible. This is the very first preliminary condition for a solution of this question. In the second place, however, education and training have to eliminate quite a series of evils about which one hardly cares at all today. Above all, in our present-day education a balance between intellectual instruction and physical training has to take place. What today calls itself a gymnasium is an insult to the Greek example. With our education one has entirely forgotten that in the long run a healthy mind is able to dwell only in a healthy body. Especially when, with a few exceptions, one looks at the great masses of the people, this principle receives absolute 266

Appendix I: Hitler's Essay, "My Theory of Eugenics" validity. In pre-war Germany there was a time when one no longer cared for this truth. One simply went on sinning against the body, and one thought that in the one-sided training of the 'mind' one possessed a safe guaranty for the greatness of the nation. *** If as the State's first task in the service and for the welfare of its nationality we recognize the preservation, care and development of the racially best elements, it is natural that this care has to extend not only to the time of birth of the young member of people and race, but that it has to educate the young offspring towards becoming a valuable member in view of later propagation. Just as in general the presumption for spiritual achievements lies in the racial quality of the given human material, thus also the individual's education has to focus upon and to promote first of all physical health; for, within the masses, a healthy, vigorous spirit will be found only in a healthy and powerful body. The fact that geniuses are sometimes physically badly formed, even sick beings, is no objection. They are the exceptions whichas everywhereprove the rule. But if the mass of a people consists of physical degenerates, then out of this swamp a really great spirit will arise only very rarely. His activity will in no case be rewarded with great success. The degraded rabble will either not understand him at all, or it will be so weakened in its will power that it will be unable to follow the soaring flight of such an eagle. The folkish State, through this realization, has to direct its entire education primarily not at pumping in mere knowledge, but at the breeding of absolutely healthy bodies. Of secondary importance is the training of the mental abilities. But here again first of all the development of the character, especially the promotion of will power and determination, connected with education for joyfully assuming responsibility, and only as the last thing, scientific schooling. 267

Appendix I: Hitler's Essay, "My Theory of Eugenics" *** Thus the entire education has to be directed towards employing the free time of the boy for the useful training of his body. He has no right to loaf about idly in these years, to make streets and movie theaters insecure, but after his daily work he has to steel and harden his young body so that life will not find him too soft some day. To get this underway and also to carry it out, to guide and to lead is the task of the education of youth, and not the exclusive infiltration of socalled wisdom. It has also to do away with the conception that the treatment of the body were the concern of each individual. There is no liberty to sin at the expense of posterity and, with it, of the race. Parallel with the training of the body, the fight against the poisoning of the soul has to set in. Our entire public life today resembles a hothouse of sexual conceptions and stimulants. One has only to look at the menus of our movie houses, vaudevilles, and theaters; and one can hardly deny that this is not the right kind of food, above all for youth. In shop windows and on billboards one works with the basest means in order to attract the attention of the masses. That this is bound to lead to serious damage to youth is probably clear to everyone who has not lost the ability to imagine himself in the place of a youth's soul. This sensual sultry atmosphere leads to ideas and stimulations at a time when the boy ought not yet to have an understanding for such things. The result of this education can be studied in a not very enjoyable way with the youth of today. From the courtrooms, events sometimes penetrate to the public which permit a horrible insight into the inner life of our fourteen- and fifteen-year-old youths. Who will wonder, therefore, that even in the circles of this age syphilis begins to seek its victims? And is it not a misery to see how so many physically weak, and also mentally corrupt, young men receive their initiation into marriage by a whore of the big cities? No, he who wants to attack prostitution must primarily help to abolish the mental presupposition for it. 268

Appendix I: Hitler's Essay, "My Theory of Eugenics" He has to clear away the filth of the moral contamination of the 'culture' of our big cities, and this ruthlessly and without hesitating despite all clamor and lamentations which then, of course, will be let loose. If we do not lift our youth out of the morass of its present surroundings, it will be submerged in it. He who does not want to see these things supports them and becomes thus a fellow culprit in the slow prostitution of our future, for the latter lies in the coming generation. This cleaning-up of our culture must extend to nearly all domains. Theater, art, literature, movies, the press, billposters and window displays must be cleaned of the symptoms of a rotting world and put into the service of a moral idea of State and culture. Public life has to be freed from the suffocating perfume of our modern eroticism, exactly as also of all unmanly prudish insincerity. In all these things the goal and the way have to be determined by the care for the preservation of our people's health in body and soul. The right of personal freedom steps back in the face of the duty of the preservation of the race. Only after the execution of these measures can the medical fight against this disease itself be carried on with some prospects of success. However, here, too, the question involved cannot be that of half measures, but also here one will have to come to the most serious and most incisive decisions. It is a half measure to allow incurably ill people the permanent p ossib ility of contaminating the other healthy ones. But this corresponds entirely to a humaneness which, in order not to hurt one individual, lets hundreds of others perish. The demand that for defective people the propagation of an equally defective offspring be made impossible is a demand of clearest reason and in its planful execution it means the most humane act of mankind. It will spare undeserved suffering to millions of unfortunates, but in the future it will lead to an increasing improvement of health on the whole. The determination to proceed in this direction will also put up a dam against the further spreading of venereal diseases. For here, if necessary, one will have to proceed to the pitiless isolation of incurably diseased people; a barbaric 269

Appendix I: Hitler's Essay, "My Theory of Eugenics" measure for one who was unfortunate enough to be stricken with it, but a blessing for the contemporaries and for posterity. The temporary pain of a century may and will redeem millenniums from suffering. The fight against syphilis and its pacemaker, prostitution, is one of the most colossal tasks of mankind, colossal for the reason that it does not involve the solution of a single question in itself, but rather the abolition of quite a series of evils which, as their consecutive symptoms, give the cause for this disease. For the illness of the body is here only the result of an illness of moral, social, and racial instincts. If this fight, by reason of inertia or also cowardice, is not fought out, then one should look upon the nations five hundred years from now. Then one would be able to find only a few images of God, without deliberately insulting the All Highest. *** Analogous with the education of the boy, the folkish State can also direct the education of the girl from the same viewpoints. Here too the main stress should be put on physical training, and only after this on the promotion of spiritual and last of all, the intellectual values. The goal of female education has invariably to be the future mother.

Alone the loss of the purity of the blood destroys the inner happiness forever; it eternally lowers man, and never again can its consequences be removed from body and mind. *** All great cultures of the past perished only because the originally creative race died off through blood-poisoning. *** 270

Appendix I: Hitler's Essay, "My Theory of Eugenics" Peoples which bastardize themselves, or permit themselves to be bastardized, sin against the will of eternal Providence, and their ruin by the hand of a stronger nation is consequently not an injustice that is done to them, but only the restoration of right.

Any crossing between two beings of not quite the same high standard produces a medium between the standards of the parents. That means: the young one will probably be on a higher level than the racially lower parent, but not as high as the higher one. Consequently, it will succumb later on in the fight against the higher level. But such a mating contradicts Nature's will to breed life as a whole towards a higher level. The presumption for this does not lie in blending the superior with the inferior, but rather in a complete victory of the former. The stronger has to rule and he is not to amalgamate with the weaker one, that he may not sacrifice his own greatness.

Aryan tribes (often in a really ridiculously small number of their own people) subjugate foreign peoples, and now, stimulated by the special living conditions of the new territory (fertility, climatic conditions, etc.) and favored by the mass of the helping means in the form of people of inferior kind now at their disposal, they develop the mental and organizatory abilities slumbering in them. Often, in the course of a few millenniums or even centuries, they create cultures which originally completely bear the inner features of their character, adapted to the special qualities of the soil as well as of the subjected people. Finally, however, the conquerors deviate from the purity of their blood which they maintained originally, they begin to mix with the subjected inhabitants and thus they end their own existence; for the fall of man in Paradise has always been followed by expulsion from it. 271

Appendix I: Hitler's Essay, "My Theory of Eugenics

The undermining of the existence of human culture by destroying its supporters appears, in a folkish view of life, as the most execrable crime. He who dares to lay hand upon the highest image of the Lord sins against the benevolent Creator of this miracle and helps in the expulsion from Paradise. *** The Aryan gave up the purity of his blood and therefore he also lost his place in the Paradise which he had created for himself. He became submerged in the race-mixture, he gradually lost his cultural ability more and more, till at last not only mentally but also physically he began to resemble more the subjected and aborigines than his ancestors. For some time, he may still live on the existing cultural goods, but then petrifaction sets in, and finally oblivion. In this way cultures and realms collapse in order to make room for new formations. The blood-mixing, however, with the lowering of the racial level caused by it, is the sole cause of the dying-off of old cultures; for the people do not perish by lost wars, but by the loss of that force of resistance which is contained only in the pure blood. All that is not race in this world is trash. All world historical events, however, are only the expression of the races' instinct of self-preservation in its good or in its evil meaning. *** Just as little as Nature desires a mating between weaker individuals and stronger ones, far less she desires the mixing of a higher race with a lower one, as in this case her entire work of higher breeding, which has perhaps taken hundreds of thousands of years, would tumble at 272

Appendix I: Hitler's Essay, "My Theory of Eugenics" one blow. Historical experience offers countless proofs of this. It shows with terrible clarity that with any mixing of the blood of the Aryan with lower races, the result was the end of the culture-bearer. *** In most cases hybrids and their progeny are denied the ordinary powers of resistance to disease or the natural means of defense against outer attack. *** The result of any crossing, in brief, is always the following: (a) Lowering of the standard of the higher race, (b) Physical and mental regression, and with it, the beginning of a slowly but steadily progressive lingering illness. To bring about such a development means nothing less than sinning against the will of the Eternal Creator. This action, then, is also regarded as a sin.

At the end of this second volume I want to bring before the eyes of our adherents and of the crusaders for our doctrine those eighteen heroes to whom I dedicated the first volume of my work, as those heroes who most consciously sacrificed themselves for all of us. They must always recall the weak and those who become irresolute back to the fulfillment of their duty, to a duty which they themselves fulfilled with the best faith and despite all consequences. And I want also to reckon among them that man, who, as one of the best, by words and by thoughts and finally by deeds, dedicated his life to the awakening of his, of our nation: Dietrich Eckart


Appendix I: Hitler's Essay, "My Theory of Eugenics"

A Summary of Hitler s Theory for the Holocaust The Bible is the Monumental History of Mankindnot myth. Mankind did not evolve; Darwin was wrong; the Bible was right; God created Man perfect in His own image in the Garden of Eden. Original sin brought about the Fall of Man; in Genesis 3, Satan in the form of the snake, tempted Eve, and thus led to the expulsion of Adam and Eve from Paradise. Adam and Eve were God's People. But the Jews, in accord with John 8:44, are Satan's people, descended from Satan. Matthew 23:33 tells us that Jews are really snakes and descended from snakes. Revelation 20:2 tells us that Satan is the original snake. This explains why Christ said in John 8:44 that the Jews are Satan's children. As is made clear in many of the epistles in the New Testament, such as 1 Peter 1:1-2 and 2:9, God's People today are the purebloodcd Christians, who are purified by Christ's blood. Prior to Christ, the Jews were God's People, but at some point in time Satan poisoned their blood and turned them into his people, which is, as John 8:44 makes clear, the reason why the Jews killed Christ. But the war between the People of God (that is to say, the Aryans, the pureblooded Christians) and the people of Satan (who of course are the Jews) continues. Now the people of Satan are spreading Satan's blood-poisoning to the People of God, by miscegenation or race-mixing with them, poisoning our children so that they become Satan's people. In Deuteronomy 7:1-3 and elsewhere, God laid down the law prohibiting the race-mixing of God's People with inferior peoples. In John 8:44, Matthew 27:25, Luke 19:27, and other passages, God has indicated the final solution for our times. However, as is shown by Revelation 20:1 -6, this solution will actually last for only a thousand years: exterminating Satan's people will eliminate the blood-poisoning from Satan, and restore Paradise for one thousand years, the Thousand-Year Reich, during which God's Peoplethe Aryans will rule the Earth, carrying out God's will in Paradise restored. "The Bible Monumental History of Mankind" (as I have referred to it in my private notes) has made clear our task, and our goal. In order to achieve this, all public media must likewise be morally cleansed: Homosexuals, pornographers, and other sinners, are degenerates who must be sternly punished. [Hitler rounded them all up.] It is also essential to clamp down against abortion; abortions of God's Childrenthat is, of Aryan childrenviolate God's will, as expressed in Genesis 1:28. [Hitler ordered that the detailed circumstances of all 274

Appendix I: Hitler's Essay, "My Theory of Eugenics" 'miscarriages' be promptly reported to the government for investigation and possible prosecution.] An instruction in morality that lacks a religious foundation is built on air. All character training must be derived from faith. [Hitler specifically imposed Christianity as the foundation of morality, and the family as the basis of racial and political life for all Aryans; he was strong on "family values."] Atheists are only to be despised, for they are on the spiritual level of an animal. My greatest hero, and personal model, is Jesus Christ; and the work that He began, I shall finish.

NOTE Besides the examples that have been previously cited, the following are just a few of the additional references in Mein Kampf that reflect from a literary standpoint Hitler's immersion in the Bible, and the literary impact upon him of his early religious trainers: p. 113: "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than that a great man is 'discovered' in an election." Matthew 19:24; Mark 10:25; Luke 18:25: "It is harder for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of God than for a camel to go through the eye of a needle." p. 148: "One really cannot serve two masters." Matthew 6:24: "No one can serve two masters." p. 165: "The sentiments of the people were only and always the outflow of that which was poured into public opinion from above. But up above one worshiped this 'ally' like the golden calf." ("Up above" refers to the press, and supposedly therefore, "the Jews.") Exodus 32:1-4: "When the people saw that Moses was so long in coming down from the mountain, they gathered around Aaron and said, 'Come make us gods, who will go before us. As for Moses who brought us out of Egypt, we do not know what has happened to him; so make us a god to lead us.' Aaron said to them, 'Take off the gold earrings which your wives, your sons, and your daughters are wearing, and bring them to me.' So all the people took off their gold earrings and brought them to Aaron. He took the earrings, melted them into a mold, and so produced a golden calf. The people said, 'Israel, this is our god, who led us out of Egypt.'" p. 286: "For the greater a man's works for the future are, the less is the present able to understand them, and the more difficult also is the fight and the more rare the success. But if, nevertheless, in the course of centuries one man succeeds in this, then he may perhaps, in his later years, be 275

Appendix I: Hitler's Essay, "My Theory of Eugenics" surrounded by a faint glimmer of the coming glory. But these great ones are only the marathon runners of history; the laurel wreath of the present only just touches the temples of the dying hero." 1 Corinthians 9:23-7: (Paul, as explained herein in Part II, is referring here to his invention of the 'Christian' faith:) "All this I do for the gospel's sake, in order to share in its blessing [which to Hitler could have meant either healthfulness or else an aferlife in heaven]. Surely you know that many runners take part in a race, but only one of them wins the prize. Run, then, in such a way as to win the prize. Every athlete in training submits to strict discipline, in order to be crowned with a wreath that will not last; but we do it for one that will last forever. [To Hitler, this meant heaven; what Paul was really referring to was Christianity itself.] That is why I run straight for the finish line; that is why I am like a boxer who does not waste his punches. I harden my body with blows and bring it under complete control, to keep myself from being disqualified after having called others to the contest." Matthew 13:57: "Prophets are not without honor, except in their own country and in their own family." p. 402: "The prophet rarely has any honor in his own country." John 4:44: "A prophet is without honor in his own country." p. 431: "[The Jew] begins his change as 'benefactor' of mankind. As his new benevolence has a genuine foundation, he cannot very well keep to the old words of the Bible that the left hand must not know what the right hand gives." Matthew 6:3: "When you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing."


2-A: Is bigotry associated with fundamentalist religion?

If it is, then the Holocaust could happen again, because fundamentalism continues. Adolf Hitler was not the last fundamentalist; and Christian fundamentalism in particular is booming, this being the very same fundamentalism from which Hitler himself derived his motivation for the Holocaust. Hitler's obsession to exterminate "the people of the devil" was derived from his belief that the anti-Semitic lies in the New Testament are the infallible Word of God; and this belief persists today, perhaps undiminished from Hitler's time. If fundamentalism produces bigotry, then the beliefs that generate genocides remain widespread amongst the masses and are credited as acceptable amongst the rest of society, in our own time, as in Hitler's. It then should be no surprise to find that organizations exist, even today, devoted to the goal of the ultimate extermination of Jews as "spawn of Satan," and that these groups agree as well with a remarkable number of other aspects of Hitler's program, and that also like Hitler these individuals were brought up to belive that the Bible is the infallible Word of God, the "Monumental History of Mankind." First, let's review the evidence: In his 1996 The Authoritarian Specter, social psychologist Bob Altemeyer introduced his own "Findings on Religiousness and Prejudice" (p. 149) by observing: "An appreciable research literature has accumulated on the connection between religiousness and prejudice, and one finding dominates all. If one takes church membership as the criterion for being religious, then as Gorsuch and Aleshire (1974) observed in their influential 277

Appendix: 2-A review, 'the results are clear and consistent. Church members are more prejudiced than those who have never joined a church. All the studies found the same relationship, which was statistically significant when tested.'" Altemeyer then reported his own recent studies in which he attempted to identify which religious groups, if any, are non-bigoted. His first study was on Christians, and concluded, "So if you want to know who the non-prejudiced Christians are, I think you can say, for a start, the non-fundamentalist ones, in general." This raised in his mind the question, "Is this true just of Christianity?" He undertook additional researches to find out. In separate studies of Jews, Hindus, and Muslims, he found exactly the same relationshipthe more-seriously that Scripture was taken (i.e, the more-fundamentalist one was), the more-bigoted the person. Altemeyer's studies turned up one other rather startling (to many people) finding: his measure for fundamentalism correlated almost to an identity with his measure for political conservatism (which he calls "right-wing authoritarinism"). As he put it: "Fundamentalism correlated with prejudice because fundamentalists tended to be right-wing authoritarians. If you partial out the effect of mutual relationships with Right-Wing Authoritarianism scores, all of the connections between religious fundamentalism and [prejudice] become essentially zero." And the separate studies that have been done of the relatinoship between conservatism and bigotry, have found them, too, to correlate exceptionally strongly. Actually, however, Altemeyer wasn't the first person to have come up with such findings. In 1973, using different sets of measures for fundamentalism, conservatism, and prejudice, researchers reported in Glenn D. Wilson (ed.), The Psychology of Conservatism (p. 137), exactly the same relationships. No research has been done to determine why this is the case. Here is a theory that might possibly explain it; however, it is only a theory, not a proven explanation, because such research has not been done: Despite the common sales-claim by virtually all religions that they promote "love," this might be in a large percentage of instances a love only for others of the given faith, who are accepted as being others of "God's People," and not people who are not "God's People." This would produce bigotry. Those outsiders might be viewed either of two ways: either as being simply not entites or objects of moral concern at all, so that it makes no difference what happens to them (and for example some Americans viewed Bosnians and Kosovars this way in 1999 opposing America's involvement against their genocide, especially perhaps because the victims were Muslims 278

Appendix: 2-A and the perpetrators Christians); or else as being outright damned "people of Satan." The first of these two options might be called "passive bigotry," and the second "active bigotry." In this framework, Hitler's attitude toward Jews would certainly have qualified as being of the second category. This framework would tend to identify as targets of either kind of bigotry individuals who fail to possess the traits that the given faith identifies as being also traits of the faith's God. Since most faiths attribute power to their God, and even the trait of being "the All-Powerful," or "the Almighty," weak people tend to be viewed as being not "like God," or not "God's people," and thus are discriminated-against, either passively or actively. It is in line with this view, for example, that the poor are condemned in Proverbs 10:3-4, I3:I8&2I, 14:14&234, 23:21, and 30:9, as well as in Isaiah 1:19, in Matthew 4:25 and 5:6, and in Luke 8:18 and 19:26. (This might be part of the reason why conservatives oppose government-expenditures for the poor.) Of course, a religion will also want to hold some appeal for the poor, since so many prospective converts will be poor people; however, the means of achieving that appeal will sometimes be to look upon poor people in a condescending way, as "charity" cases, for which more-"Godlike" people, meaning wealthier and more-powerful ones, will earn points with God by making voluntary contributions to their care. Similarly, some other targets of a religion's bigotry, such as homosexuals, will be viewed religiously in a rather schizophrenic way. Similarly, too, the Christian churches have historically wanted to kill Jews and also to convert them. One of the remarkably consistent findings of Altemeyer and other social psychologists (such as in the 1973 Wilson volume we just cited) has been that fundamentalists tend to be bigoted against all minorities; the reason is the same as for bigotry against the poor: Every minority-group member is vulnerable by virtue of the fact; there are fewer people to come to his aid if targeted by bigots. God is powerful; a minority-group member tends to be weak, and therefore even more not one of "God's People," not Godlike. It is fascinating that sometimes this mechanism of fundamentalism is exhibited even regarding a schizophrenic attitude toward the victims of the Holocausttargets that are on any rational grounds so bizarre objects of blame as to be ludicrous to serve as such. Yet, in keeping with Paul in Romans 13:1-4, referring to the king or Fuhrer as "God's servant" who "carries out God's punishment on those who do evil" but who is "working for your own good if you don't do evil," the 1995 Hitler's Cross by fundamentalist Christian Erwin W. Lutzer (published, appropriately, by 279

Appendix: 2-A Moody Press, "a ministry of Moody Bible Institute"), specifically cites (p. 50) Romans 13:1 to conclude that, "Certainly Hitler could not have ruled except that it was 'given to him by God.' He would have no power at all, unless it were granted from above. God rules!" (Of course, Hitler agreed, and held himself accountable only to God, not to the people he ruled.) And Lutzer also says (p. 38) that, "Just as Pharoah was raised up by God that the power of the Almightly would be displayed, so Hitler was raised up so that God's power might again be made known." Typical for a fundamentalist, Lutzer's focus is not at all on the victims at the bottom, but on God at the top. (To the extent that he does make reference to the "terrible events" of the Holocaust, he attributes them to Hitler's being [p. 51 ] "under the power of Satan.") Lutzer is unperturbed that, in accord with Romans 13:4, it is not the Nazis, but rather the Holocaust-victims, "who do evil." Yet, despite the logic of this explanation for fundamentalist bigotry, the explanation is at present a theory that requires empirical research in order to be scientifically established. What is no mere theory is that religion is bigot-genic. In this sense, the Holocaust against Jews and other "imperfects" who were not "God's people," wasn't merely a Christian phenomenon, but a religious one. Yet, there are differing degrees of bigotry; that which was involved in Europe's Thirty Years War, for example, was less than what the Jews who perished in Hitler's Holocaust experienced. In the Thirty Years War, bigotry was merely a contributing factor to the massive bloodshed, which was a real twosided war everywhere it was wagedan authentic power-struggle between the old Catholic and the new Protestant temporal potentates. But in the Holocaust, bigotry was vastly a more-pervasive cause; it was the cause, rather than just a contributing factor. There was no real power-struggle as a contributing factor. Torture and death were the goal not a by-productof the war. History provides numerous examples of both kinds of conflicts. The former Yugoslavia certainly exhibits strong elements of genocide, in which people are slaughtered for no other reason than who they are, and not at all for what they do. Like Jews in Germany early in the 20th Century, Moslems in the former Yugoslavia had adopted to a large extent the culture of the Christian majority, and intermarried with both Serb Orthodox, and Croat Roman, Catholics. Nonetheless, Moslems were targeted for death, merely because of whom their parents happened to be: Moslems. No matter how mild a form of Mohammedanism that wasand it tended to be not at all of the fundamentalist varietyMoslems often turned out to be Yugoslavia's "Jews." For some reason (which of course is no subject of 280

Appendix: 2-A the present book), a difference between two groups of people based on religious belief ended up metastacizing into a "racial" war, pitting a religious majority to the death against a religious minority. Northern Ireland, Israel, India, and many other countries, exhibit this phenomenon also, to some extent. Just as not every cancer is equally advanced, not every religious-based conflict is. And there also exist countries, such as Indonesia, where there is more of a mix of religious-based bigotry on the one hand, and economics and powerpolitics on the other. The ethnic Chinese Christian minority in Indonesia is not attacked by Moslem-majority mobs only because of the difference in ethnic groups, but also because the previous, essentially king, Suharto, had discriminated against his own majority by providing special favors to invite Chinese Christians into Indonesian business-opportunities. (He did this so as to have scapegoats just in case things got tough.) Religious sentiment is the great font of genocide, riot, mass murder, terrorism, and mayhem; but it is not in all instances the sole cause. As great a problem as bigotry isand it is the biggest of society's problemsthere are others as well. Thus, even though religious fundamentalism is the greatest of all social threats, it is only one of a number of major threats to society. You might have noticed that we have not discussed specifically the kind of bigotry that's known as "racism." That's because racism is just another form of bigotry. So, too, are misogyny, homophobia, and many others. They all have been shown in empirical studies to correlate strongly with religious fundamentalism. Take the contemporary North American case as an example: bigotries of all kinds are extremely concentrated in those organizations known as "extreme right-wing," the contemporary emobodiments of Altemeyer's "right-wing authoritarians"such groups as the Imperial Klans of America, Aryan Nations, White Aryan Resistance, The Order, Phineas Priesthood, Posse Comitatus, and World Church of the Creator. Such groups hate a wide variety of victims, including Blacks, homosexuals, Asians, and Jews. But their theologies make distinctions amongst these hated groups, just as Hitler did in Mein Kampf and elsewhere. Just as Hitler frequently charged that "the Jews" foist integration with Blacks upon Whites so as to dilute and weaken "the Aryan race," all of these groups hold that position as well. And just as Hitler was a Christian fundamentalist, so too are each of these groups. Unlike the fundamentalist Reverend Jerry Falwell, whose "Moral Majority" helped bring Ronald Reagan to the White House in the United States, and who thus is heavily invested in passing as mainstream, 281

Appendix: 2-A and so apologised after having blurted out at the beginning of 1999 that "the Anti-Christ is a Jew," these other Christian fundamentalist organizations are unapologetic about their dcmonization of "the people of Satan" (as they all refer to Jews), and are equally honest about their beliefs that "the Aryans" or White Christians are "the People of God"; that Jews are "spawn of Satan"; and that it is essential to exterminate all Jews and to enslave Blacks and other "inferior races." Also like Hitler, they claim a eugenic motivation for all this. These groups take the Bible very seriously. Like Hitler, they are deeply committed to "The BibleMonumental History of Mankind." Typical of these organizations, for example, Aryan Nations, on its 20-acre Idaho compound, holds regular Bible classes for all of its paramilitaries. They pledge an allegiance saying "We are one Aryan Nation under God." All of these groups claim that the Bible is the literal Word of God, and their literal reading produces virtually the same interpretation of it as did Hitler's. Unlike the Reverend Falwell, for example, who apologised for his having opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that ended state-imposed racial segregation in the United States, these groups are unapologetic about their continued support for legally imposed racial segregationat least for so long as the enslavement of "inferior races" remains illegal. (A return to the Southern Confederacy of the U.S. slave-South, appeals to some.) An excellent introduction to the theologies (which are so much alike, and which you already know from having read Hitler here) of these groups, as well as to the clergymen who founded these organizations, is to be found on the website of the Bethune Insitute, especially the documents titled: "Aryan Nations" (which closes with a good bibliography), "Christian Identity," "Killers for God," and "Curse of Canaan." Unlike the common distortions about these groups encountered in the regular media, pretending that for these people, "Their bible is The Turner Diaries" or else "Their bible is Mein Kampf," the reality is that, for each and every one of the groups, their bible is the Bible. And all of these groups agree with Mein Kampf and with The Turner Diaries about what the Bible means. And their literal reading of it as "God's Word" generates in them all the bigotry against all minorities. However, anti-Semitismthe particular form of bigotry that motivated Hitler to perpetrate the Holocaustis even more-rooted in religion than are other forms of bigotry. The reason is that Christianity happens to be built specifically on anti-Semitism, not on anti-Black or other forms of bigotry; Christianity is consitutionally anti-Semitic, anti-Semitic by virtue of what it accepts as being the Word of God. This is why Charles Y. 282

Appendix: 2-A Glock and Rodney Stark, in their 1966 Christian Beliefs and Anti-Semitism, found (pp. 170-1) that there was not a very strong relationship between Christian antiSemitism and Christian bigotry against Blacks, even though as Stark et al noted in the summary in their 1971 Wayward Shepherds: Prejudice and the Protestant Clergy (p. 9), "anti-Semitism and anti-Negro prejudice are highly related," and other studies reported and referenced by Bob Altemeyer have shown that all forms of bigotry rise along with religious belief. In other words, anti-Semitism among Christian fundamentalists is even stronger than is bigotry in general among fundamentalists in general. Wayward Shepherds was aimed at determining whether this generalization that had been found amongst the laity in Christian Beliefs and Anti-Semitism, pertained also amongst clergy; it did. Here is how Stark et al, summarized their final conclusion (pp. 84-5): The process leading from Christian doctrines to antiSemitism applies to the clergy as well as the laity. Indeed, although the clergy are less likely than the laity to be anti-Semitic, a larger proportion of their anti-Semitism is rooted in these religious factors. This raises serious questions about what can be expected of the churches in overcoming the problem of anti-Semitism. Indeed, the present findings raise the even broader question of what can realistically be expected of the clergy as guides on ethical and moral problems in general. They continued by exploring whether other variables than religious fundamentalism (which they measured by their "Index of Orthodoxy") might possible actually explain the anti-Semitism: The older, more politically conservative clergy from rural and southern and blue-collar origins were more doctrinally conservative and more anti-Semitic. But none of these controls produced any reduction in the relationships reported in this study. Young ministers who had urban, northern, upper-class origins and favored the Democratic party, if they accepted traditional Christian teachings, were just as likely to be religiously hostile and anti-Semitic as were their opposite numbers. No variable available in the data which seemed a plausible source of 283

Appendix: 2-A spuriousness was found to be one. In consequence, we must provisionally conclude that the relationships reflect a set of causal connections. In other words: Christian belief causes anti-Semitism. It is therefore natural that one should find a strong tendency amongst fundamentalist Christians to believe either that the Holocaust itself did not happen, or that if it did, then "the Jews" must have deserved it. Both such beliefs are, in fact, common amongst members of extreme-conservative, fundamentalist Christian, groups such as the Phineas Priesthood, Imperial Klans of America, Posse Comitatus, World Church of the Creator, White Aryan Resistance, and Aryan Nations. At the intellectual end of such sentiments are found well financed organizations such as Radio Islam (which, despite its name, cites primarily Christianoriginated sources and materials, such as the writings of Martin Luther, and the czarist hoax "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion"), the Vrij Historisch Onderzoek, and the Institute for Historical Review and its Journal of Historical Review. For example, in the latter scholarly publication (n.d., v. 9, #3) appeared a forty-page article, "Christianity, Truth and Fantasy: The Holocaust, Historical Revisionism and Christians Today," by Herman Otten, of The Christian News, which he characterizes as "a Christian Lutheran paper," saying, "We have upheld the inerrancy of God's directly revealed word in the Bible, and have published hundreds of articles by prominent scientists which demonstrate that the theory of evolution is a hoax." He opens by asserting, "the early Christians were champions of the truth, not mere myth and fantasy. They spoke and wrote on the basis of solid evidence." He cites from the Gospels, where Jesus, Peter, John, and others, were alleged to be speaking, and to be speaking the Truth. The Reverend Otten states that "The 'fact' of the Holocaust is being used by some to deny that Christianity is the only true religion and that Jesus Christ rose from the dead." He emphasizes that "The Holocaust is not some innocent hoax, like children's fairy tales, which entertain and have no evil consequences." He concludes by proclaiming-"A Mighty Fortress Is Our God!" saying, "We have been warned, even by some theologians who recognizes that the Holocaust is a hoax, to remain silent because of the danger involved. Some have told us to take out more insurance. [But] God is still in control of this world, not some vast conspiracy, whether the Communists, Jews, international bankers, Illuminati, Trilateralists, etc." Clearly, such organizations are bigoted far beyond merely Jews. But equally clearly, Jews hold for them a special place in their demonology. 284

Appendix: 2-A And finally the reason for this is understood: because of Saint Paul, the New Testament is a textbook of anti-Semitism (notwithstanding Paul's own double-tongued efforts, such as in Romans 9-11, to make Jews who accepted Paulianity feel welcomed, on the basis of a racist appeal to the original "God's People"). Of course, some people do not mind that at all: perhaps because they were themselves nursed on such values along with their mother's milk, this seems only naturally to be the way things ought to be. Others, however, stand duly warned. But regardless where one stands on this, one ought at least to know that the lies that are in the New Testament are indeed just that; and that the fundamentalist myth"The Bible Monumental History of Mankind"is a myth. Unfortunately for the lives that have already been destoryed by that mythnot only Hitler's victims and many others that went before, but even the perpetrators; yes, even Hitler himselfthis truth has come too late to do them any good. (I shall here devote a paragraph to an intriguing speculation concerning a possible means by which such fundamentalism might have been enhanced in Adolf Hitler's personal case: as we have noted in the text, Hitler's mother was an extremely devout Catholic. Perhaps she was herself fundamentalist in her beliefs. Furthermore, Waite's books [1977, 1998] present strong reason to suspect that Adolf's father was often violent against both his wife and sonessentially a batterer of both. In addition, it is clear, not only from Waite's documentation, but rather unanimously from everyone who has explored Hitler's childhood, that Adolf was extremely devoted to his mother. Therefore, is it not at least quite possible that it was Hitler's own mother who, out of rage and resentment against her husband for his battering of both herself and her adored son Adolf, might have communicated to Adolf in confidence, purported either as fact or as likelihood, the allegation that Hitler's father's battering of them might have been a result of the man's being "part Jewish"? She might even have suggested to her son that thus "the devil made him do it." I do not present this hypothesis in the main text because the hypothesis is, and will probably always remain, speculative. On the other hand, since I do consider this the likeliest mode of transmission to Adolf Hitler of the belief that his father was probably "part Jewish," I feel it appropriate here in this Appendix to give expression to this important possibility.) The relationship between religiostiy and bigotry is a subject of little empirical research, and of virtually no theory. This author's book, The Conservatives' Hoax, from which the present work is adapted, presents a theory to explain this empirically observed relationship. A brief summary of that theory can be given here; if one wishes to now more about the 285

Appendix: 2-A subject, that book is suggested as the source. Religion claims to be the basis for morality. Those who believe in the given faith, and maybe also who follow it in their behavior, are "us"; they are "good." Others, however, who do not accept its beliefs, and/or behave in accord with them, are "them"; these are the outsiders, who are "bad." Belief is morebasic to religious evaluation than is behavior; no one who rejects the beliefs of a given faith is one of the "us" of that faith, but always one of the "them." Thus, the morality of every religion is based, at root, on membership or not; it is based, in other words, upon status. Status-based evaluation is commonly called "prejudice"; sometimes, it is known as "bigotry." It is to be contrasted with evaluations that are based, at root, upon behavior. Thus, religious belief degenerates ultimately into "us" versus "them"; members versus outsiders. Status takes over; behavior recedes into second place (if even that). A natural feature of status is a strong tendency to be intergenerational: if "we" accept "you" as "one of us," then "we" will tend to be inclined to accept also your children as "us" rather than as "them." Unless your children affirmatively renounce their parents' faith, they are generally treated as belonging to it. Over time, and especially over centuries, "a people" emerges on the basis of this transmission of a faith intergenerationally. This "people" is not fundamentally defined according to behavior; they are defined via a faith-based affiliation. Even if that faith dies out, the "people" will persist, as an "ethnic group." There is also a tendency of religions to define "us" as "God's people," who are in some sense "in God's image," or else, as modelled upon God. This is part of the religion's mythology; the truth is that the God is modelled upon the people. For example, a Mayan's God is in a Mayan's image. Thus, too, Adolf Hitler's "Jesus" was an "Aryan." Man is not made in God's image; God is made in Man's. One of the basic lies in religious mythology is that the God made the "us" in "His" image, rather than the other way around. A religious ant's god would be an ant. We have here already gone pretty far into the ideology of bigotry. Little more has to be added; it is clear, for example, why bigotry is not among the seven "cardinal" or "deadly" sins of Christianity: religion does not generally shoot itself in the foot, which is precisely what declaring bigotry a sin would do. Consider, for example, what bigotry is: a type of prejudice, directed against people rather than ideas. Religion, on the other hand, is faith: belief immovable by any reason for doubt. Religion, in other words, is prejudice in the realm of ideas. How likely is it that prejudice against ideas will not 286

Appendix: 2-A produce prejudice against peoplebigotry? Indeed, one form of bigotry is a prejudiced idea of who constitutes a "person." To Hitler, a Jew was not a "person." Many anti-Black racists claim that "Blacks are just animals, not humans." These are prejudiced ideas. This same bigoted attitude was exhibited also in American Holocaust: The Conquest of the New World, David E. Stannard's 1992 masterpiece documenting that approximately 100 million native Americans living in the Western Hemisphere at the time of Columbus (1492) were exterminated in Mankind's least systematic but vastest-of-all genocides, through which Stanndard penetrates to the very identical root-cause: the view that the exterminees were constitutionally by nature, by "blood," not "God's People." Stannards's corrective to the long scholarly tradition of distorting, and essentially, lying about, this historyon p. 276, he says that, "this is the sort of things that gives professors a bad name"traces the origins of this racism, this belief in "blood" or the genetic basis of moral status, back at least as far as (p. 208) "an ominous decision" by Church officials in 1366 approving the enslavement even of Christians, so long as they were "of infidel origin," or not pureblooded Christians. Stannard describes the eager participation by the Church in the mutually contradictory capaigns to convert and to kill the natives, and sums up by observing (p. 219) that, "whether God was punishing the Indians for their sins or the Spanish for their cruelties, both sides in this ecclesiastical debate were agreed that God wanted the Indians dead." In fact, even though Christian fundamentalism in our own modem times does not encompass virtually all of Christendom, it did until The Enlightenment, which is to say, throughout the Conquest of the New World. Therefore, Stannard's "American Holocaust" is itself a good example of fundamentalist-perpetrated genocide. The exterminees simply were not "God's People." No one can say that in these matters religion was not providing moral guidance; the problem is that it was doing just that. On this theoretical ground, we can understand the religious roots of the most-widely-accepted forms of bigotry. For example, animals are frequent subjects of bigotry. The most-evil of all the barbarisms that is still unquestioningly accepted is the normal way that homo sapiens treat lobsters: tying their limbs together, piling the lobsters into water-tanks in masses, then removing them one-by-one into bags, taking them home, and then boiling him or her alive so that "its" torture ends in a several-seconds-long explosion of the most excruciating agony it is possible to impose upon a creature. What is the "justification" for such routinely performed atrocities? God is in Man's image; not in a lobster's (or a pig's, or a veal-calf's, or 287

Appendix: 2-A etc.). Religious beliefs are at the root. Similarly, the mainstream, religious, culture, which condemns such "sins" as homosexuality, considers to be morally acceptable such things as factory farms, which treat billions of animals in ways similar to the way Nazis treated concentration-camp victims. For example, there are striking analogies between, on the one hand, what was described in "At a Slaughterhouse, Some Things Never Die," featured in the New York Times on 16 June 2000, and the account by Filip Muller in his 1979 Eyewitness Auschwitz, pp. 33-4, 61, telling of how at the gas-chamber entrance, "Slogans like Cleanliness brings freedom or One louse may kill you were intended to hoodwink, as were numbered clothes hooks," while the reality after the undressing-rooms was: Two of the SS men took up positions on either side of the entrance door. Shouting and wielding their truncheons, like beaters at a hunt, the remaining SS men chased the naked men, women and children into the large room inside the crematorium. A few SS men were leaving the building and the last one locked the entrance door from the outside. Before long the increasing sound of coughing, screaming and shouting for help could be heard from behind the door. I was unable to make out individual words, for the shouts were drowned by knocking and banging against the door, intermingled with sobbing and crying. After some time the noise grew weaker, the screams stopped. Only now and then there was a moan, a rattle, or the sound of muffled knocking against the door. But soon even that ceased. But if this is so, then does it not indicate that many professional scientists are not at all scientific in their attitudes towards other species than their own? What about a "scientist" who experiments upon animals for some real or imagined or speculative potential human benefit? The rationales that such people give for what they do are fundamentally religious; such "scientists" are split personalities, possibly "scientific" as they claim when it comes to the epistemology they apply to certain professional matters, but religious in regards to the epistemology they apply to ethical questions: the animals they experiement upon are not "like God." "Scientists" demean themselves when they pretend various supposedly non-religious beliefs as "justifications" for what they do to animals. For example, animals are selected as human models on the belief 288

Appendix: 2-A that they are so similar to humans that the experimental results will have bearing on what would have happened to humans; yet these "scientists" turn right around and say such stupid things as, "Animals don't really feel pain as we know it, and we shouldn't anthropomorphize what seem to be their feelings of fear, terror, or hopelessness, as if they actually felt these human emotions." Animals are physically enough like ourselves for us to believe that what hurts or helps them will hurt or help us, but "they have no soul." Such "scientists" haven't really gotten Scripture out of their lives; they live Scripture uncontrollably. Professional scientists are encouraged to view science as being essentially a professional discipline, like being a lawyer, or a doctor; it is "a specialty," not much more than that. For such people, perhaps the last thing it is, is an epistcmological commitmenta commitment, that is to say, regarding the criteria adjudicating truth-falsity. Consequently, they see no basic contradiction between science and religion; between systematic skepticism with denial of authority on the one hand, and faith that is founded on authority on the other. To the extent that they are scientists at all, these people are epistcmological split personalities, part scientific and part religious. A good example of this non-self-examining blindness on the part of many "scientists" occurred recently in which the non-self-examination/ understanding were exhibited by a professional psychiatrist, no less: Harvard's Dr. Alvin F. Poussaint was responding in a New York Times Op-Ed commentary (26 August 1999) to the bigoted killings and assaults by the Christiasn fundamentalist Buford Furrow Jr., by proposing, "They Hate. They Kill. Are They Insane? Extreme racism is a classificablc mental illness." He opened his argument by noting as follows the history of his proposal's rejection by the American Psychiatric Association: After multiple racist killings in the civil rights era, a group of black psychiatrists sought to have racial bigotry classified as a mental disorder. The Association's officials rejected the recommendation, arguing that since so many Americans are racist, racism in this country is normative a cultural problem rather than an indication of personal pathology. In addition, the Association said, calling racism a mental illness might appear to absolve racists of their moral responsibility.... But this position is ill-founded. .. . If Mr. Furrow 289

Appendix: 2-A believes that non-whites and Jews are responsible for the world's troubles and must be eliminated, then that alone meets criteria for delusional disorder. Dr. Poussaint, like a religious person, like an individual who believes in authority, takes as beyond question (which no empirical assertion ever is to a real scientist) the falsity of Mr. Furrow's beliefs. But Mr. Furrow was taught from his earliest childhood that the Bible is the Word of God; he accepts, just as did Adolf Hitler, the Truthfulness of John 8:44, for example, referring to "the Jews" as the children of Satan. Also like Hitler, he believes that Jesus was an "Aryan" and that since all Aryans are white, black people are not in God's image and are therefore inferior if not downright evil. "Scientists" such as Dr. Poussaint may disagree with that interpretation of Scripture, but to call it "delusional" is itself delusional: It is to pretend that the falsehoods that such individuals as Buford Furrow and Adolf Hitler believe reside in their interpretations of Scripture, rather than in the Scripture itself. Hitler also used to be referred to as "crazy," until that ruse collapsed under the weight of contrary evidence. (Furrow, by contrast, is mentally deranged, but so too are many kind and non-bigoted people; his mental ills did not cause his bigotry, despite the self-delusions of Dr. Poussaint.) What would the psychiatrist wish to tell Mr. Furrow about John 8:44that it's a lie and that the Bible isn't really infallible? If Dr. Poussaint believes that the Bible lies, then he should say so; if he believes, like Mr. Furrow does, that it does not, then he cannot call Mr. Furrow's beliefs false, much less "delusional." In this case, the Association made a correct decision: an evil that is part of the culture cannot be appropriately dealth with as if it weren't; in fact, to do so is hypocritical. It is, however, worse than "mere" hypocrisy: to misrepresent in this way is to participate actively in that very evil itself; for the core of that evil is an unrealistic, even a reality-denying, self-righteousness, the very same selfrighteousness that Altemeyer and other social psychologists have found to be pervasive among fundamentalists and to be associated with the very same racist sentiments that Dr. Poussaint claims to oppose. Like many bigoted Blacks, Dr. Poussaint casts bigotry in the narrow form of "racism," perhaps to facilitate their own holding to other, non-racial, forms of bigotry, such as homophobia or anti-Semitism; thus, anti-"racist" Blacks might self-righteously claim not to be "racist" even if they are intensely bigoted. (Indeed, Leonard Dinnerstein's 1994 Anti-Semitism in America indicates in its tenth chapter that studies show that Blacks in 290

Appendix: 2-A the U.S. tend to be even more anti-Semitic than Whites, because these Blacks retain the bigotry and fundamentalist Christianity of the former-slave South, where their own slave-ancestors absorbed their slavesmasters' attitudes, religion and bigotry, and sang spirituals such as, "Virgin Mary had one Son; the cruel Jews had Him hung"; to this extent, a great many of today's U.S. Blacks unfortunately culturally remain slaves of their ancestors' Confederate masters.) Why would such a psychiatrist even desire to understand bigotrymuch less try to overcome it, either as a "mental disease" or in any other way? Perhaps such a psychiatric approach should be viewed as not so much an attempt to understand bigotry as one to avoid understanding it. Understanding bigotry requires not psychiatry, but cultural psychology and cultural anthropology. A psychiatric approach to the problem is itself an evasive device. One might as well try to use podiatry to analyze works of art. Furthermore, in this evasive device, sickness itself takes on a moral caste, much as it did for Hitler, whose Mein Kampf is full of such thinking: there is now something not only physically, and not only mentally, but also morally, wrong with the "diseased" person. To such a self-righteous thinker, how could it even be otherwise than that evil is either "unnatural" or "abnormal," and that this is what makes it bad? After all, what is "unnatural" or "abnormal" violates God's law. Such false naturalism is also not uncommon amongst people who fancy themselves to be scientists by profession, but who are religious in their beliefs about moral issues. They are epistemologically schizophrenic. A good example was Dr. Josef Mengele, who at Auschwitz selected which victims would go straight to the gas-chambers and which would first be experimented upon for the benefit of Aryans, "God's People." Here is how Robert J. Lifton introduced him (p. 339) in his 1986 The Nazi Doctors: "The family [from which he came] is described as 'strict Catholic,' and Mengele identified himself as a Catholic on all his official forms, rather than using the more favored Nazi category of 'believer in God.'" Less-well-known examples are detailed in Eileen Welsome's magnificent tour de force of investigative reporting, her 1999 The Plutonium Files: America s Secret Medical Experiments in the Cold War, describing America's version of "Nazi doctors," including MIT researchers who fed radioactive oatmeal to residents of a state boys' school, prison physicians in Washington and Oregon who subjected their patients to intensive direct radiation, and other doctors injecting plutonium into patients, all in violation of the Hippocratic oath and the Nuremberg code, and without informing their patients of what was being done to them and why. As Welsome noted 291

Appendix: 2-A (p. 214), "many American doctors believed the Nuremberg Code was written for barbarians, not for them. Columbia University's William Silverman recalled, ... 'We wrapped ourselves in the flag.'" God's People were these patriotic scientists themselves. Ms. Welsome continues tellingly, "The 1940's, 1950's, and 1960's were decades when doctors were treated like gods and patients like children." However, these "children" were not treated with love: as Ms. Welsome notes of them, "poor patients often were selected because they were easily intimidated" and were of a social class inferior to that of the physicians. Even poor mothers-tobe were fed radioactive substances vastly above limits known to cause cancer; some of the children lived brief, painful lives as a result. Other favorite victimes were the retarded: in describing the cultural background of these expericments, Welsome (p. 232) quotes from a speech by Dr. William Fernald, the founder of the Fernald State School for the "feeble-minded" in Massachusetts: "The feebleminded arc a parasitic, predatory class. . . . Every feeble-minded person ... is a potential criminal," obviously not, as Hitler would say, "God's People" and Hitler had company. Studies in the United States have shown that, whereas 90% of the general public believe in God, 40% of scientists do, and only 5% of leading scientists do. But those 40% can do lots of damage in the name of "science." Though many individuals believe that there really is such a thing as God's people, or God's species, or God's gender, or God's gender-orientation, or God's class, or etc., and most such individuals include themselves in some such fictitious category, beliefs of that type are false; and the true characterization that all such individuals share is: bigot. The findings by Altemeyer and others support this conclusion. In fact, those findings, based on more than 50,000 research-participants, actually constitute yet further evidence to accept the sincerity of Hitler's many fundamentalist assertions. Indeed, now that we know that bigots usually are fundamentalists, we should expect it to be unlikely that Hitler was anything else. We have thus far mentioned the "God's People" concept as the basis for bigotry, and also the evolution of this into prejudice, which is judgment based on status rather than behavior. There is also a third aspect to bigotry (picking up again from the theory presented in The Conservatives' Hoax), as follows: It is in the nature of Scripture as the basis for values, that the values of the era in which the Scripture was written become thereby "locked in" for believers in subsequent eras. This has already been exemplified with 292

Appendix: 2-A respect to the Bible, which locked in the values of anti-Semitism (e.g., Luke 19:27), racism (e.g., Deut. 7:1-3), misognyny (e.g., 1 Timothy 2:11-15), homophobia (e.g., Romans 1:27&32), and genocide (e.g., Dent. 20:16-7), not to mention slavery (e.g., Ephesians 6:5) and others of those barbarous eras that Mankind is struggling to get beyond. This historical "lock-in" effect of fundamentalism provides further understanding of the reason why fundamentalists have been found in numerous empirical studies of the prevalence of bigotry, to be exceptionally bigoted as a group. And again, Hitler provides a confirmatory example of this; and, yet again, it makes sense to expect on empirical grounds, that one would find that Hitler, who was an exceptionally bigoted person, therefore would stand a high likelihood of having also been a fundamentalist, which provides yet further confirmation to the finding in this book that he was soand now we understand theoretically why he was so. As has previously been pointed out, what is today called "fundamentalism"the belief, as Hitler put it, in "The BibleMonumental History of Mankind"used to be known merely as religious belief itself; and we today characterize it as only a variant of religious belief because the advent of science during the Renaissance has had such a corrosive effect upon religion as to have caused to exist some weaker forms of it, which we see all around us today as liberal, or watered-down, religion. But as we live during and observe this long historical process, the reality and not merely the myth of religion itself ought to become generally recognized; and it is this: The most conclusive, and also the most important, scientific lesson of history, if not of all fields of social investigation, is that religious hatreds are the most intense that exist, cursing or even demonizing entire peoples, or "races," to slavery, or even genocide.


2-B: Is atheism the solution to bigotry?

Stalin was very bigoted, and so was Karl Marx; both were atheists, and both were also religious. Atheism is no solution to the problem of bigotry; for communists, atheism was itself part of their secular religion, which is what communism was. A religion need not have a supernatural god; a natural one can do the job just the same. People are very confused about what is, and what is not, a "religion." In my THE CONSERVATIVES' HOAX: Their Urge for Dictatorship, and Their War Against America's Founding Fathers, 1 deal at length with that question; and since the answer is longer than this entire book, only a smattering of the points related to it can be addressed here, as follows: A religion is not defined by what it believes, but by how it believes; it is belief based on faith, in an allegedly inerrant Scripture. What it believes is that Scripture; how it believes is faithacceptance of that Scripture as inerrant. Because the Scripture is accepted as inerrant, ultimate Truth is to be found in that Scripture; experience is to be evaluated according to that Scripture, rather than that Scripture being evaluated according to experience. The opposite of religion is science: Every scripture is to be evaluated according to experience; no scripture is inerrant; and no truth is ultimate, or Truthit doesn't exist. Science is systematic skepticism; it is distinguished from religion not by its scriptures, but by its criteria for determining 294

Appendix: 2-B what is true and what is false. Whether any given statement, therefore is religious or scientific, depends not on what that statement is, or what it is about, but on how its truthfulness is evaluated. The statements of Karl Marx were Scripture to communists. Any "communist" who questioned the truthfulness of Marx's writings, was no real communistno more, say, than a "Christian" who doubts the truthfulness of the Bible is an authentic Christian. All religions may disagree on any particular but one: As John 20:29, put it, "Blessed are they who have not seen, yet still believe." Any such person is not a scientist: regardless what such an individual might believe in, he or she is religious. Atheism, as that is generally understood, is a certainty that God does not exist. No scientist can assert such a thing with certainty, any more than he or she can assert as a certainty that a God exists that possesses a specific set of attributes. By no means do I wish here to criticize atheists. There is so much bigotry against atheists, that it is only with great care that one should ever say anything against atheism; it is like Judaism: they are a minority almost everywhere; and as such, one must be particularly considerate of their rightsfar more considerate than of the rights of a member of the majority, who suffers therefore far less bigotry, if any at all. Early in Chapter 10, I quoted a letter to me from Rabbi Hyam Maccoby, asserting that "Hitler was an atheist, not a Christian believer. . .. He was actually anti-Christian." As I observed there, these statements are false, and they are bigoted against atheists. Imagine, if you will, that you are an atheist (regardless whether you actually happen to be one). How would you reasonably take such a statement? Would you believe that this religious Jew is, or else very likely is, a person who would probably be very much afraid of you, and might even hate youmerely on account of your atheism? After this book was written, Rabbi Maccoby wrote me again; it was in response to my having responded to his previous letter, in which he had said that he did not wish to see my material documenting that Hitler had perpetrated the Holocaust on account of his having been raised, and having believed, as a fundamentalist Christian. I had written Rabbi Maccoby back saying that, nonetheless, I was going to treat him as an open-minded Person; and I therefore enclosed the opening chapters of this book. Rabbi Maccoby's letter of response stated that he now accepted that until 1937 Hitler had been a believing Christian, after which "Hitler lost his faith in Christianity, but retained his faith in antisemitism, which he derived from 295

Appendix: 2-B his earlier Christian faith." The Rabbi went on to say, "It is characteristic of atheists to retain prejudices belonging to their previous faith." He cited, besides Hitler who had done that, Marx, Voltaire, and Nietzsche. His statement, "It is characteristic of atheists to retain prejudices . . .," has a tone remarkably like many of Hitler's statements, not about atheists, but about "the Jews." I find it simply stupefying that people who belong to groups that have suffered bigotry from the majority-faith, often turn right around and pour similar abuse upon a minority different from their own (in this case, atheists). Rabbi Maccoby's point was supposed to be that Hitler was a "postChristian," and that "post-Christian antisemitism is even worse than the Christian antisemitism of the Middle Ages, which was very bad but had certain limits and restraints"which the Nazis' supposedly atheistic or "postChrisitian" anti-Semitism obviously does not. But of course, calling Hitler an "atheist" is no real way to deal with the Holocaust, any more than Hitler's calling Jews Germany's curse was any real way to deal with Germany's problems. Not only does the Rabbi's assertion denigrate the earlier, smaller, antiSemitic genocides, whose horrors were documented in the 1976 Grosser and Halperin history, Anti-Semitism; but, to a large extent, it blames atheism for what is actually Christian anti-Semitism. I.e.: Some atheists are anti-Semitic because they come from a Christian culture. Karl Marx, for example, in his 1843 tract, A World Without Jews (strikingly like Hitler's promised "Jew-free" world), poured forth the results of his own early Christian training (his family raised him as a Christian), by accusing "the Jews" of every standard Christian anti-Semitic sterotype, using words that could have come straight out of Mein Kampf. Marx wrote: What is the Jew's foundation in our world? Material necessity, private advantage. What is the object of the Jew's worship? Usery. What is his god? Money. Very well, then, emancipation from usery and money that is, from real Judaismwould constitute the emancipation of our time. . . . Thus we recognize in Judaism generally an antisocial element which has reached its present strength through a historical development in which the Jews eagerly collaborated. Jewish emancipation means, in the final 296

Appendix: 2-B analysis, the emancipation of humanity from Judaism. It goes on and on, portraying "the Jew" in precisely the same way that, in Marx's later, mature, works, he was to characterize "the bourgeoisie." All that Marx did was to universalize "the Jew" to the "the bourgeois." This was even a racist anti-Semitism that motivated Marx. In the Neue Rheinische Zeitung of 29 April 1849, he wrote, "The Jews of Poland are the smeariest of all races." In an 1861 letter, Jews were "a race of lepers." In 1862, an opponent was a "Jewish Nigger." In 1879, a certain place was "full of Jews and fleas." Stalin, too, was raised as a Christian; he converted to communism at the end of five years of theological studies for the priesthood; and his lifelong hatred of Jews was well known. Shortly before his death, he formulated a plan to make the Soviet Union "free of Jews" by rounding them all up and shipping them off to Siberia, where concentration-camps were being constructed precisely for that purpose. Only his death put a stop to the carrying-out of this plan. To Rabbi Maccoby, this was "atheism"; it was "post-Christian." Why not call it what it was: medieval. And Christian in its origins. In the chaos of the Rabbi's mind, he closed his letter: "Your mistake is in thinking that Christian antisemitism and post-Christian antisemitism are identical. Nevertheless, I agree that the chief historical cause of antisemitism is Christianity, without which there would be no post-Christian antisemitism." So, we agree? The concern of this book is the values with which people are raised. They are not raised with professorial dissertations about atheist angst. They are raised with ancient myths. These myths are very dangerous. On the other hand, even if the nonsense from atheists does not generally cause the genocides in this world, neither does it do anything to stop them. Atheism is no solution. But let's not make it yet another religious scapegoat, either.


2-C: Naziism and psychopathy

Many people believe, "Hitler was evil; therefore, he cared about no one but himselfhis own power, or perhaps he was motivated by greed." This is the theory of Hitler as "The Psychopathic God"the monster who had no conscience. It is a fundamental miscomprehension of the way the world works. In fact, as was shown in the extended footnote at the end of Chapter 4, Hitler skillfully exploited the fact that many liberals were inclined to misconstrue him on this very basis. Part of Hitler's cunning (as is demonstrated in that footnote) relied upon this common delusional vision of him amongst liberals: that he was able to exploit that stupidity of theirs, so as to advance his own ends by misleading his opponents about his true intentions. The fact is: Hitler was evil, but not on account of his having no system of values; to the contrary, he had a very strongeven fanatical system of values: Hitler was a thoroughly committed, true-believing, fundamentalist Christian. This does not mean that as an adult he regularly went to church; he did not; there is no requirement that a fundamentalist, of any persuasion, must frequent places of public worship, to make a public display of his/her religiosity. Fundamentalism is deeper than that: it consists in a character or personality that has been shaped by a conviction that there is some inerrant Scripture, typically the "Word of God," on the basis of which one has formed one's gut sensibilities about right and wrong, good and bad. The present book has shown that Hitler was evil not because he had no values, but rather because he hadin fact, and not merely evaluativelyevil values, values based on lies. This is profoundly different than the psychopath, the person who has no values, and who acts only for 298

Appendix: 2-C his/her own benefit. Hitler cared intensely about creating "a better world"; but, in fact, that was an intensely evil world. Perhaps Saddam Hussein, Pol Pot, and/or Joseph Stalin, were authentic psychopaths; Hitler certainly was not. The naive view of morality is that a person either has it or doesn't; different types of morality are not recognized. According to this view, Hitler was evil because he had no morality; Hitler was a psychopath. This viewpoint permits those who accept it to avoid any need to understand Hitler's world-view. It is also, in some important respects, false. It is the "blissful ignorance" that permits one to avoid having to come to terms with the culture and the associated value-system of another person. It is self-righteous; in the eyes of the person who is thus being dismissed, it might even appear to lack conscience (if that individual is similarly morally naive). It establishes conflict on the basis of misunderstanding. Two people who encounter each other with different value-systems can thus very possibly misinterpret each other as holding no values at all, and so make a resolution of the conflict needlessly difficult. Which is worse: to hold no values, or to hold wrong values? Hitler held wrong values; some common criminals hold no values; which is worse? However, the theory of Hitler as The Psychopathic God, as Waite called him, is not entirely wrong, even though Hitler was a believing Christian fundamentalist. The fundamental attribute of the religious God, after all, is the AllPowerful. Psychopaths also worship power. When Hitler said that "Might makes right," he therefore was merely drawing the logical inference of his Christian trainingand not just from Romans 13:1-5, but at the most basic philosophical level. There is a similarity between the ethic of a conservative, and that of a person who has no consciencei.e., of a psychopath. Bob Altemeyer has found confirmation of this and reported it in (1998) M. Zanna, ed., Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, v. 30. The "SD" or Social Dominance scale, measuring responses to such beliefs as, "To get ahead in life, it is sometimes necessary to step on others"; and various related scales and responses (to such things as, "One of the most useful skills a person should develop is how to look someone straight in the eye and lie convincingly," and "Winning isn't the first thing; it's the only thing")all measures of psychopathywere found to have almost as strong a correlation with a respondent's political conservatism as does religious fundamentalism. But the psychopaths tend to be leaders, while the fundamentalists tend to be followers; and both categories of conservatives were highly bigoted (as shown by various personality299

Appendix: 2-C measures). Altemeyer's paper provides valuable insights into the way a political movement like Naziism emerges and organizes itself. It likewise provides new insight into how it happens that individuals such as not only Hitler, but also Stalin, Pol Pot, Kim II Sung, Milosevich, Tudjman, Karadzic, etc., emerge as dominant in unrestrained conservative regimes. The mechanisms by which that happens are further elucidated in Robert Michels' early-20th-Century masterpiece, Political Parties, which is the best book ever written on the operation of bureaucracies. It's interesting that Michels' book, written before the Bolshevik Revolution, predicted that, if Marxists were ever to succeed in actually taking over a country, "there will then exist a dictatorship in the hands of those leaders who have been sufficiently astute and sufficiently powerful to grasp the scepter of dominion in the name of socialism, and to wrest it from the hands of the expiring bourgeois society" (p. 348 of the 1962 Paul translation of the 1911 original). He foresaw how and why Marx's "dictatorship of the proletariat" would be a dictatorship over the proletariat. The observations by Altemeyer concerning the evident tendency of people scoring high on the "SD" scale to emerge as leaders amongst groups of individuals who score high on the "RWA" scalein other words, for psychopaths to lead conservative organizations and social movementslend further support to Michels' understanding of communism and of other religiousbased political movements, from Stalin and Pol Pot on the left, to the "Elmer Gantry" phenomenon of Jim and Tammy Baker, Jimmy Swaggart, and Henry Lyons, on the right. (Of course, the American examples were less-harmful than the others because the broader political context in America is democratic. The great failing of Michels' book was its ignorance of the constitutional balance-ofpower concept. But he captured well the conservatism of communists.) Consistent with this view that psychopaths tend to emerge as leaders of conservative organizations, and extending the argument into the economic sphere in which large corporations seek to use the arm of the state to grasp even greater wealth, power, and privilege; James Pool, in his 1997 Hitler and His Secret Partners: Contributions, Loot and Rewards, 1933-1945, portrayed Naziism as a vast system of state-sponsored looting and enslavement of minorities and of others lacking in power, with the proceeds going to the officials both of government itself and of the large corporations. According to the 1997 Pool, the financing of Naziism was predominantly an upper-class affair. This represented an implicit turn-around for Pool, who in his earlier book, which had focussed on the financing of Hitler from 1919 to 1933, had argued that during that earlier period, Naziism was financed primarily by the middle classes. The 1997 Pool places special 300

Appendix: 2-C emphasis upon a three-million-mark contribution by major industrialists to the Nazis at a crucial moment in late February 1933, which he feels bought them a share in the "loot and rewards" during the years following. A more-comprehensive presentation of the "contributions, loot and rewards" hypothesis both before and after 1933, is Antony C. Sutton's 1976 Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler, which examines big-corporate Nazi support not only within Germany but also from the U.S. Charles Higham's 1983 Trading with the Enemy offers yet-more detail regarding the post-1933 portion of that thesis. The picture that emerges from both these works is of Hitler's debt to the Rockefeller-Morgan group and their corporate allies that had been built up prior to Hitler's assuming power in 1933, being paid back to those oligarchs subsequent to 1933. The 1997 Pool now appears to concur at least with the post-1933 part of that scenario. In addition, of course, there is a vast literature that makes this case with respect to specific companies, such as I.G. Farben; and, more recently, Daimler-Benz in The Third Reich (1998) by Neil Gregor. An excellent presentation of the psychopathic-Nazi thesis as it pertains to the pseudo-neutral adjoining country of Switzerland, is Jean Ziegler's 1998 The Swiss, the Gold, and The Dead, which exposes the wartime Swiss elite as not only money-launderers for the Nazis, but as Nazi sympathizers; and closes with, "Fortunately, my country is more than the sum of its government authorities, ruling class, and bankers." Right up front, on the first page of the preface to his multi-volume collection of Hitler's speeches and proclamations, Max Domarus noted of the audience-reaction to Hitler's rhetoric: "The enthusiasm his speeches prompted was not confined only to easily-aroused mass audiences but also infected perhaps more stronglyindividuals belonging to Germany's leading circles." This interpretation of Naziism at the top leadership levels being psychopathic, is extended into the personal consumption behavior of the Nazi and pro-Nazi elite, in Hector Feliciano's 1997 The Lost Museum: The Nazi Conspiracy to Steal the World's Greatest Works of Art, which shows that they were not satisfied to steal merely the slave-labor and the gold tooth-fillings from their victims, but also their art. On the other hand, Henry Ashby Turner (who in 1999 was hired by General Motors to produce evidence exonerating GM of claims from GM's former slaves at German GM plants) argued in his 1985 German Big Business and The Rise of Hitler, that the large German corporations supported Hitler only because they were forced to, and that the leading members of the longstanding German cartels had supported laissez-faire economic policies and opposed 301

Appendix: 2-C the governmental economic meddling that the Nazis favored. According to his book, these oligopolists, long-accustomed to government-protection of their privileged powers even under previous governments, were so loath to see such oligopolistic privileges on their own parts increased by the Nazis, that they only reluctantly came to cooperate with the Nazis. Also among its large predominance of sweeping undocumented assertions (many of which are diametrically opposite to the well documented findings and conclusions of reliable sources, such as Franz Neumann's 1944 Behemoth: The Structure and Practice of National Socialism, and the guilty verdicts "beyond a reasonable doubt" in the 1953 USGPO Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals, Under Control Council #10) are some that do have at least shreds of fact to back them up. For example, while there is no basis for accepting Turner's blanket assertions that the leaders of finance and industry in Nazi Germany were not really anti-Semitic, it is certain that some were not. However, it is odd that Turner chastises other researchers for methodological "sins" (such as an alleged over-reliance on secondary sources) far less grave than those he himself practises. In any event, since the Nazis unfortunately destroyed most of their financial records as the Allied powers came marching in at war's-end, the actual role played by German finance and industry in Hitler's rise and in his government, might never be able to be definitively settled. Two other sources of relevant data, however, appear to be providing clearer answers: Nazi-Party membership, and voting records. Michael H. Kater's 1983 The Nazi Party: A Social Profile, includes amongst its conclusions the following: "One of the more startling findings of this study has been the consistency of elite overrepresentation in the Nazi Party from 1919 to 1945," and, "While the elite [group] was consistently overrrepresented in the rank and file of the party, this situation was more evident in the cadres: the higher the cadre, the greater the degree of elite overrepresenation." This fits in with the hypothesis of psychopathic leadership of conservative organizations, so long as we assume (which much evidence supports) that the Nazi Party appealed to the self-interest of elites. However, Kater's pro-elitist reviewers appear to have preferred distorting his data and findings: they focussed single-mindedly on his finding that most Nazis were "Lower Middle Class"; they ignored that Kater had used only three class-categories, and that the denomination "Lower Middle Class" referred to the middle of these. And they totally blocked out Kater's finding that the lowest of the three was the only one that was under-represented in the Party in proportion to its share of the general German population, and that the highest of the three was by far the most 302

Appendix: 2-C overrepresented within the Party. Finally, as regards the actual voting records, Richard F. Hamilton's 1982 Who Voted for Hitler? and his article in the March 1984 issue of Central European History, prove the very same upper-class tilt amongst Nazi voters that Kater documents amongst the Party's membership. Consequently, it can be stated with a high degree of confidence that Hitler's Nazi Party appealed most to the German elites; and this is concordant with the socialpsychology findings we referred to at the outset, of psychopaths predominating amongst conservative elites. One of the things that I find most striking of all from Kater's tables in the back of his book, is that of all occupational groups, the two with by far the highest degree of overrepresentation in the Nazi Party, were professors and university studentsor, as he called them, "Academic Professionals" and "Students." (Nor, it seems, was it a historical fluke: As Martin A. Lee reported in the June 1998 issue of Moment, "Anti-Semitism has also become more pronounced in western Germany, warns Ignatz Bubis, chairman of the Central Council of German Jews, particularly among university students and intellectuals who have espoused a more nationalist line since the end of the Cold War, one that emphasizes German power and identity.") As we discuss in these appendices, scholars have erected every rampart, moat, and battlement they could around the vast conservative palace. How fitting it is, then, that King Hitler, in his own time (as in ours) was also served by scholars with such an exceptional zeal. And isn't it then also fitting that when social "scientists" have searched to find the social locus of Hitler's support, their exploratory searchlights have focussed upon the middle and especially the lower classes as the prime suspects for the Nazi rise? Perhaps the scholars' researches would hit more paydirt if only those searchbeams were pointed upwards toward a higher altitude, maybe even 180 upward upon themselves. The evidence, after all, is abundant that academia has established itself as society's institutional paradigm of authoritarianism. Perhaps that's one reason, however, why the actual evidence itself has counted for remarkably little in those quarters: they hold the searchlights. Would they wish to be themselves at the end of this particular searchbeam in the spotlight of truth? As John Adams' 32nd letter to John Taylor had observed: "There is no necessary connection between knowledge and virtue. Simple intelligence has no association with morality." Scholarship certainly does not. Science, however, does. There is a big difference.


2-D: Why did the German people support Hitler?

Well, of course, Hitler was not the only German or Austrian to have been weaned on the Bible. Others may not have processed it quite the way Hitler did, but the anti-Semitism was widespread. Daniel Goldhagen's Hitler s Willing Executioners, flawed though it was, made a good case that one reason the German public loved Hitler is that they hated Jews. But there was more to it than this. That 1996 book was a mess, which invited misinterpretation of it from critics, and needless academic debates as a result. Furthermore, its conceptual shallowness made a bad joke of its author's claims that he was here "explaining" the Holocaust: his "explanation" was that "the Germans" hated "the Jews" so much as to want to kill them in the most torturous way; but whythe source of this hatewas never really addressed. To the extent that he dealt with the history of German anti-Semitism (which was very little), he said nothing that distinguished it from the anti-Semitism of many other countries. And his sweeping attack against "the Germans" (using the phrase hundreds of times interchangeably with "the perpetrators") was appalling. Furthermore, since his book presented nothing substantial and nothing at all that was newon the crucial question of "Why?" Goldhagen subsequently had to defend his amorphous "theory" against such charges as that he had attributed German anti-Semitism to bad German genes (his actual belief, he later explained, is that the defect had lain in German culture; yet his tome failed to discuss how and why), and that he had held the German people collectively guilty of the Holocaust (a view he 304

Appendix: 2-D now explains to be "conceptually and morally indefensible," but which was nonetheless a reasonable interpretation of his book, notwithstanding its brief perfunctory denial on his p. 456). Thus, so much of the public discussion of the work has really come down to "What was Goldhagen trying to say?" Perhaps that's because it originated as his Ph.D. thesis. For scholars, clarity of thought is a career-disability. Yet despite these flaws, Goldhagen did indeed pile sufficiently high and deep his documentation of the pervasiveness of anti-Semitism in Germany both prior to and during Hitler's reign, so that no one will ever again be able simply to assume that the Holocaust was due merely to some bad German apples, as many writers previously had one. This was an important achievement, even though Goldhagen failed at his claimed goal of adding to our understanding of the source of this widespread German anti-Semitism. For the latter, there is unfortunately no single definitive book; but there are some that provide good coverage on certain aspects of the problem. For the role that German religious leaders played in fomenting antiSemitism, see Robert P. Ericksen, Theologians under Hitler (1985); Wolfgang Gerlach, Als die Zeugen schweigen (1993); Richard Gutteridge, The German Evangelical Church and the Jews (1976); and, Guenter Lewy, The Catholic Church and Nazi Germany (1964). For the philosophical roots of fascism and of Naziism, see William M. McGovern, From Luther to Hitler (1941); and Peter Viereck, Metapolitics from The Romantics to Hitler (1941). Best on Plato is: Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies (1943). For integrated historical views of the question, see Peter G.J. Pulzer, The Rise of Political Anti-Semitism in Germany and Austria (1964), and especially Horst von Maltitz, The Evolution of Hitler s Germany (1973), which come the closest to definitive status, since they combine sociological, political, religious, and philosophical, aspects. The Maltitz book is probably the best yet done on either Hitler or the Holocaust. However, none of these works penetrates deep. For that, I suggest some books that don't relate specifically to the German case, but rather to anti-Semitism in a broader sense, such as: Paul E. Grosser and E.G. Halperin, Anti-Semitism (1976); Charles Y. Glock and R. Stark, Christian Beliefs and Anti-Semitism (1966); and Norman Cohn, Warrant for Genocide (1966). And to leave the best for last, the most comprehensive analysis ever done of anti-Semitism exceeding even the Grosser and Halperin effort shecrly as a work of history, and including so much else besidesis 305

Appendix: 2-D William Nicholls, Christian Antisemitism (1993). Of course, this pervasive cultural anti-Semitism surrounded Hitler himself from his very earliest days; and the best account of how inundated the boy Hitler was with these influences coming from friends, family teachers, clergy, newspapers, magazines, and books, is to be found in the first chapter of Eugene Davidson's The Making of Adolf Hitler (1977), which makes the case that Hitler as a child in Austria absorbed an Austrian anti-Semitism that was even more pervasive and intense than that prevailing in Germany itself. Still, the question remains: Why did the Holocaust occur specifically in Germany; why did it originate there, rather than, say, in Russia, or in some other equally anti-Semitic country? Germany's anti-Semitism, after all, was far from unique. Goldhagen ignores this question, other than (on p. 419) to deny its very existence. A work that would answer it, would constitute the definitive one that, as 1 had mentioned before, does not exist. My own theory, however, can be boiled down into a metaphor: The German people were the chemicals, Hitler was the catalyst, and the Versailles Treaty was the experiment. The Holocaust was the result. However, such a massive historical event will inevitably exceed in its complexity any such bromide as a metaphor. The far more important question is: Why is anti-Semitism so widespread? For example, why did America's own President, F.D.R., turn away the shipload of Jewish refugees from Naziism, aboard the ship St. Louis in early summer 1939, and send them back, ultimately to Germany's gas-chambers? And, as Richard Breitman showed in his 1999 Official Secrets, Goldhagen had overstated how widespread anti-Semitism was in Germany and failed to recognize how prevalent it was in the U.S. and England. The Holocaust was more than a German problem. Yet the fact remains that it was, above all, a German problem. Our Appendix 2-E: "The majoritarian arrogance of Gentian mass-culture," probes some of the specifically German reasons why it was so. In the desperateness of a defeated Germany during the Great Depression, Hitler represented the only "truths" that remained standingTragically as it turned out, these "truths" were the biggest lies of all. But they were lies so big that not only the public believed them; the Fuhrer, and the rest of the Nazi leadership, did as welland without that belief, and that conviction, the Nazi Party would never have won power. Certainly, despite everything that Goldhagen says, the Gentian people were used by Hitler for his ends, far more than they used Hitler for theirs. 306

Appendix: 2-D The single greatest distortion of the many in Goldhagen's book appears on page 447, where he says, "The symbiosis between Hitler's passionately held and pursued aim of extinguishing Jewish power by whatever means and the German people's racial eliminationist view of Jews together produced the conditions and the drive to undertake the eliminationist policies of the 1930s and 1940s." Goldhagen's unsupported assertion here (another example of a scholar slipping in a major assumption under the table) that "Hitler's passionately held and pursued aim" was not itself "racial eliminationist," but merely "extinguishing Jewish power by whatever means" (presumably including eliminating the "race"), is a stunning falsehood from a scholar at a prestigious university. Furthermore, Goldhagen's clearly intended (and equally unsupported) implication that the originating source of the Holocaust came from "the German people," interchangeable with "the perpetrators," rather than from Hitler himself (and not even from the Nazi leadership), constitutes virtually a group-libel against "the German people," including (even if unintentionally on his part and more out of incompetence than from bigotry) against ones who were opposed to it. (Goldhagen docs cover himself by acknowledging that there were exceptions.) Such falsehoods might be comparable in their religious, collective-guilt, nature to those of the actual authors of the New Testament that produced the Holocaust. The fact that Dr. Goldhagen happens to belong to the faith-group, Jews, that were the targets of Naziism, is immaterial to this; the falsehoods are no less reprehensible; the license he perhaps arrogates to members of his own faith as retribution against "the German people" is also wrong. Goldhagen even goes so far as to play into outright Nazi views when he claims that Hitler's aim was "extinguishing Jewish power by whatever means." Is Goldhagen here accepting the commonly made Nazi charge that "the Jews" actually did have "too much power" in Germany? Goldhagen's view of Hitler also seems surprisingly similar to that of the Holocaust-denying, Hitler-apologist historian, David Irving, who has promoted this line in order to exculpate Hitler from the genocide. Thus does an avowedly Jewish scholar join hands with today's anti-Semites. Goldhagen was correct that Germany (just like some other nations that he ignores) was terribly anti-Semitic during and prior to the Holocaust. However, Hitler was far from having been merely a democratic leader passively executing this predominant anti-Semitism. In fact, prior to his personal crisis of 1919, and certainly prior to his having moved to Vienna in 1907, it is likely that Hitler's own anti-Semitism was just as passive as that of others of the German and Austrian masses. Rather than Hitler's having followed the German people once he became their leader, he led them; and 307

Appendix: 2-D Goldhagen clearly does not recognize this elementary fact. Furthermore Goldhagen's construction that Hitler's aim was not "eliminationist" against Jews, but only for "extinguishing Jewish power," really does place Goldhagen in Nazi company, and is a canard. But such are the boxes one finds oneself in when trying to defend an indefensible thesis: namely that the Holocaust was an essentially spontaneous mass movement, or "grass-roots" in ways that it was not. Goldhagen's "explanation" for the Holocaust, that "the Germans" murderously hated "the Jews," really explains nothing. Or, if it does, then one would have a satisfactory "explanation" of any murder simply by making the case that the murderer murderously hated the victimand without having to explain why he hated the victim. Behind all of Goldhagen's footnoted scholarship, there really does stand such a moronic thesis as that the "explanation" for the murder was murderous hatred. But presumably, the world already knew that the people who murdered Jews during the Holocaust hated Jews murderously. What the world wants to know is why! It must also be recognized that, despite Goldhagen's assumption to the contrary, a critically important factor in the German public's support of Hitler and of the Nazis' anti-Semitic policies was the leadership itself, and especially Hitler's own leadership as Fuhrer; Hitler was an extraordinarily effective leader, and one must never imagine (as Goldhagen implies) that the support that the German people provided for his policies was spontaneous or would have occurred if the leadership had been less-effective than it was. David Bankier, in his 1992 The Germans and the Final Solution: Public Opinion under Naziism, documents this. He shows the difficulties that Hitler had to overcome in order to bring the public with him on his anti-Semitic policies. While Goldhagen deals cursorily with Bankier's evidence, he never really comes to terms with it, perhaps because Bankier brings Hitler back to center-stage and Goldhagen is committed to viewing German cooperation with the Holocaust as having been essentially spontaneous, with Bankier proves not to have been the case. Ian Kershaw's 1987 The Hitler Myth further documents this in its 9th chapter, which tracks Hitler's anti-Semitic rhetoric in his speeches from the time of his entry to the Nazi Party in 1919 all the way up to the very end in 1945. Kershaw observes that Hitler moderated his anti-Semitic rhetoric as soon as he started dealing with the general public, after the period of the 1920's when he had been addressing instead an audience and constituency of merely the Nazi Party. 308

Appendix: 2-D Kershaw's 1989 The Nazi Dictatorship documents the phenomenon as pertaining even within the Nazi Party itself, by explaining in its 5th chapter the process by which Hitler skillfully developed within his own leadership-ranks an everhardening position in favor of exterminating the Jewish people, so that by 1942 it could fairly be said to have been unanimous that the mere expulsion of all Jews from Germany was no longer considered even a realistic option. These are the reasons why it is more-accurate to say that the German people were used by Hitler for his ends, than that they used Hitler to achieve theirs. Indeed, the Holocaust was even to be Hitler's personal admission-ticket to heaven; the German people were used by Hitler as means of winning his personal salvation. But even Hitler was, even after the passage of 2000 years, used by Paul for his ends. Although it is an irresolvably speculative question whether Paul would have supported Hitler's Final Solution, or wouldlike some of his clericshave opposed it as going too far, Hitler's agenda was inspired by Saint Paul himself. It was Paul's hand that was reaching down past two millennia to open each of those poison-gas canisters at Auschwitz and the other death-factories. Perhaps the biggest flaw in Goldhagen's Hitler's Willing Executioners was that, ironically, it avoided controversyor at least the controversy that could have been constructive. His argument attacked "the Germans" of the Third Reicha very narrow target (even if it conceivably did include a great many people who had nothing to do with, or even opposed, the Holocaust) and one that is entirely in past history. And it virtually ignored (or at least said very little, and nothing new, about) Christianity itselfa huge and even today very powerful target. Goldhagen said nothing at all about Saint Paul's hand reaching down through history to extinguish all these lives; Goldhagen played it safe. Some scholars might think that it is enough, or even "too much," to say that "The Germans hated the Jews" (which, simple-minded as it is, was the whole of Goldhagen's "explanation" of the Holocaust). But in no sense is that sufficient: Even if we accept that Goldhagen was not really asserting an essentially racist anti-German reason for this anti-Semitism, but rather an authentically cultural one, the question remains: How did this happen? Goldhagen offered no answer. The present work has attempted to address this question. Our answer is both cultural-psychological and cultural-anthropological, and encompasses how Hitler came to lead his nation to do it, and how the German people came to follow his leadership to do it. Goldhagen merely pretended to 309

Appendix: 2-D answer the latter question through documenting that "The Germans hated the Jews"; but he didn't even pretend an answer to the former one. Our answer, to both questions at once, is complex, blending serendipity into the regularities of nature (such as that cradle-talk is vastly more-important than college-talk; or that the personality-forming influences are those the person experiences in his/her very earliest years), to explain how it came to be that Hitler was so obsessed to lead, and how it came to be that the German people were so receptive to follow, in the Holocaust: Christianity itself was the common ingredient in both, but Hitler combined as well great leadership-skills, and an obsession intensified by his fear of his own "contaminated blood." And a cultural understandingwhich Goldhagen claimed but utterly lackedalso clarifies, for example, the way in which Genesis 17:14 worked culturally to the disadvantage of Jews in this regard. Indeed, the answer is so complex that it seems inconceivable that anyone prior to the Holocaust could have anticipated or averted the horrendous outcome. We can only hope that, in retrospect now, Man will learn from history, so as to avoid its repeat. Goldhagen's work is itself a fair representation of the obfuscations that have helped to prevent such learning from history. In his zeal to blur together "the Germans" and "the perpetrators" as a single class, he has implicitly accepted not only key components of the neo-Nazi view regarding Hitler's goals and intentions concerning especially "extinguishing Jewish power," but also its collectivist attributions of guilt (i.e., as an attribute of "the Germans"), and even its assumption that "the Germans" did not include "the Jews" who were citizens of Germany. Implicitly, Goldhagen accepts the Nazi view of who really was a German. Where he seems to disagree with the Nazis is that, in his view, it is not "the Jews" that were evil demons as Nazis claimed, but rather it was "the Germans" who were the guilt-bearers. As a consequence of his having cast the Holocaust in this light, Goldhagen boxed himself into a corner regarding today's "the Germans." Even Goldhagen seems to have recognized that it would be inappropriate to include all of today's Germans as "the perpetrators." However, the precise way that he would make this distinction was not clear. As a consequence, some readers have quite reasonably criticized Goldhagen for having assumed that the "eliminationist antisemitism" of which he spoke ended magically at the moment when Germany lost the War. Certainly Goldhagen left undiscussed the supposed cultural process by means of 310

Appendix: 2-D which his own attributed motivational cause of the Holocaust, "eliminationist antisemitism," terminated. Not only did Goldhagen have nothing new to say about how this supposed "cause" was born, but he had nothing at all to say about how it supposedly diedif it ever did. Books such as Goldhagen's, that deflect from or cover up such realities, are making common cause with the Nazis, even if the intention is otherwise. Such books block rather than promote understanding of the Holocaust. Just one of the multitude of assertions in the Goldhagen work that promote such miscomprehension is (p. 8) "The Holocaust defines not only the history of Jews during the middle of the twentieth century but also the history of Germans." This accepts unquestioningly the Nazi idea that German's Jews were not Germans. Correct would have been to say that the Holocaust defined both Jewish and Christian history. Such works belong in the category of "docudrama," myth, or other forms of half-truth, in which facts are embellished with fictions, to produce accounts that thereby become far more persuasive to the gullible than they would otherwise be. Of course, Scriptures such as the Bible are also like that. The Holocaust itself should produce a sufficient example of the dangers of such works, to inform the scholarly community of the urgent necessity to weed them out, and to expose ruthlessly any new ones that come along. However, in order to do that, scholars would have to be scientists; the epistemological foundation of the scholarly professions would have to be transformed. It must be up to the broader society outside the academy to demand the transformationscholars will not do it unless they are required to, and only the society-at-large can do that, if it will. Scholars think that merely debating and dismissing works like Goldhagen's is enough. But that is not so. Half-truths may pass professional muster with scholars even if in the more-scientific professions they would not. The public must recognize that there is a difference. The public must learn to question scholars and to challenge them and their opinions. If the social "sciences" were really sciences, then conceptually sloppy works loaded with misleading if not false generalizations, many of which are only implied and never stated explicitly, would not be debated; such works would simply be condemned as violating the professional norms. If such works were published at all, this would be with no academic imprimatur of any kind, and only by "fringe" publishers. But that is not the way the present world is; the current use of the word "sciences" in "social sciences" is fraudulent. These fields today should instead be recognized for what they are: intellectual propaganda. Their debates are propaganda311

Appendix: 2-D debates; not debates of science. There is a difference. One of the foremost tactics of propaganda-debates is to destroy opposing viewpoints whenever possible by means of simply "the silent treatment" ignoring the viewpoints that one wishes to destroy, and thus eliminating such viewpoints from the discourse that "counts." According to "Academic and Public Discourses on the Holocaust: The Goldhagen Debate in Germany," by Ulrich Herbert in the Fall 1999 German Politics and Society, this tactic has been practised against the Goldhagen book itself, on the part not only of German and Christian historians, but of other-nationality and Jewish ones as well. Herbert noted that the book elicited much attention from the general public, but only relatively little (and ultimately almost none at all) from professional historians. The reasons for this that were hypothesized by Herbert made no sense: The scholars were sophisticated; the public-at-large was not; yet even Herbert acknowledged that "the book's effect was to accelerate learning processes in each field." Goldhagen's book was disliked by historians not because of its authentic deficiencieswhich were never clearly identified in the scholarly debate the work initially provoked in response to all the public attention it was receiving but rather because, despite all of the work's real deficiencies, Goldhagen exposed the historians' cover-up of the extent of the pervasiveness of antiSemitism in Third-Reich Germany and the years leading up to it. In other words, the historians' silent treatment of the Goldhagen book was due not to that work's flaws, but to its one authentic virtue. This should not blind the public-at-large to the work's very real bigotry against "the Germans." Seen in this light, one would naturally expect there to be historianpropagandists on "the other side" of the historiographical debate; and such is, indeed, the case. Numerous examples can be cited of historians who are just as bigoted against Jews as Goldhagen is against Germans. Not surprisingly, some of these historians are Gentians. (Not all are: David Irving, for example, is British.) One good example is Germany's Ernst Nolte, who has prominently argued that during the 1930's "the Jews" in Germany were a real threat to "the Germans," because "the Jews" were "Bolshevists," just as the Nazi Party claimed; furthermore, Jewish leader Chaim Weizmann's September 1939 call for world Jewry to fight Naziism after the 1938 Kristallnacht pogrom and other attacks against Jews, made reasonable Hitler's fears of international Jewry and caused the Nazi "internment" of "the Jews"; and moreover, despite these "provocations" by "the Jews," more "Aryans" than Jews were murdered at Auschwitz (which is not something that Nolte even tried to document, it is so absurd). 312

Appendix: 2-D Nolte has been honored by some of Germany's other leading historians, and in June of 2000 he won the Konrad Adenauer Prize for literature, and was lauded especially by Horst Moller, director of the distinguished Institute for Contemporary History in Munich. How edifying it would be to have Dr. Goldhagen debate Dr. Nolte, or perhaps Dr. Moller, on whether "the Jews" or "the Germans" are superior to the other, and what should be done to whichever group is inferior. That, at least would be a propaganda-debate that would not misrepresent itself as science. Well, maybe it would, after all; maybe that's how bad scholarship really is. And thus, the frequently asked question of "Why did the German people support Hitler and perpetrate the Holocaust?" is itself conceptually defective, or wrongly put. It starts from the same false assumption as does Goldhagen: that "the Germans" did it; that the Holocaust was, before it was anything else, a German crime. That misconception directs attention away from reality; not toward it. The Holocaust was, before it was anything else, a Christian act, and a Christian crime. To wrongly ask, "Why did the German people support Hitler and perpetrate the Holocaust?" is to forget if not to deny outrightthat Germany's Jews were Germans. Starting form the same core biblical religious sub-sumptions as those underlying Hitler's own world-view, that manner of posing the question directs attention away from the guilt of religion, as if the primary guilt in the Holocaust were instead a matter of nationality, "nationalism." (See Appendix 2-H for more on that particular religious scapegoat.) Nonetheless, there do happen to have beenand still today to be some rather distinctively German cultural roots of the Holocaust; and that is the next subject.


2-E: The majoritarian arrogance of German mass-culture

While Germany's more-egregious eruptions of overt bigotry nowadays directed especially against Turks and other "guest workers," some of whom are actually second or third generation German residents who were denied German citizenship on essentially "blood" groundsare well known; what is lessrecognized is the more subtle deepseated cultural deficiencies that produce such eruptions, and that the victorious allies never challenged to rectify, partly because the Cold War quickly took precedence, and partly because such cultural issues then were simply not understood, so that the basis upon which Naziism had arisen could not be well and fully identified. Suffice it to say here that, politically speaking, what separates German from American mass-culture, is the same thing that separates America's own Christian Right from the American Constitution: that is to say, the view of the Christian Right, and of mainstream German society, that the majority has a right to impose its religious beliefs upon minorities and even to force them to pay via taxes to support the religious displays and practices of the majority; versus the view of America's great Founders, embodied in the Constitution, that no taxpayer-funds must ever go toward any religious purpose. This is by no means to deny the totalitarian drift of America's brand of fundamentalism, for all fundamentalism itself favors totalitarianism (sometimes to do war against another variety of totalitarianism). It is merely to state that other countries exist in which the forces that would restrain such totalitarianism, are even weaker than they are here in the United States. The consequences of this global phenomenon 314

Appendix: 2-E of our timesJoshua Rubenstein of Amnesty International U.S.A. referred to a contemporary German case of it by saying "German justice appeared to be blind in the right eye"are detailed in Martin A. Lee's 1997 The Beast Reawakens, describing the re-grouping and re-emergence of the Nazi challenge as the Twentieth Century came to a close. By no means is this threat only a German phenomenon. But the majoritarian arrogance does tend to be culturally far more deepset in Germany than in some other countries. Bob Altemeyer's books, such as his 1998 Enemies of Freedom, and 1996 The Authoritarian Specter, describe a "self-righteousness" that is characteristic of conservatives generally; this is simply another term for majoritarian arrogance. An excellent example of the phenomenon is a note that Hitler himself jotted down during his stay in Landsberg prison, 15 June 1924 (Maser, 1973, p. 106): "Whenever freedom is desecrated, the best men meet in prison." When he afterwards became the majoritarian dictator, he could not recognize that he was the one desecrating freedom and placing the best people in prison; as a too-typical German, he could not see himself as being the majoritarian oppressor, only minorities were "the problem." This trait is still too common. Even today, Germans are especially inclined to the majoritarian's selfrighteousness. This is often expressed specifically as a Christian selfrighteousness, because the dominant religious beliefs of the German people remain Christian today, just as was the case during the Third Reich; and therefore most Germans even today have difficulty dealing with their own underlying cultural reality. In the national census of 17 May 1939 as reported to Goebbels on 3 July 1944 by Propaganda Minister Kerrl, the Reich's population was 54% Protestant, 40% Catholic, 3.5% "Believers in God," and 1.5% "Unbelievers"; thus, the citizenry were 94% Christian, and in the post-War era when Naziism is no longer "morally correct" in Germany, the German people feel a strong need to avoid seeing Naziism as having been itself an outgrowth from Christianity. But this self-imposed ignorance has a cost: it makes it impossible for the German nation intellectually to conquer the Holocaustthat is to say, to understand it. And this intellectual failure has dangerous political consequences, of which the small, everyday, examples may be considered as portents of worse possibilities to come. The clearest case-in-point is perhaps the 1995 incident in which the German public, supported by Chancellor Helmut Kohl and most other leading officials, arose in outrage against a Federal Constitutional Court ruling overturning a Bavarian government regulation that required a Christian cross to be installed in every primary-school classroom. As reported in Peter C. Caldwell's superb "The Crucifix and German Constitutional 315

Appendix: 2-E Culture," in Cultural Anthropology, May 1996: The Court declared the regulation null and void, stating in the 'guiding principle' of the decision, 'Installing a cross or crucifix in the instructional room of a state-run, compulsory school that is not a confessional school violates Article 4, Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law.' The Basic Lawthe name given to the West German constitution of 1949states in that article, 'Freedom of faith, of conscience, and freedom of creed, religious or ideological, shall be inviolable.' At the height of the resulting uproarin which hundreds of thousands of protestletters poured into Bavarian government offices, plus more elsewherethe Chancellor unfortunately captured the sense of the German public when he call the Court's decision "incomprehensible," and added a recitation of the widespread contemporary German myth pertaining not only to Marxism but more importantly to Naziism, that "after the bitter experiences with the anti-Christian ideologies of this century and their horrible, cynical effects, we feel ourselves especially obliged to pass [Christian] values on to the next generation." I.e., Kohl: To oppose state-sponsored Christianity, is either Nazi or Marxist. As Caldwell's article explains, contemporary Germans hold to a traditional German historical interpretation containing several noteworthy features that Kohl's view reflects: First, "following the disturbances of the Reformation and the Thirty Years' War, the principle was recognized that the ruler of a state had the right to determine the religion of his subjects." In Bavaria, this meant not only Christianity, but quite specifically Catholicism. Since the "ruler" there is now held to be the majority of the Bavarian population, who are Catholic, it is considered quite proper for this majority to impose its religious symbolism upon non-Christians, such as Muslims, Jews, orin the particular case at handanthroposophists, all of whom, it is widely believed in Germany, should have to pay taxes to support such majoritarian religion. Second, there is "the resentment and sense of victimization that marks majority sentiment in Germany." Another portion of traditional German political culture, and which America's own Founding Fathers also struggled constitutionally to overcome in the inherited culture here in the Untied States, is this majoritarian entitlement-sense by virtue of being a majority. It, too, goes back to biblical ages, and is tied in with the "Might 316

Appendix: 2-E make right" ethic that is represented best perhaps in Romans 13:1-3, but also generally throughout the Bible. As Caldwell explained the contemporary manifestation of the principleand a manifestation that is quite different than what one finds in the American caseGermans maintain a long tradition of viewing minorities as exploiting majorities, and Germans even interpret the Nazis themselves as having been a "minority" who "exploited" the German, and quite specifically (since Christians were, to put it mildly, the majority of the German people during the Nazi era, even as during our own) the Christian, majority. In order to sustain this widespread German myth, not only are the past realities recounted in Goldhagen's Hitlers Willing Executioners ignored, in which the majority Christians produced 100% of both the Nazi Party and the Nazi voters, who then eagerly slaughtered minorities; but today's Germans ominously continue to think of their majority as "exploited" and "taken advantage of by "inferior" minoritiesoften, in fact, by "inferior" religious minorities, such as Moslem Turks in their midst. This same mentality was shown on 16 February 1999, when Chancellor Gerhard Schroder announced that, in response to claims against German corporations by hundreds of thousands of surviving Eastern European former slaves from the Nazi era, a 1.7 billion dollar compensation-fund would be established "to remove the basis of the campaign being led against German industry and our country," thus identifying the slave-victims as themselves the victimizers of "our country," and so implicitly as the enemy "them" against the German "us." But specifically in regards to the crucifix-in-the-classrooms issue about which Caldwell wrote, the phenomenon exhibited itself in many instances recounted by Caldwell, such as when the conservative Bavarian politician, Hans Maier, publicly called for mob-resistance to the Court's decision, saying, "As a young lad, I experienced Storm Troopers removing the cross from our classroom." Such unregenerate crypto-fascists would like to thinkor to have their listeners believethat Nazis came from some religious minority; perhaps Jews? Muslims? Anthroposophists? Scientologists? Marxists? In fact, of course they were all Christians. Furthermore, while Naziism might have been in Hitler's own mind a nascent Christian sect with himself representing a new dispensation, a modern Martin Luther, perhaps even a Second Coming; he continued to the very end of his days a practising and believing Roman Catholic, and a thoroughgoing representative of Austrian, Bavarian, broader German, and more-broadly Christian, culture. For Maier to attempt to portray the lone German anthroposophist, Ernst Seler, whose daughter did not want to be subjected at her taxpayer-supported public school to "an eighty centimeter tall, naked, dead man, covered with blood," every day within 317

Appendix: 2-E her classroom, as if this courageous anthroposophist were a latter-day summoner of the Storm Troopers to take the thing down, is a contemporary example of the Big Lie technique that Hitler did so much to popularize. And thus, in Germany, such rabble-rousing is even more of a danger than here. Indeed, is it not just possible that Germany's cultural view that minorities oppress majorities rather than the other way around, is "the missing ingredient" that completes the explanation of why the Holocaust occurred there rather than in some other Christian nationthat this factor, combined with the Versailles Treaty, combined with the advent of a Hitler, to produce the unique event that occurred? Is not such a possibility at least worth exploring by some culturalanthropologist/historian, so as to attempt to solve that historical question? I think so. One other recent event lends support to this theory of the deepseated German cultural disease that produced there the Holocaust: the debate over Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann, the former Nazi propagandist under Joseph Goebbels, who rose to become postwar Germany's leading political pollster, and then a professor of political science at the University of Chicago, which in 1984 published a book of hers arguing that, in democracies, minorities oppress majorities by creating such a racket in the media, that the majority is cowed into The Spiral of Silence, as the book was titled. Then, in the August 1991 Commentary, Leo Bogart reprinted her old Nazi anti-Semitic diatribes; and in the Summer 1996 Journal of Communication, Christopher Simpson argued that Noelle-Neumann had slanted her poll-results to fit her fascist view. That debate stormed on, but there can be no question that Dr. Noelle-Neumann's theory of "The Spiral of Silence" fits ideally the second of Caldwell's points we just cited regarding the cultural roots of Naziism; and in this context it also is of interest that Dr. NoelleNeumann is a personal friend of Chancellor Kohl. Third, another "reason the Court's decision aroused such a critical response lay in the widespread assumptions among conservatives that German democracy was based on Christian values." This myth had served the (then West-) German Government well in its ideological battle against the supposedly irreligious (but actually merely Marxist-religious) Soviet Union. (But ironically, Russia's own parliament or Duma caved overwhelmingly to that country's previously monopolistic Christian church, when it voted in 1997 essentially to restore its old state-backed monopoly by forcing competing churches to worship only in private places; Russia now is a de jure Christian monopoly, just as the Communist church had previously been the religious monopoly, supplanting the earlier Christian monopoly. And this is the sort of thing that most Gentians even today take 318

Appendix: 2-E as their model.) Since German conservatives simply cannot face the reality that their own religion had led to Naziism, they again have laid the blame on a "foreign" cause (just as the majority of Russians today blame "foreign" religions). Somehow, in Germany this has ended up being Marxism via Naziism itself. German conservativeseven "religious liberal" ones refuse to acknowledge that they've all been religions competing, essentially, for state-support, statefavors, and state-monopoly; and that that is the root-source for all forms of totalitarianism. The difference between America's Christian Coalition and Germany's Christian Democratic Union (or in Bavaria, Christian Social Union) is that this nation has the tradition of the great Founders. Germany though it (including Austria) was the home of such high-culture giants as Mathias Grunewald, Anton Bruckner, Richard Strauss, Otto Dix, Anselm Kiefer, Christoff Willibald von Gluck, Hildegard von Bingen, Meister Eckhart, Michael Praetorius, Gottfried Wilhem von Leibniz, Albert Einstein, Franz Schreker, and others; making it the Athens of the modern era simply did not have any socio-political visionaries up to the stature of our own Thomas Jefferson, George Mason, John Adams, James Madison, etcetera. To this day, priests in Germany, and clergy of any stateapproved religion, are paid by the government, from tax-dollars. Far from a wall separating church and state there, the government is in the business of sponsoring its "approved" religions, and disapproving others. The ultimate irony of Hitler and of Naziism, is that their bigoted nationalism, which they claimed to be based upon the greatness of what wasin ways and to an extent that Nazis themselves were too small-minded even to begin to graspthe loftiest high culture of any in history, did what may have been irreparable damage to that very culture, not only by causing some of its brightest luminaries (such as Einstein himself; the novelist Thomas Mann; and the composer, Paul Hindemith), to emigrate abroad; but by killing others (such as the underappreciated but great Austrian-Jewish operatic composer, Franz Schreker, driven to a heart-attack in 1933). In addition, it made life hell for some that nonetheless chose to stay (such as Richard Strauss, who almost lost his Jewish daughter-in-law, and could have lost his own life, to the Nazis; and such as Otto Dix, whose paintings were banned by them). German high culture still has not recovered; and partly on account of the unresolved tensions within German society over the Nazi era, the greatest German painter since Mathias Grunewald five centuries ago, who is Anselm Kiefer, moved out of the country. How fitting it is, then, that Kiefer's art, which represents perhaps the culmination of German high culture since the start of the Renaissance, 319

Appendix: 2-E was first appreciated by American Jews, and he only later grew to be acknowledged by Gentians as the titanic figure he is. For decades, Germans en masse, found Kiefer's 1969-86 visual mediations upon the Holocaust to be too much to take, too piercing to the heart of things, even though there was nothing in them that was graphic, and the connections are only at the most primordial level of the archetypal collective subconscious. This is, however, not the first time that a great German or Austrian artist has found other nations, not his own, to be more supportive of his work. Figures like this are not really German or Austrian; like all of the truly great, they transcend their nationality, to become human in the highest sense, that only a small minority, in any culture and at any time, can appreciate; they belong to no one nation or culture, but to all Mankind. And all of them have recognized this, in one way or another. During the Nazi era, the German majority were the enemies, and the destroyers, of German culture. How ironic: Hitlernot the Jewsbrought it down. It is the supreme irony of conservatism, demonstrated not only in Germany but in all nations, and not only in our time but in all times, that the bigotry it imposes upon minorities and the weak, ends up being a boomerang that hits even the majority population, doing profound damage to all of the society excepting only to the psychopaths that in such societies tend to float to the top as the cream of the social order. Did Radovan Karadzic, Slobodan Milosevic, etc., improve the lives of most Serbs in the former Yugoslavia? Hardly. Though a conservative government targets minorities first, who suffer by far the most, the majority-population also losses immensely. Thus, the prerequisite to Germany's finally putting Naziism behind it, is putting Christianity behind it; for the former was an outgrowth from the latter. Christianity was the source for the Nazis' concept of "the Aryan"the "People of God," the pureblooded Christians. And Christianity was also the source for the Nazis' concept of "the Jew"the "People of Satan." The last German myth is that the seed for Naziism is what is needed in order to prevent a return of Naziism. Some day, the German and Austrian people will have to quit being whiners and complainers against the minorities amongst themselves, and to see the ugliness that is in their own mirrors. Until that day comes, however, the rest of the world will with good reason consider Germans and Austrians potentially a very special threat. Thus, Richard Strauss noted in his diary, upon the death of his great colleague Gustave Mahler, "It is absolutely clear to me that the German nation will again be restored to glory only through liberation from Christianity." Strauss did not consider the problem, however, to be unique 320

Appendix: 2-E to Christianity; he realized that it was endemic to all organized religions; unlike Nietzche, who rejected Christianity specifically, Strauss had a broader understanding and a deeper insight. It is not one that either the masses or the intelligentsia predominantly share within Germany (or even elsewhere, for that matter). And this prerequisite repudiation of religion itself, would necessarily include a repudiation by the German people of the religious-inspired hereditarian concept of "the blood of the people," which till recentlylong after the honors of the Nazi eradefined German citizenship by bloodlines; i.e., as a "racial" matter. That is barbaric; have German conservatives no shame? Conservatives wanted to continue a system in which even a person who had never spent a day in Germany and knew nothing of German culture, and who cannot understand a word of the German language, can be granted German citizenship merely on the grounds that his ancestors were German. German conservatives, even today, think of the German nation as the Nazis did: as "race." Thus, till recently, people who had been born in Germany from Turkish parents, and who had lived their entire lives in Germany, and spoke only the German language, were refused German citizenship; and even their children werewhile foreigners with "German blood" were granted such citizenship. Richard Strauss did not overstate the case; the disease of German culture has been as drastic as Strauss understood it to be. Other commentators, who have far less admiration for German culture high or lowthan do I, find the source of its deficiencies to lie not in its conservatism, but rather in its unquestioning acceptance of convention, and blind obedience to "authority." These individuals speak privately of Germans as being crude, loutish buffoons, that arc appalled at anyone who crosses streets between lights or anywhere other than at the "assigned" places, namely streetcorners. On may truly say that Gentians are notorious for their blind obedience. (How fitting that Kohl, the supporter of state-imposed Christianity when he was Chancellor, would give as his excuse upon his resignation on 18 January 2000 from his honorary position as Christian Democratic Party Chairman subsequent to revelations that he had accepted millions of dollars of secret illegal campaign contributions from Party financiers, that he had only been doing his "duty." His "duty" as he saw it, was to the Party of God, not to the laws and Constitution of a democratic republic. The next day, he added, "In my whole life, I have never given up my honor," and in his theocratic lights he was probably speaking the truth.) Where, then, does such "blind obedience" come from? Amongst the intelligentsia, it is not fashionable to go deeper, and to 321

Appendix: 2-E ask a question like this. It is considered acceptable to speak disparagingly, even contemptuously, of a culture that, at its high end (though decidedly not at its low) has probably been the world's richest and most-fruitful, and to treat it allhigh as well as lowas just the butt of a bad and tasteless joke. Germans become, in this view, little more than a caricature of their very worst. And to inquire further into precisely where that very worst comes from, is itself a question off-limits. The reason is that is cuts too close to home, wherever "home" happens to be. It isn't only Germans who are reluctant to see their naked selves glaring back from a mirror. Germans obviously don't. That is why during the 1998 federal elections, so many Germanseven members of the intelligentsia, such as Gunter Grass, and religious "liberals" like Michael Naumannspoke out against the construction of a Holocaust Memorial in the center of Berlin; and some even proposed in its stead the reconstruction of Kaiser Wilhelm's palace. Hut there cannot be too many memorials in Germany such as the Topography of Terror Museum and the Holocaust Memorial both now in Berlin; Chancellor Schoder and his cultural minister finally yielded. By the time of the 27 January 2000 inaugural ceremony for the Holocaust Memorial, Mr. Naumann was even excoriating Berlin's declaredly conservative Mayor for his refusal to attend: The Christian Democrat Mayor Eberhard Diepgen said he had "better things to do" than that. Many Germans simply don't want to acknowledge that the Holocaust was an indelible defining event for German culture; they think that "the time has come to put that behind us"by forgetting about it. They aren't prepared to deal with it as Anselm Kiefer, didby transcending it with a comprehensive German vision that acknowledges the depraved side of the culture so that it can be overcome, and can reinforce what has made that culture great. Instead, like reality-denying conservatives of the Left and Right everywhere, they cleanse the memory of the German past, so as to air-brush the German future; as if idealization of the past were the way forward to a progressive Germany. What the Christian German majority did to the Jewish Gentian minority during the 1930's and 40's, is thereafter as permanent a part of defining German history, as what Turks did to Armenians in 1915-16 is to Turkish history; what Hutus did to Tutsis in the 1990's is to Rwandan history; or what Whites did to Blacks up to the 1860's in the United States is to U.S. history. Such stains are permanent; they can be overcome only to the extent thatand only for so long asthey are acknowledged as the stains that they are. This does not mean that present generations are in any way responsiblemuch less, guiltyfor what any prior generation did: no more than they deserve praise, for example, for what the great ones in their 322

Appendix: 2-E nation's history achieved. Collective guiltor honoris always based on a lie. But in order to control the future, one must understand the past. Specifically as regards the German case of this, the transcendent selfencounter must entail a way of dealing with the characteristic German obsession with obedience; probing it all the way down to its roots, including the Bible itself, as well as probing down to its biblical roots Germany's and Austria's anti-Semitic past and anti-foreigner present. When encountering a reality like these, there is a quite understandable, though petty, tendency to look away, rather than to look at. At the same time, however, the inclination of religious liberals, in Germany as in the "affirmative action" U.S. and elsewhere, to seek answers to these problems by mean of asserting intergenerational or any other kind of collective guilt, must be repudiated. The current generation of Germans bear no guilt for what Hitler's generation didjust as today's American Whites bear no guilt for previous generations' enslavement of Blacks but instead bear a responsibility to face realistically that morally bleak past, not to deny it. Germany's intelligentsia has unfortunately been inclined instead to biblically grounded approaches. The intelligentsia, of course, unfortunately includes Germany's leadership, such as its top jurists, whose fascistic assumptions are not really very different than were those of their counterparts under Hitler. Consequently, on 21 April 1999, a Federal Administrative Court in Berlin upheld as constitutional that 1995 Bavarian law requiring that a crucifix be displayed in classrooms unless a parent raises "serious and reasonable" objections. The Bavarian law was virtually a dare to Jews, Moslems, and other German minorities, to stick their heads up and challenge the classroom-crucifixes in the face of the local Christian redneck mobs, or else to put up with this state-imposed Christianity in silence, and to accept that they are second-class Germans, not all that different than Jews were during the first years of the Nazi regime. A ruling like this is even more abominable in Germany, Austria, or any other country with an intensely bigoted culture, than it is in less-benighted lands. Richard Strauss was right. And so too were the founders of the United States, who recognizedas Germany's Administrative Court evidently still does notthat unless there is a solid wall of separation between church and state, bigotry will rule. Germany may be beginning the de-Nazification process, but it has a long way yet to go; and its elites are not leading that way. Austria has yet 323

Appendix: 2-E to begin the process. Even today, to be a "non-Aryan" in Germany and Austria - especially in Bavaria and Austria, from where Hitler himself hailed, but also elsewheremeans that one must be a fool not to live in fear. Germans, evidently, are proud to be Germans. They areor at least most them areproud to live in a country like that. That is the problem. The problem in Germany is not the minorities. It is not the Jews, the Moslems, the Scientologists, or any other of the minorities. The problem in Germany is the Christians; and it always was. Richard Strauss was right. However, if the German majority were to convert to another religion, there is no reason to believe that the results would be any better. Because the real problem in Germany, when you get right down to it, is the majority; and it always was. This is what Goethe meant, when he said that the German as an individual is to be admired, but that Germans as a mass are abominable. Goethe was speaking here of the root problem of German culture: its majoritarian arrogance. And Goethe knew that this problem exists also in other nations, each of which has its majorityand "There is nothing more odious than the majority," as Goethe also said, (Yet Goethe himself was also a part of that majority: specifically, he was anti-Semitic; this is not surprising when one considers that the biblical image of Satan inspired his greatest play; his Christian upbringing affected him in the bad ways, not only in the good.) It can happen anywhere: The American Founders understood this, and they established the solution. Germany ought to give it a try: Any mixture of the state with religion is poison. Anything short of a total separation between the two is going to fall short of truly de-Nazifying German and Austrian cultures. In this sense, Germans and Austrians were Nazis even before the Nazi party was founded. Naziism was based on a failure to abolish religion in the state itself. De-Nazifying Germany is still a work in progress; and amongst German and Austrian conservatives (such as, in Hitler's time, brought Hitler himself to power), it still has a long, long, way to go. However, the same can be said for a great many other countries, so smugness anywhere is a mental/moral disease, and a sure sign there that it is unwarranted.


2-F: The great failure of intellectuals and the academy

The persistence of bigoted mass-persecutions as a central feature even of what many people like to think of as our "enlightened" modern world, has always been a conundrum for individuals of a progressive intellectual bent. What is often particularly perplexing to them is the (to them) shocking discovery that highly educated intellectuals participate in such stupid evils no less than do the uneducated. I remember many instances in which my elderly music-tutor when I was a child, Dr. Kurt Roger, noted always with a sense of fresh amazement, that his fellow-professors at the Vienna Academy of Music had been every bit as ardent bigots and Nazis as the average Austrian Joe. The apparent "anomaly" was noted also by Paul Johnson in his 1987 A History of The Jews (pp. 470-474), that, "Germany was by far the world's best educated nation. It was the first to achieve universal adult literacy. Between 1870 and 1933 its universities were the world's finest, in virtually every discipline. . . . Hitler never found any difficulty in acquiring intellectual backing, sometimes oblique, for his views. . . . Indeed, the German academy, taken as a whole, far from acting as a barrier to Hitlerism, assisted its progress to power." Or, as Horst von Maltitz documented at length in the 17th chapter of his 1973 The Evolution of Hitler s Germany, "In the final analysis, it was from the German educators that National Socialism received its greatest help, and this by no means only after Hitler's seizure of power in 1933 but even more so for decades before. The educators were the Wegbereiter, the ones who laid the groundwork, paved the way." For the sickening details, 325

Appendix: 2-F see Max Weinreich's 1946 Hitler's Professors: The Part of Scholarship in Germany's Crimes against The Jewish People. In fact, as we noted in Appendix 2C, the tables at the back of Michael Kater's 1983 The Nazi Party, indicate that professional scholars constituted the most-pro-Nazi of all occupational categories not just during but prior to Nazi rule in Germany. The most obvious explanation for such mass-bigotry amongst supposed intellectual elites has always been "excessive nationalism." For example, Richard Wagner's proto-Naziism has commonly been viewed in this light, as an excessive devotion to German culture, as if Wagner's Christianity were a mere incidental appendage to how he defined his nationalism. And there was a fine article in U.S. News & World Report on 10 January 1994, by John Marks, interpreting the famous Nazi philosopher Martin Heidegger, as well as a number of contemporary bigoted European intellectuals, from Serbia, Croatia, Hungary, and Germany, essentially as nationalists. (Regarding the case of Heidegger, I recommend the justcited von Maltitz book, and also Victor Farias' 1989 Heidegger and Naziism, and Beryl Lang's 1996 Heidegger's Silence.) Of course, they are nationalists, but that still begs the question of the role of religion. And the religious culture in which these bigots were raised is far from irrelevant to their subsequent moral views as exclusionists and supremacists. As Chris Hedges, reporting from Belgrade, explained in the New York Times of 10 December 1996, "the Serbian Orthodox Church" was "the institution that gave birth to the modern Serbian nationalist movement" and thus to the ethnic cleansing. (Nor, it seems, did the Church subsequently regret what it had done: as the same journalist and paper reported on 31 May 1998, the Serb leader of the ethnic cleansing, Dr. Radovan Karadzic, "frequently finds shelter in the monasteries, churches, and other properties of the Bosnian Serb Orthodox Church" against his being seized for trial by the international war-crimes tribunal in The Hague. But at least the Church did finally turn against Serbia's own leader, Slobodan Milosevic, another indicted war-criminalafter his war against his own Albanian Muslim population ended in defeat for Christian Serbs. "Moral leaders," all.) Merely national mythologies can be morally neutral, because it is no essential part of their function to define "right" and "wrong." That has always been the traditional role of religion. But at the very least, religions have focused their moral searchlights on other issues than bigotry, at the same time as they have defined superiority and inferiority by reference to whether one accepts their own beliefs. To make matters even worse, they have promoted a hereditary aristocracy. Their omissions and commissions have thus laid the groundwork for genocidal nationalism. A person like 326

Appendix: 2-F Heidegger didn't have to be consciously Christian in order to be shaped by Christianity. Since at least the time of Freud, we have understood that people's beliefs are often the result of influences from childhood that they do not understand. Even many intellectuals are, at root, reactive. As a cultural influence, religion is actually underestimated. It often flies beneath the intellectual radar of intellectuals who are nonetheless permeated with its influence. Perhaps an even more-apt metaphor is: A fish doesn't see the sea in which it swims. Another good example of the phenomenon is the academic study of conservatism itself. Even in my favorite two books on the subject, one by M. Morton Auerbach (1959) and the other by Ronald Lora (1971), the role that religious values play in conservatism is virtually ignored; and that pervasive influence from the cradle, and the church, and rituals of birth, marriage, and death, is treated as if it were nothing, while one writer (Auerbach) traces conservatism back to the philosopher Plato, and the other goes only back to British politician Edmund Burke. But, in reality, of course, cradle-talk is far-more-important than college-talk. Philosophers themselves are loath to admit, yet have been unable to escape, the impact that their early religious training has upon their subsequent, supposedly value-free, writings on morality. But as William M. McGovern observed in his 1941 book tracing the intellectual roots of Naziism, "It is interesting to note that three of the foremost apostles of etatism and authoritarianism, Fichte, Carlyle, and Hegel, started out as theological students, in marked contrast with the early life and training of most of the great liberal thinkers such as Locke who started out as a doctor, or Montesquieu who started out as a lawyer." (To this might be added that the passionately committed Nazi Party member, Dr. Heidegger, began as a theologian.) And one should really seek to find the influence of culture at an even younger age, in early childhood, at which period yet a fourth progenitor of Naziism, Nietzschethat elitist prophet/champion of the instinctive supermen of power, who "by right" exploit and crush the weakis encountered as a small boy the son of a long line of Lutheran ministers, as he preaches the Bible to his classmates with such fervor that they refer to him as "the little pastor." Even though some of these pre-fascists subsequently repudiated their early religiosity, its impact upon their moral outlook was formative and permanent. How utterly odd it is that parents today, who are rightly concerned about the moral impact that television-shows have on their children, should nonetheless feel no qualms whatsoever about the effect of that book taught in Sunday school. Would it pass even minimal standards for sex and violence? What about, "Moses became angry with the officers, the 327

Appendix: 2-F commanders of battalions and companies, who had returned from the war. He asked them, 'Why did you not kill the women? . . . Kill every boy, and every woman who is not a virgin; but keep for your own pleasure all girls and all virgin women.'" What about, "Jesus said to the Jews, 'If God were your Father, you would love me. ... You belong to your father, the devil.'" What about, "There is no authority except from God, and all authority that exists is established by God." What about, "Slaves, submit to your masters with full respect," or, "If a man takes a stick and beats his slave, whether male or female, and the slave dies immediately, the man is to be punished; but if the slave survives a day or two, the master is not to be punished." What about, "The Lord will not let good people go hungry, but only the wicked." Television, after all, is not presented to children as having the authority of moral law. The Bible is. It matters. Yet intellectuals, who most should be equipped to understand this, are the very people whoas a general ruleleast do. Instead, they doggedly deny the contemporary impact of Scriptural falsehood, bigotry, and incitement; for to acknowledge these things would place their very own culture and personal background and upbringing under a moral cloud; and furthermore, some of these intellectuals themselves remain religious believers. Consequently, Scripture is frequently treated by them as purely allegorical or figurative, even where it clearly is not. A good example is the 1994 A Radical Jew: Paul and the Politics of Identity, by Daniel Boyarin, a believing Jew who wants very much to persuade himself that anti-Semitism was not itself given birth by anything that in his view is so glorious and noble as religionin this particular instance, of course, meaning Christianity. Boyarin's book aims, as he put it in his introduction, "to reclaim Paul as an important Jewish thinker," which of course means that for Boyarin, there is no reason to worry about anti-Semitism from a "real" Christian. As Boyarin continues his explanation of this thesis (p. 2), "on my reading of the Pauline corpus, Paul lived and died convinced that he was living out Judaism." In order to delude himself and his reader with this notion, he avoids totally passages such as 1 Thessalonians 2:15-6, and all the other evidence (such as has been included here) that is inconsistent with it. But the culmination of his mythologising about religion comes when he discusses Paul's attitude toward circumcision. Divorcing his account entirely from the reality of the furious and even violent conflicts over this issue that we have reviewed in detail, and even the medical reality of the First Century, that cutting part of a man's penis off in an era with neither antibiotics nor anaesthesia, was not only dangerous but terrifying, Boyarin cavalierly asserts (pp. 230-1): 328

Appendix: 2-F Paul's allegorical reading of the rite of circumcision is an almost perfect emblem of his hermeneutics of otherness. In one stroke, by interpreting circumcision as referring to a spiritual and not corporeal reality, Paul made it possible for Judaism to become a world religion. It is not that the rite was difficult for adult gentiles to perform that would hardly have stopped devotees in the ancient worldit was rather that it symbolized the genetic, the genealogical moment, of Judaism as the religion of a particular tribe of people. This is so both in the very physicality of the rite, grounded in the practice of the tribe and marking the male members of that tribe, but it is even more so as a marker on the organ of generation, representing the genealogical claim for concrete historical memory as constitutive of Israel. By substituting a spiritual interpretation for a physical ritual, Paul was saying, the genealogical Israel, 'according to the flesh,' is not the ultimate Israel; there is an 'Israel in the spirit.' The practices of the particular Jewish People are not what the Bible speaks of, but faith, the allegorical meaning of those practices. It was Paul's genius to transcend 'Israel in the flesh.' No one doubts, and Paul never denied, that Paul had been born a Jew; to the contrary, Paul even emphasized this in order to persuade his Gentile followers that he was as much of an authority on Jewish Law as were the Jerusalem elders who insisted upon circumcision (and also in order to reassure his few Jewish followers that he was qualified to lead them too). However, it is equally incontrovertible that by the time that Paul was writing such epistles as Galatians and Romans, not only did he no longer consider himself to be a Jew, but he hated any Jew who would not convert. Paul now was a Christian and a former Jew; and in his own writings and amongst his followers, the seeds were planted to view "the Jews" racially as "those who killed the Lord . . . and persecuted us. How displeasing they are to God!" And even as "the children of the devil." (Boyarin, incidentally, does such an incompetent job that he fails to cite the best Scriptural evidence supporting his false thesis that Paul considered himself to be a Jew to the end: Romans 3:9-31, which Paul addresses to the Jews in the Roman Christian community, trying to keep them there by assuring them, "we 329

Appendix: 2-F uphold the Law" [3:31], and by addressing them as "we Jews" [3:9] However, Paul makes clear to them that despite the pretty talk, he holds them to the same covenantal supersessionism that applies to Gentiles: "God is one, and He will put the Jews right with Himself on the basis of their faith, and will put the Gentiles right on the basis of their faith" [3:30]. The Jewish Covenant, in other words, is dead.) Furthermore, it is intellectually dishonest to treat as "allegorical" or otherwise merely figurative, Scripture that was obviously created with the intention to be taken literally, and accepted as such in its time. Can anyone seriously doubt, for example, that the Ten Commandments were literally intended and interpreted when they first entered Judaism? Surely the question never even presented itself that these laws might be figurative. And yet Boyarin's book is so incredibly fantastical that going back even to Genesis, it interprets the requirement (17:14) that males be circumcised, as being not literally intended). Boyarin supportively presents Paul as asserting this view. But Paul in fact never asserted this: he said that the Covenant itselfall of itwas being replaced with an entirely new covenant, which he himself had actually invented so as to win the Roman rulers: salvation by grace alone and by means of faith alone, replacing the Ten Commandments and all others. In Galatians 3:23-5 and Romans 7:6 & 10:4, Paul was emphatic about this supersession. He even personalized it in his own case, in Galatians 2:19-21. The evidence is clear: when he said in Galatians 3:10, "Those who depend on obeying the Law live under a curse," he meant to damn all unconverted Jews. Would Boyarin have it that the Law had been literal but that after Jesus it was figurative? Paul didn't say this either. What kind of commentary upon academe is it that university presses routinely publish such delusions as "scholarship"? Is this an indication that university presses are unselective in what they publish? That is certainly not the case; they turn down a great many works presented to them, some of which are not such trash; some, no doubt, excellent. When whole fields of scholarship unconsciously live under the Damoclean sword of the mythologising institution of religion, we cannot realistically assert that the Dark Ages are yet entirely over. It is, in retrospect, by now clear even to most scholars, that when Adolf Hitler from 1919 on, urged the "elimination" of "the Jews," and from 1922 on, promised their "annihilation," he was expressing himself literally, which is the way that fundamentalists by virtue of their fundamentalism do customarily use language. Fantasists at the time took these statements as metaphorical. For 20thCentury scholars to so much as even just suggest that all the passionate hatreds and outright riots reported in the New 330

Appendix: 2-F Testament over the issue of the circumcision-requirement concerned in that ancient time merely a failure to communicate regarding the distinction between a literal versus a metaphorical interpretation of "the Word of God," is religious apologetics of the most bizarre kind, employing the academy itself as a thinly veiled instrument of the religious institution, and representing cravenous capitulation to it. The reason Scripture is increasingly interpreted as figurative with the passing of the centuries and millennia, is that the falsehoods it contains become increasingly blatant with the encroachments of science. This intellectual charade has a place within the confines of the university only to the extent that the latter remains an extension of the church. It has no place within the university as a scientific institution. The tradition of misrepresenting the teaching of Paul extends far beyond merely Boyarin's fictitious "figurative-versus-literal" Paul. For example, according to Alan Segal's 1990 Paul the Convert (pp. 129-30,202-4, and 211-12), Paul meant when he referred dismissively to "works" and "the Law," only religious ceremonies or rituals; and according to James D.G. Dunn's 1990 Jesus, Paul and the Law (pp. 194-8), Paul was dismissing mere identity-markers of Jews as a "nationalistically restrictive" ethnic group. Both writers argue that Paul did not here mean to dismiss the "real" ethical commandments governing "behavior." What each writer includes as such "real" ethical commandments is, presumably, whatever the given individual writer happens to feel constitutes such a "real" ethical commandmentwhich is probably what the given writer was taught as a child to believe in. In other words, it is obvious that each such writer is not interested in what Paul was saying, but only trying to find a rationalization for respecting Paul. And Johannes Munck, in his 1959 Paul and the Salvation of Mankind, devotes all of his fourth chapter to arguing that, "The Judaizing opponents in Galatians are Gentile Christians," and not only that "Paul was fully acknowledged by the leaders in Jerusalem," but Paul's letter is actually intending to communicate to the Galatians "that the leaders in Jerusalem are not at one with the Judaizers" and oppose what they are doing; and furthermore that "nothing in [Gal. 2; 12] makes it likely that 'certain men from James' were emissaries commissioned by James and Jerusalem"these were Gentile "Judaizers" who acted on their own. Just why it is that Peter clicked his heels at their command Munck does not address. N