Ultimately, anti-Semitism comes down to this fundamental scrutiny and claim: "the Jews have never had a culture, religion, or state of their own."
If it's merely criticism of Israel, Zionism, certain wealthy Jews, etc., then it's not truly anti-Semitic. A lot of these critics are generally tolerant of Jews as individuals, they're not against all Jews obviously. They should not be grouped up with the real anti-Semites.
The Nazis primarily focused on the Exodus account and the Old Testament. With the exception of Rosenberg and a few others, most of them didn't go around nitpicking obscure passages from the Talmud (as Christians tend to do against Islam). The Nazis prided themselves on their "reason", it was not at all based on their emotions. In his September 16, 1919 letter, Hitler distinguishes his movement from religious anti-Semitism (which he identifies with pogroms). Their inner circle was composed of mostly Stoic types.
The Alt-Right will never dare to go beyond the stereotypes and even embraces religious anti-Semitism, which is as weak as it is absurd.
Context is everything. If we remove the Satan concept from John 8:44 for a moment, it amounts to the accusation: "you Jews are murderers and liars because you do not accept me as your messiah". This is hardly an anti-Semitic attack, John 8:30-31 indicates that this verse was directed towards Jews who had believed. So here he rebukes these Jews who had believed, despite their positive reception to his teaching. The contradiction is evident.
The cleansing of the temple furnishes us with another example of an absurdity. This was prominently used for propaganda in an April 1922 speech of Hitler. In this speech, he says he's a Christian and follows the gospel narrative. If Jesus had really done everything listed in the gospels (overturn the tables, drive people out of a whip, prevent people from carrying things into the temple, etc.), he'd have most certainly been arrested. No one could get away with such an outrageous behavior in our time. The Romans would have most definitely seen this as a public disturbance. As their historians report, they tried to maintain peaceful affairs at all costs.
And then there's Revelation 3:9, which is often used in tandem with the Khazars theory. This is basically a reworking of several promises found in the book of Isaiah, but for Christians. "Chosen people" is an exclusively Jewish concept. It boggles my mind to see blacks, whites, etc. claiming to be the true Jews.
But the Alt-Right would have us believe that Hitler was a Christian based on a few early speeches, statements, and photos and thereby falsify the actual situation. The majority of Germans were Christian. Hitler realized that he had to win the support of the churches to secure power for his movement. Nazism was actually anti-Christian from it's conception. Here's a rare gem: "Today a new state is being established, the unique feature of which is that it sees its foundation not in Christianity and not in a concept of state;" (1937)
So the Alt-Right is bound to fail in their appropriation of Hitler (just as the Christians appropriated Plato), unless it is propped up by our president. I would point out to such Trump supporters that Trump has adopted a practice of nepotism, which Hitler explicitly condemns in his table talks.
And a word on the Table Talks: the atheist Richard C. Carrier is no authority on this matter. He represents the entire source material (and not merely it's English translation) as worthless due to a few translation differences. While it's true that the Trevor-Roper/Genoud version has it's biases, errors, and even omits some introductory text, it mostly stays true to the original German, even occasionally doing it some justice. Arguably, the original (Picker/Jochmann) is even more anti-Christian, since it includes the footnotes. Finally, if people are really going to make a controversy out of translation discrepancies, why don't they do the translating themselves? This is the digital age, you can look this stuff up online and translate it with tools! You can even ask people who are fluent in German to translate it on your behalf. Since Mr. Carrier kindly pointed out the problem, why doesn't he provide us with the solution: a translation. That is because he has an anti-religious agenda, just as Richard Weikart has an obvious anti-evolution agenda (he associates the Christian Alt-Right with Nietzsche, which is ludicrous). And yet Weikart's book on Hitler's Religion holds more weight due to it's extensive inquiry and use of direct source material.
If it's merely criticism of Israel, Zionism, certain wealthy Jews, etc., then it's not truly anti-Semitic. A lot of these critics are generally tolerant of Jews as individuals, they're not against all Jews obviously. They should not be grouped up with the real anti-Semites.
The Nazis primarily focused on the Exodus account and the Old Testament. With the exception of Rosenberg and a few others, most of them didn't go around nitpicking obscure passages from the Talmud (as Christians tend to do against Islam). The Nazis prided themselves on their "reason", it was not at all based on their emotions. In his September 16, 1919 letter, Hitler distinguishes his movement from religious anti-Semitism (which he identifies with pogroms). Their inner circle was composed of mostly Stoic types.
The Alt-Right will never dare to go beyond the stereotypes and even embraces religious anti-Semitism, which is as weak as it is absurd.
Context is everything. If we remove the Satan concept from John 8:44 for a moment, it amounts to the accusation: "you Jews are murderers and liars because you do not accept me as your messiah". This is hardly an anti-Semitic attack, John 8:30-31 indicates that this verse was directed towards Jews who had believed. So here he rebukes these Jews who had believed, despite their positive reception to his teaching. The contradiction is evident.
The cleansing of the temple furnishes us with another example of an absurdity. This was prominently used for propaganda in an April 1922 speech of Hitler. In this speech, he says he's a Christian and follows the gospel narrative. If Jesus had really done everything listed in the gospels (overturn the tables, drive people out of a whip, prevent people from carrying things into the temple, etc.), he'd have most certainly been arrested. No one could get away with such an outrageous behavior in our time. The Romans would have most definitely seen this as a public disturbance. As their historians report, they tried to maintain peaceful affairs at all costs.
And then there's Revelation 3:9, which is often used in tandem with the Khazars theory. This is basically a reworking of several promises found in the book of Isaiah, but for Christians. "Chosen people" is an exclusively Jewish concept. It boggles my mind to see blacks, whites, etc. claiming to be the true Jews.
But the Alt-Right would have us believe that Hitler was a Christian based on a few early speeches, statements, and photos and thereby falsify the actual situation. The majority of Germans were Christian. Hitler realized that he had to win the support of the churches to secure power for his movement. Nazism was actually anti-Christian from it's conception. Here's a rare gem: "Today a new state is being established, the unique feature of which is that it sees its foundation not in Christianity and not in a concept of state;" (1937)
So the Alt-Right is bound to fail in their appropriation of Hitler (just as the Christians appropriated Plato), unless it is propped up by our president. I would point out to such Trump supporters that Trump has adopted a practice of nepotism, which Hitler explicitly condemns in his table talks.
And a word on the Table Talks: the atheist Richard C. Carrier is no authority on this matter. He represents the entire source material (and not merely it's English translation) as worthless due to a few translation differences. While it's true that the Trevor-Roper/Genoud version has it's biases, errors, and even omits some introductory text, it mostly stays true to the original German, even occasionally doing it some justice. Arguably, the original (Picker/Jochmann) is even more anti-Christian, since it includes the footnotes. Finally, if people are really going to make a controversy out of translation discrepancies, why don't they do the translating themselves? This is the digital age, you can look this stuff up online and translate it with tools! You can even ask people who are fluent in German to translate it on your behalf. Since Mr. Carrier kindly pointed out the problem, why doesn't he provide us with the solution: a translation. That is because he has an anti-religious agenda, just as Richard Weikart has an obvious anti-evolution agenda (he associates the Christian Alt-Right with Nietzsche, which is ludicrous). And yet Weikart's book on Hitler's Religion holds more weight due to it's extensive inquiry and use of direct source material.
Last edited:
