This piece will also show, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Hitler’s comments in Mein Kampf on Christianity in Volume 2, Chapter 5 can only be viewed as a pro-Christian incitement to mass political organization, and a crystallization of his Weltanschauung (Worldview).

Only a movement that copies Christianity’s organizational genius and mass conquering power, while purging tolerant foreign, international, and weakening elements, could lead the German people out of the 1918 collapse and into a new Reich.

12 June 1925
Speech at the NSDAP Leaders’ Conference in Plauen
Typewritten record, undated, with note “Abschrift”; BA, NS 26/54.

---

Quote:

“It is then all the more necessary that the place which embodies this idea possesses the authority of the founders. The unity of a movement lies in idea in the idea itself, in practice in the authority of a central leadership. Example: a religion. Separate the ideal content from the ecclesiastical form and supreme head! Without doubt the ideal is the more valuable. But assume that this means is eliminated — in that moment the idea scatters and dissolves. If you say: churchless free Christianity — immediately ten thousand forms appear. Over every single concept one can form a thousand opinions. Every single philosophical nature will not be satisfied and will seek new forms. Yet the essence of the faith is not thereby lost: The whole dissolves into individual opinions. To be sure, the idea is the most valuable and fundamental, but the unity of the idea is guaranteed through the unity of the organisation and the recognition of an authority.

The principle of organisation represented by him, with the subordination of one’s own ego, was said to be un-Aryan. The Jew never organises himself, but always only others, whom he then rules. Even a not entirely correct decision must be carried through with the utmost energy, even to the point of brutality; that is far better than leaving important decisions to the individual. A single thought must be carried through jointly in the organisation. He, Hitler, does not haggle after parliamentary mandates; he fights for his cause outside of parliament. The struggle for the National Socialist idea can last decades, perhaps centuries.

Christianity triumphed not only through its idea, but also through the grandiose form of its cooperation. Social Democracy succeeded in overthrowing the solidly forged German Reich because it was a strong, unified organisation. The essential thing is that one man holds the flag high without wavering. Hitler then continued literally: “I am the standard-bearer of the movement, not only symbolically, but in actual fact. I doubt whether anyone is present today who can hold the movement more firmly together than I, and I hope and believe that the old unity will return.

What the movement lacks in numbers and means, it must replace through firmness and zeal. He will not throw away the flag and will not become a German Nationalist tomorrow. The movement is his life’s work, and he will stand and fall with it and, if necessary, willingly sacrifice his life for it. But in return he also demands that the sub-leaders subordinate themselves to him. The men from the workshop must be won for the movement; one must draw the people, the lower classes, to oneself; then the idea of National Socialism, which means a new worldview, will most rapidly achieve victory.”

End Quote.

___

This is Christianity as the supreme model of a new, fanatical worldview that conquers and reshapes the world through iron organisation, unbreakable central authority, and total penetration of the broadest popular masses.

In the 1925 Plauen speech Hitler explicitly separates the “ideal content” of a faith from its “ecclesiastical form and supreme head.” He declares the pure idea valuable, yet warns that without the unity of organization and recognition of authority the idea “scatters and dissolves” into ten thousand private opinions. He points directly to Christianity: it triumphed “not only through its idea, but also through the grandiose form of its cooperation.”

14 April 1926
Preliminary Investigation Proceedings on Suspicion of Perjury
Declaration 1

Background:

Hitler was being charged with Perjury over the purpose and events of a May 1st 1923. The “Reds”, or Social Democrats, were trying to hold a May Day Demonstration through Munich. Hitler and the Nationalists prepared a counter action where they would publicly announce opposition, organize men on the street, issue leaflets warning of a Red revolution, demand a state of siege so the authorities could ban the Reds event, and stood by armed if any violence erupted.

The 1926 Perjury inquiry turned on a single political question:

Was the NSDAP’s May 1st actions anti-Goverment, or only an Anti-Red blocking action? Hitler’s statements here is an attempt to prove it was only a Anti-Red blocking action.

Hitler’s goal was to force the State to ban the Reds. The Confrontation never turned into a street brawl thanks to Hitler’s actions. After last minute restrictions by the authorities the Reds were curtailed. Hitler emphasized that “No Shots were fired in the City” and “order” prevailed.

In this statement he turns to the topic of Christianity:

---

Quote:

“In the long years of peace of an apparent inner happiness and of an evident powerful upswing outwardly, too little value was attached to the fact that this same people had long since no longer possessed a unified will. The German people was split into a large part that consciously wanted to be national and into another that swelled ever more in the course of the years, which fundamentally negated the national concerns and claimed to possess in international delusions a substitute for national strength and independence.

The Marxist worldview tore Germany into two halves. What Bismarck once in his last years felt approaching in dark premonitions as a seer, could strike at any moment the Reich founded by him, namely that the German people under the effect of a fettering foreign-political hindrance or under the pressure of a mighty war would break apart and the Reich would then go towards the curse of our past instead of a period of greater glory. Bismarck had not only recognised this danger, but had also tried to throw himself against it with the whole weight of his passionate determination in national matters. Gilded by the magic of three victorious wars, outshone by the fame of a great founder of the state, the aged statesman did not hesitate for a moment to renounce the cheap popularity of the broad masses in order in his old days once more to take upon himself the burden of a struggle which, because it had to be fought out in internal politics, won few friends and instead brought many enemies. In his Socialist Law legislation the founder of the Reich desperately opposed the destructive mission of the Marxist doctrine. The result was zero. Not only did his successors lack the energy to hold to the path taken, indeed they even abandoned this path, no, the weapon of struggle itself was not equal to this task.

A worldview doctrine anchored in broad masses and finding resonance had been attempted to be broken by the state means of police power. What was broken, however, was the state. One had forgotten that new ideas of this kind can today as little be destroyed with the sabre as the Roman state once was unable to exterminate Christianity by means of legions.

The breaking of the Marxist worldview and its organisational structures was possible only through a new and better conviction opposing it with equal determination and perseverance in the struggle. How correct this assertion is is most strikingly proved by the fact that the defeat of Marxist work of destruction has succeeded in no state at all and least of all there where one believed one could bring it about with the sharpest means of state brute force, in Russia.”

End Quote.

---

The point here is clear: An idea without a central authority and a single organizational form dissolves. Unity of the idea is guaranteed by unity of organization. A genuine worldview like early Christianity does not remain one opinion among many. It requires a single authority, a single organizational form, and the will to carry one thought through the whole body.

Compromise with the opposing force, (in this example: Marxism) is rejected. The movement exists to break that force specifically, not to coexist with it. Just as Christianity existed to break paganism, destroy it’s alters, and reject coexistence as Hitler mentions in Mein Kampf.

9 May 1926

Speech at NSDAP Meeting in Eutin

Anzeiger für das Fürstentum Lübeck, 15 May 1926, “Adolf Hitler in Eutin”

---

Quote:

“The world was already divided when the German Reich arose. Its economic competition was painfully felt everywhere. This produced the heaviest burden on the Reich… It was necessary to carry the national idea into the mass of the people. To fill explosive with explosive material so that in danger it would flare up like a single powder keg. It had to be charged with national electricity. A giant had to perform this task. (Prolonged applause.)

The upper strata, however, were bound by material and spiritual possessions. Free is he who has nothing to lose and everything to gain; that alone makes him unconquerable… Spiritual possession also hampers the warrior, just as material does. Therefore an idea, if it is to be unconquerable, must lie in the broadest mass, which has nothing to lose but everything to gain. Thus Christianity became great; thus the national idea must find support in the broadest mass if it is to triumph. It lacked that, and therefore it failed. The lower millions were not won; the breeding of the broad national popular masses was lacking. Woe to the people whose lower strata wither!

Those on the left fight capitalism, militarism, Kaiserism. And yet those on the left cannot do without the leading head. Thus the international leader comes to them as Jew just right. They do not grasp that he has no interest at all in their prosperity, that they are for him only the great beast that serves him, that his battle goal is a different one. Those on the left have triumphed: but they have only struck the German economy, upon which their own existence depends. In return they have helped international capital, which now rules us. One fights militarism. Yet that is the organised popular strength of the land for the purpose of defence… Only the misuse of the army against the vital interests of the people can be called militarism… Capitalism is characterised as the system of exploitation. The workshop and the machine, the inventor and the operating capital – all three are necessary for the production of goods.”

End Quote.

---

The Eutin speech completes the bigger picture. Here Christianity is praised because it became “great”* by anchoring itself in the broadest mass of those who had nothing to lose and everything to gain. Just as White men who have lost their institutions and their governments have nothing to lose today.

Only an idea that fills the explosive potential of the entire people can flare up “like a single powder keg.” Hitler concludes that the national idea failed in the 19th century because it remained the property of the bourgeoisie and never fully conquered the proletarian millions. Christianity succeeded where bourgeois nationalism faltered by turning the lowest strata into its invincible phalanx. Again, Christianity is shown as the guiding example.

The speech demands that National Socialism must do exactly what early Christianity did: become the faith of the German worker, the German peasant, the broad Volk, not merely a belief of the “better classes.”

Only then can the national-racial idea become unconquerable. These ideas cannot be separated into disparate parts like race vs religion. This misses the point of what the man was trying to accomplish, and these splitting tactics originate with the diseased mind of the enemy.

* Hitler also calls Christianity GREAT on page 394 of Mein Kampf (Volume 1 Chapter 12 Stalag):

“The greatness of Christianity did not arise from attempts to make compromises with those philosophical opinions of the ancient world which had some resemblance to its own doctrine, but in the unrelenting and fanatical proclamation and defence of its own teaching.”

Mein Kampf
CHAPTER V: WELTANSCHAUUNG AND ORGANISATION
Pages 512-514

Pagans, liberals, and subversive like Thomas Dalton often frame this section of Mein Kampf as Anti-Christian, but with renewed scrutiny and armed with our other sources we can see the real truth of the man’s intent.

___

Quote:

“The same holds true of religions. Christianity was, not content witherecting an altar of its own. It had first to destroy the pagan altars. It was only by virtue of this passionate intolerance that an apodictic faith could grow up, and intolerance is an indispensable condition for the growth of such a faith.

It may be objected here that in these phenomena which we find throughout the history of the world we have to recognise mostly a specifically Jewish mode of thought and that such fanaticism and intolerance are typical symptoms of the Jewish mentality. (1)*

This may be true a thousand times over and we may regret that it is so and note with a feeling of uneasiness that this phenomenon has hitherto been unknown in the history of mankind - but the hard fact remains that such is the situation today.

It is not the business of the men who wish to liberate our German nation from the conditions is in which it now exists to burden their brains with thinking how excellent it would be if this or that had never occurred. They must strive to find ways and means of abolishing what actually exists.

A philosophy of life which is inspired by a fanatical spirit of intolerance can only be set aside by a doctrine that is advanced in an equally ardent spirit and fought for with as determined a will and which is itself a new idea, pure and absolutely sincere.

Each one of us today may regret the fact that the advent of Christianity was the first occasion on which spiritual terror was introduced into the much freer ancient world, but the fact cannot be denied that ever since then, the world has been pervaded and dominated by this kind of coercion and that violence is broken only by violence and terrorism by terrorism.

Only then can a new regime be created by means of constructive work. Political parties are prone to make compromises, but a Weltanschauung never does this. (2)*

A political party even reckons with opponents, but a Weltanschauung proclaims its own infallibility.

In the beginning, political parties have nearly always the intention of securing exclusive and despotic domination for themselves.

They always show a slight tendency to become Weltanschauungen, but the limited nature of their programme is in itself enough to rob them of that heroic spirit which a Weltanschauung demands.

The spirit of conciliation, which animates their will, attracts those petty and chicken-hearted people who are not fit to take part in any crusade. (3)* That is the reason why they mostly become stuck in their miserable pettiness very early on the march.”

End Quote.

---

This section shows that Christianity was a historical success that destroyed the previous cultic order through passionate intolerance. The core truth is not to reject Christianity or call it jewish, but to show that only a similar doctrine, fought with the same intolerant spirit, can displace another intolerant worldview like Marxism and communism.

Citations:

1. Hitler raises an objection about judaism and answers it with a shrug of realpolitik by saying that the present task is not to WISH THE PAST UNDONE, like the pagans, but to destroy what exists with the same kind of brutality and force.

Hitler also never equates Christianity with Judaism, or claims that Christianity is jewish, he treats the jewish mentality as a possible explanation, but sets it aside as irrelevant to the method he wants the German movement to learn from: Christianity.

2. Hitler also clearly takes shots at pagans in this section. A restored pagan plurality would be, in his own logic, a co-existence that his Weltanschauung cannot accept. The conclusion is clearly that history and Global politics run on coercion and coercion is only broken with a stronger counter force.

3. This echoes Hitler’s statements where he calls the Volkisch Comedians (pagans) “feckless”, a “Nuisance to patriots”, “Stupid and incompetent”, who “Skedaddle at the very sight of a communist cudgel” on pages 404 and 405 of Volume 1, Chapter 12: The First Stage of the Development of the NSDAP, which covers the time period that the speeches above document.

Christianity demonstrates the law of worldview victory and National Socialism must obey the same law.

🔻 That is why Hitler compares the following traits of political parties:

- compromise.
- reckons with opponents.
- petty.
- no crusade. (Christian language)

🔻 with the ideal traits of a Weltanschauung or worldview :

- no compromise.
- proclaims infallibility.
- heroic spirit.

Christianity is the precedent for the second type while National Socialism is to be the German instance of it. Paganism or judaism has no say in it’s final form.

Taken as a whole, this documentation present National Socialism as a 20th-century Germanic fulfillment. A modern political movement with Christianity as a spiritual blueprint based on guiding principals of authority, organization, broad appeal, and a rejection of coexistence with the old guard.

What Hitler takes from Christianity as a method:

1. Idea alone is not enough. Forging an idea into an unbreakable, hierarchical organization under one supreme authority is required.

The 1925 Plauen speech tells us that if you separate the “ideal content” from the church form and the supreme head and the idea “scatters.” Mein Kampf reinforces this by saying that a worldview cannot exist as “one party among many.”

2. Organization and authority decide by conquering through fanatical cooperation rather than compromise.

The April 1926 legal declaration tells us that Christianity won “not only through its idea, but also through the grandiose form of its cooperation.” Social Democracy toppled the Reich because it was a strong, unified organization. The Plausen speech overlaps: unity of the idea is guaranteed by unity of organization and recognition of one authority.

3. Mass penetration happens by rooting itself in the broadest, racially sound popular masses who were ready for total sacrifice.

The Eutin 1926 speech tells us that Christianity became great because it rooted itself in the broadest “strata”, those with nothing to lose and everything to gain. The national idea failed in the 19th century because the bourgeoisie never fully carried it into the proletarian millions.

4. No lasting coexistence with the old order can be accommodated. This is sharpened in his rhetoric in Mein Kampf in Chapter 5.

Christianity “was not content with erecting an altar of its own” but first had to destroy the pagan altars. A worldview “imperiously demands its own recognition as unique and exclusive” and cannot leave the previous condition standing beside it. Parties compromise but a Weltanschauung will not.

Hitler also famously echoed this goal in his speech on November 10th 1933 at the Siemens-Schuckert works:

“Perhaps some of you are unable to forgive me because I destroyed the Marxist party. But my friends, I also destroyed all the other parties. They are all gone!”

In the völkisch understanding of the period, the historic Church had become ossified, “Judaized,” and compromised by liberal and Marxist influences, traits that we see today in modern liberal Christianity. The old form had served its purpose in antiquity; now the German Volk required a new, living faith in Positive Christianity, realized through the National Socialist movement, that would take the proven mechanics of Christian victory mentioned above and fuse them with blood, race, and the iron will to national resurrection.

All of these sources show the same truth: Christianity was the blueprint for National Socialist success in the historical record. No other possible anti-Christian reading of Mein Kampf can be tolerated by White men of sound judgement and Character.

Sources:

Another common myth about Polytheism is that it’s somehow more “ethnic” than Christianity. This is usually framed as the Christian church is “universal”, and these polytheistic faiths were not. A more honest and less biased dichotomy would be that the Christian religion was concerned with conquering and converting, whereas Polytheists just lacked a drive to convert and relied on tolerant syncretism to exist.

The modern liberal idea of “Universal” is much more in line with the polytheist idea of tolerant syncretism, than the Christian world’s original use of Universal or Catholic.

Greek Polytheism was highly localized to a city state and based off citizenship, not ethnicity or modern race constructs. Polytheism essentially created divisions inside Greek culture that was civic as with the Dorians and the Ionians banning each other from worship in the 5th Century BC.

The Greeks would argue over a community cult mostly based on localized myths and customs, but to us in the modern world, they would all be Greeks squabbling over different sports teams. These tribal cults were more like soccer loyalties that we see dividing Europeans today than some grand ethnic tradition.

Most people forget that Alexander the great Hellenized the Levant, and created a multicultural identity that was the basis of the 2nd Temple Period in Palestine. Greeks not only allowed foreigners and non-ethnic Greeks to worship their gods, they also adapted the gods of foreigners, which is much more “Universal” in the modern egalitarian sense than Christianity. The traditions were mixed in a blender until Hellenistic Kingdoms were a true universal mess of equality and diversity.

In Rome the argument for ethnic polytheism really falls apart. Again, as with Greece, cult practices relied on citizenship and would be closer in spirit to America’s civic nationalism. As Rome spread around the known world in the 2nd and 3rd centuries BC, non-Roman subjects, auxiliaries, and provincials joined their religion, while mixing them with non ethnic local deities.

Into the Empire things got really multi-cultural. Emperor Elagabalus came from Syria and brought his desert sun god Elagabal and it’s sacred black stone, a Meteorite, to Rome to be worshiped. He gave the foreign rock it’s own temple and elevated the cult above the Roman gods while he was cross dressing.

This is ultimately the kind of behavior that really destroyed western Rome in what is known as the Crisis of the Third Century. Constant destabilization through pagan degeneracy, and war. If this is the kind of “Freedom” Hitler spoke about in MK, I’m glad we no longer have this kind of “freedom” myself. I would argue this freedom truly lives on in modern British communists which allow Muslims to pray in their streets and humiliate them with foreign gods.

At this point Roman religion in the Empire was based on Citizenship and had no tests for ethnicity. The Romans worshiped Greek, Egyptian, Celtic gods, and sometimes rocks.

Finally, with Germanic polytheism there were no commandments to only include an Ethnic identity, and since 80-90% of Nordic paganism is really modern day romanization and speculation made up after the fact, non-Whites can adapt it easily. And they have.

The Havamal, in the Guest’s Section, usually in stanza’s 2-4 openly calls polytheistic Germans to welcome foreigners at their fire, and it’s a duty to give them hospitality.

While people often proof-text the Bible about “strangers” and “sojourners” and ignores that it calls foreigners a “Curse” in earlier chapters, a worshiper of Odin had a precedent to welcome any guest into their midst. So you see they hypocrisy.

Through all three flavors of polytheism there were no formal ethnic, or racial restrictions of the modern kind. Polytheism was mostly a civic expectation, with no real ideological drive to convert outsiders.

Modern propaganda uses a particularist/universalist analytical tool claiming Christianity was “universalist” in an ethnic sense and tries to stress that Polytheism was somehow more Ethnic. This just isn’t true, and is a slight of hand. The truth is Christianity had an explicit command to conquer others spiritually, which is a different theological orientation, where as polytheism was tolerant and lackadaisical about conversion because nobody saw their cult as more true than the other over the mountain range.

The original Christian usage of “Catholic” (Katholikos/according to the whole) simply meant a single body of Christ or the unity of Christendom. An Empire of Heaven. Modern use has tried to apply liberal humanistic ideas of egalitarianism to this definition. Political, academic, and interfaith (left wing concepts like “Abrahamic”) contexts interject their own ideas of equal dignity into Christendom that didn’t exist for our ancestors.

Polytheism in history had no ethnic criteria before it was replaced with the European cultural mindset, relied on citizenship over race, and simply lacked the viril to convert other peoples.

This is why Christians will always be a Spiritual Terror. We know we have the only truth and the only True God that blots out superstition and tolerance.

🔻 What truly divides the left and right?

🔻 What’s the difference in Classical Liberalism and Modern Liberalism?

🔻 Why were Hitler and the Founding Fathers both far right?

🔻 Is it possible for jews to be right wing?

Hitler will always be a far Right Wing Nationalist because he saw the Germans as exceptional above all people, including other White people. His goal was to specifically elevate German culture and create a super state for their benefit. Even if he made political and military pacts with non-Whites or other Whites like Italians this fact doesn’t change. Even if he used socialist (Non Marxist and non modern liberal) rhetoric to create his politics this fact never changes.

Hitler is fundamentally on the right, just like the Founding Fathers were, because of Nationalistic cultural particularism, which is beyond just biological race, though dependent on it.

The reason the Founding Fathers were Right Wing Nationalists, with a capital N, is because they only saw American White men as having rights from God. End of discussion. The Founders’ liberalism was individualistic and rights based for American White men, while also particularistic and hierarchical in application by today’s standards of globalism.

Modern Liberalism, which must always becomes Marxist socialism or communism, is the idea that everyone has the same “human” rights all over the globe. Nationalism is the belief that the rights of your people (including culture not just race) are particular. George Washington was particular about Americanism. Hitler was particular about creating a German super state.

This IS the great dividing line between left and right that all other divisions and classifications grow from. This is what carves the spectrum down the middle and how you can judge the nature of a theory.

For a modern liberal, a White American’s rights are the same as a black Haitians rights because they are inherent to individuals, not from Nations, culture, or race. Modern liberals also don’t see rights as coming from God like the Founding Fathers did, they see them simply as just existing, which is also similar to those who claim all Whites are equal.

For the “Race First” crowd there is no struggle for determination or culture, only biology.

Thus, the Founding Fathers are more right wing than modern Pan-European or Pan-White Third Positioners. A modern Third Position White who appropriates “Race First” would see all Whites as having the same rights, which is moving back to the left. Those that hate Christianity want to further strip our culture and particularism away and move us further to the left as well. The Founding Fathers only saw one group of White men as having rights and were further to the right than both groups. Third Position groups were often Anti-Hitlerite for this reason as well.

This is why Cultural Identity is essential to “being” a Right Wing Nationalist. This is why, for example, Attacking European Christianity removes part of our cultural identity to make us more left wing and befuddles our efforts at determination. This is why all these attacks are intentional.

Where do Jews fit in?

Zionism was a defense mechanism created by jews because European Whites began to decide in the late 19th century that they were not White by race or religion, both on the left and the right. Their statehood was created to pool the resources they stole from Europeans to create a socialist state in the Middle East that continues today.

The only aspect of Zionism that can be considered “colonial” is stealing resources through a globalized banking systems from Whites, because they have no real military ability to steal resources from others without our technology and empires. They know this. This explains why they spend billions to maintain our parasitical relationship through propaganda on this very Application that you’re reading this thread on.

This is why someone like Charlie Kirk turning on their jew-centric liberal socialism was so dangerous. You can be a little antisemitic, or a little anti-zionist, but you can’t be Anti-War and Nationalist with a capital N and mix the two. It destroys the parasite relationship, or the liberal universal rights for jews inside White nations.

Hence, Zionism is really modern liberalism socialism for jews Inside White European Nationalistic states. One cannot exist without the other. This is why separating them is vital for our survival above all else.

Zionism is just an aggressive mimicry of White Nationalism, with jewish global liberalism as the true driving force that sustains it’s characteristics. Race first is a copycat ideology aimed at the far right to mirror what the jews have created, which undermines true European Cultural Nationalism. jews can only be Nationalist if they all live in Israel, just as Whites can only be True Nationalists if there are borders and expectations on our identity.

95% of all jewish voters are pro-Zionist if they are left or right.

This is also why Zionists and jews by definition are not and cannot be considered “Right Wing”. Beyond all their Talmudic fanaticism and appropriation of “rightism” they are globalists who want equal rights for jews everywhere in other people’s nations, chiefly to steal resources so their welfare (modern liberal socialist) state can continue to exist.

They refuse to let White Nationalists define their own politics without them. This is the truth of MAGA or Restore or any conservative movement that tries to define itself. jews are trying to socially engineer Whites by claiming it’s in our interests to put jewish interests as co-equal to our own.

This is also why secular (Non-Christian) nationalism, or Third Position, is spiritual closer to Zionism in theory than true Nationalism, and why it is cultivated by our enemies online. “Race First” is a globalist slogan that searches for a similar lack of borders for White men, which is only possible in a parasitic system where rights are determined by biology instead of Culture and Nation. The basic building block of Nation is there in race, but all the important cultural differences are stripped away for expediency.

This is why these ideas are astroturfed on social media, if you understand them or not : It creates a backdoor acceptance for the same system the jews have already created. A system we already inhabit and must overthrow.

This is also why the modern construction of Right Wing narratives on Social media are not Nationalistic. From Evola, to Mao, to Nietzsche, to Trump the only acceptable ideas that are allowed on the Right Wing are those that create a system that is favorable to jewish interests, or mirror it to confuse the White man. Neo-Nazism will always fail because it is built on a house of sand that ignore the true enemy.

When German Christians in the Reich created the Bund Fur Deutsches Christentum and published the Godesberg Declaration in 1939 (A lead up to the dejudification institute), which included a test for “thorough knowledge of racial theory and the laws of heredity” and a test to demonstrate that the candidate acknowledged the “fundamental, unbridgeable antagonism between the jewish religion and Christian faith” and demonstrate it in his work, The German press reacted with Praise and cheers:

> The headline of Frankfurt’s Generalanzeiger, for instance, proclaimed:

“Against Jewish Influence and Politics in Religion”

> Kassel’s Kurhessische Landeszeitung bluntly declared:

“Jews Annihilate Christian Faith: Collective Work of Church Leadership against Jewish Influence in Religion.”

> The Vienna Neues Wiener Tagblatt cheered:

“Clear Front against Hypocrisy,”

> The Württemberger Zeitung of Stuttgart announced:

“Faith in Christ Is Opposite of Judaism: Collective Principles of Protestant State Church Leaders.”

No such public support for Paganism or Neo-Paganism existed in NS Germany on such a wide level in terms of religious demographics. The German people did not care about Paganism, which by this time in 1939 heathenry had been marginalized to the dusty corners of SS fanzines and damage control circulars that no one read.

The German people cared about Protestantism, and Catholicism, and so did the NSDAP. It was backed by mainstream media support, tax dollars, and esteemed academics. Meanwhile, Paganism was pseudo-History cooked up by inter-war period werewolf writers and rehashed by Pseuds like Himmler.

---

- Source for the newspaper is the Landeskirchenarchiv Eisenach (LKA Eisenach)

- The Godesberg Declaration is presented below.

The Full Text of the Godesberg Decleration is as follows:

---

Godesberg Declaration

With the unbending will to lead the church conflict to a positively Christian decision, representatives of the National Church Union of German Christians and men from various circles of evangelical pastors and laypeople have come together for consultations.

It was resolved to begin a loose, comradely cooperation. The following statements serve as the foundation:

1. With all the powers of faith and of active life we serve the man* who has led our people out of bondage and need to freedom and glorious greatness.

We combat all elements that disguise political enmity under a religious cloak.

2. In the church conflict a part of the great religious and religio-political struggle becomes visible that is going through our entire people in our time. The forms of the church conflict are unworthy, the power struggles are reprehensible; yet we affirm the struggle itself as a sign of newly growing religious life.

3. The core questions of the religious debates are the following:

a. How do religion and politics relate to each other? How do the National Socialist worldview and the Christian religion relate to each other?

To these questions we answer:

Insofar as National Socialism combats every political claim to power by the churches and makes its worldview binding for all German people, it helps to carry forward the work of Martin Luther and to lead the German people once again to a true understanding of the Christian faith.

b. What is the relationship between Judaism and Christianity? Did Christianity arise out of Judaism and is it therefore its continuation and completion, or does Christianity stand in opposition to Judaism?

To this question we answer:

The Christian faith is the unbridgeable religious opposition to Judaism.

c. Is Christianity essentially supra-state and international?

To this question we answer:

International churchdom of Roman or Genevan stamp is a political degeneration of Christianity. Genuine Christian faith unfolds fruitfully only within the given orders of creation.**

4. From our fundamental insight into the meaning of the religious debates it follows of itself that new ecclesiastical constructions, constitutions or legislations will not help further. The struggle must rather be carried out inwardly.

5. Prerequisites for a genuine religious debate are tolerance and order in the church. We welcome the recently issued ordinances of the Evangelical Church of the Old Prussian Union as an essential contribution to this.

6. In the attitude determined by these statements we will begin a common work.

----

* The MAN was a reference to Adolf Hitler. In official and semi-official texts of the period it was common to refer to Hitler with elevated, almost liturgical circumlocutions, or indirect reverence.

** This is a clear rejection of “Universalist” and “Globalist” Christianity which was uniform in the NSDAP.

These documents also clearly show a current of wanting to REMOVE politics from Religion in German public life, while maintaining a Christian worldview that connected to National Socialism, something that is often twisted or misunderstood to mean removing the faith itself from Germany.

Without these traits you just have localized superstition, animism, or shamanism, which is not polytheistic paganism.

Many have bought into this pseudo-historical myth (Mostly because of hacks like Tom Rowsell) that Paganism stretches back into time forever, but there is no real consistency between the two. Prehistoric man was not some kind of goofy Germanic pagan, because that just doesn’t exist in the historical record. Ritualistic sacrifices and superstition are not religions.

Greek and then Roman polytheism emerged because they had a state, city, or cultural identity to produce it. That’s also why these polytheistic religions are only native to two places: Greece and Italy. So stop calling it our “native religion” unless you live in those two places.

Oral history is the mechanism that begins the process of forming religion, but you have to actually write it down for it to be so. The Greeks wrote down their polytheism about the time the Northern Israelite kingdom was being punished by God for rebellion in 700 AD.

The Romans copied their homework about 500 years later, around the time the Judahites were trying to steal the Israelite religion. I would argue people today probably take Roman religion more seriously than they ancient Romans did today.

The Germanic pagans NEVER wrote their religion down because runes aren’t true language. Runes didn’t pop up in the historical record until about 150 AD, so we know it’s not pre-Christian.

Christians wrote down Germanic paganism hundreds of years after White people abandoned it, and the majority of Europeans had no access to those writing until very recently. When I say recently I mean the 1970s, right before many of you were born. There isn’t much evidence it was ever a real religion, and it was probably just a misunderstanding, or copy of Roman ideas as they fought each other for hundreds of years.

Knowing this, we can comfortably proclaim that Polytheistic religion was popular with Whites for about 1,000 years across three different flavors from about 700 BC to about 800 AD, with holdouts that existed in the Baltics and Nordic countries for a few hundred years after that.

White Paganism is not that old, it’s most definitely pre-European, and it’s mostly three different decentralized flavors. For people who are obsessed with Muh Indo-European language, the fact that people dismiss the connection between language and stratification of what makes religion is hilariously hypocritical.

Personally, I think being obsessed with Polytheism, even White forms of it, is a type of degenerate regression or de-evolution. Trying to make sense of the modern world with demons from the past isn’t going to save European culture, it’s just going to weigh us down in our struggle to remain homogeneous.

Our enemies know this as well.

This is ultimately why Christianity destroyed paganism in the ancient world.

They had the Logos. The real word. Meanwhile, polytheists just had goofy ideas and panic about a world that was constantly changing. You can see this in the book of Acts where it’s recorded that Romans created shrines to unknown gods just in case they missed one.

Polytheism is anxiety and fear, and ultimately a weakness of the soul that does not intrinsically make you more “White”.

Christianity was superior in every single way when it came to focusing the White man on civilization. It was a superior moral framework that allowed our race to thrive into the future and control the world for hundreds of years. Our religion is a superior written Gospel that was able to transmit ideas in the blink of an eye and create the European identity.

Polytheism just wasn’t that impressive in how it sought to explain the natural world, it was old software that peaked with the Greeks. The Romans saw their religion as a civic throwaway that was easy to abandon. The Germanic’s didn’t have the capacity to write it down so why argue that we should hold on to it? Remember the Germanic tribes were all trying to get behind Roman walls, and the Greeks were Conquered by the Romans.

If you use 800 AD as a dividing line between pre-European/Greco-Roman Whites and European Whites, you get about 3 to 6 billion various forms of pagans vs 15-25 billion White Europeans, which is generous to the pagans since Rome started mass converting in the 3rd Century, and most of the Anglo Saxons were Christian by 600 AD. The Germanic Tribes that invaded Rome were also Arian Christians.

Still, It’s not even a moderate contest that most of your ancestors were Christian. So when I see posts like this it’s highly inaccurate. it’s more accurate to say most of your ancestors were racist, nationalistic, tribal, xenophobic Christians. Not to disrespect chad or even to disrespect our non-Christian ancestors, but to disrespect the myth of polytheism’s importance to White Europeans.

In a sense it strips away the true nature of our Christian ancestors and what they gave us in our Nation States and Empires and transmutes it to Imperial greco-Romans who were not racist at all.

The Math shows that the clear majority of all White/European ancestors who ever lived were Christian simply because of demographic booms after the Roman Empire.

By a factor of about 5 to 1 your ancestors were Christian, so rejecting their religion is rejecting your ancestors, not worshiping them. You could also say about 75-80% of all White people were Christian.

We will use this fact as a baseline to continue this series that uncovers the Myth of Polytheism, so that we may uncover it’s true nature.

When one studies liberal Historicism, which helped create the idea that Jesus was jewish, it leads you to see the existence of Kirchlich Positive (confessional Concrete) theologians who opposed them. The Kirchlich Positive theologians created Christian Socialism movements in Germany and Austria. Which leads us to the 𝑵𝑺𝑫𝑨𝑷.

Here Grok grudgingly admits that 𝑯𝒊𝒕𝒍𝒆𝒓’s Critiques of Christian Socialism in Mein Kampf were political in nature and not Anti-Christian. Pagan and Anti-Christian cope is simply cherry picking the man’s work, which demonstrates they don’t understand Hitler in the least, and should not be treated as an authority. This includes people like David Irving who have done zero critical research or contextualization on his thoughts on religion.

Adolf Hitler wasn’t saying Christian antisemitism was wrong, or useless, he was saying it wasn’t enough to have a lasting political change that would remove them from power. Which is fair, because the Church’s main goal shouldn’t be politics, it should be salvation. Of course this doesn’t preclude the two work together.

This is why you need a political party that has a basis in Christianity (Point 24), but is not a religion itself: Stepping into the material world to deal with the problems of man.

This is why most paganists are midwits who should leave the thinking to the big boys. They simply lack the historical and theological language to understand the party properly.

Of course, this is in the work itself and requires Cherry picking in the first place. But AH is actually comparing and contrasting two different Christian Socialist movements in Austria and Germany that emerged from Kirchlich Positive theologians, who in turn rose in opposition to Historicism/Humanism that claimed that Jesus was a jew.

𝑵𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒂𝒍 𝒔𝒐𝒄𝒊𝒂𝒍𝒊𝒔𝒎 in it’s pure essence opposes the idea that Jesus is a jew, and anyone who claims that he was is, or that Christianity is jewish, is betraying that essence out of ignorance or subversion. Mostly likely subversion in an online narrative chamber like X.

They are siding with the people that they opposed out of their own sheer stupidity.

These passages also tells us how and why Hitler created National Socialism. It was a fundamental merging of Prussian Nationalism, with Christian Socialism and he outright admits it in Mein Kampf:

“The Pan-German party was perfectly right in its fundamental ideas regarding the aim of the movement, which was to bring about a German renascence, but it was unfortunate in its choice of means.

It was nationalist, but unfortunately it paid too little heed to the social problem, and thus it failed to gain the support of the masses.

Its anti-Jewish policy, however, was grounded on a correct perception of the significance of the racial problem and not on religious principles, but it was a mistake, and wrong from a tactical point of view to make war on one religious denomination.

The Christian-Socialist movement had only a vague conception of a German revival as part of its object, but it was intelligent and fortunate in the choice of means to carry out its policy as a party. The Christian-Socialists grasped the significance of the social question, but they adopted the wrong principles in their struggle against Jewry, and they utterly failed to appreciate the power of the national idea.

Had the Christian-Socialist party, apart from its shrewd estimate of the value of the broad masses, also gauged correctly the importance of the racial problem (which was properly grasped by the Pan-German movement) and had this party been really nationalist, or if the Pan-German leaders, on the other hand, in addition to their correct handling of the Jewish problem and of the 137 national idea, had adopted the practical standpoint of the Christian-Socialist Party, and particularly their attitude towards Socialism—then a movement would have developed which, in my opinion, might even at that time have successfully altered the course of German history.

If things did not turn out thus, the fault lay for the most part in the character of the Austrian State.”

Stalag edition
CHAPTER III: VIENNADAYS - GENERAL REFLECTIONS
Page 137 and 138

He is basically saying the Prussian Nationalist were part right and the Christian socialist were part right, but they didn’t quite put it together.

Thus... National Socialism, or Merging the two.

Viola.

*All images and words are presented for historical purposes*

I created this thread on a lost account maybe a year or so ago, and in the process of remaking it, I wanted to remaster each image with color and clarity. I cleaned up a few in terms of presentation, and adjusted one or two in terms of translation. All images contain sources and dates.

As I move through his career I find many more gems that were hidden by the great enemy of history, so one day this collection will grow. Any images that are censored will be presented uncensored on my stack. Please share to help save our brothers and sisters.

God Bless you all in his Providence.

Plot Sickens

7/24/2026

*Insert image is Hitler with Bruckner and Schaub at the WW1 war memorial in Hiltpoltstein mostly likely in 1934. Quote from 1926.

1920 Speech on Turning the other cheek.

1921 on the Nature of Christ.

1922 on his love of Christ and faith.

1922 on Christ as an Idealist.

1923 The Great Nazarene.

1925 On the role of Women.

1926 on the Resurrected Lord.

1926 on the mission of the movement.

1926 on our Daily bread

1927 Private letter on his wish for Germany.

1928 on defending Christianity in the movement.

1928 in his second book on Germany’s Christian foundation.

1928 On fake Christians

1930 on the Christ like action.

Mid 1930’s on his desire for a Reich Church - Memory of Albert Speer.

1933 First Speech as Chancellor on the foundation of the government.

1933 on who leads Germany.

1934 the true nature of Positive Christianity.

1935 in the Face of the LORD.

1936 Rights, Freedom, and Future.

1937 The role of religious freedom and state protection.

1938 what I call the Leaders Prayer.

1938 continued: The Depth of our Hearts.

1939 The German people created by the Christian God.

1939 The Party is his instrument.

1941 The destruction of blasphemers.

1944 An intolerable Worldview. A theme carried over from Mein Kampf in 1925.

1944 The Lawgiver.

1945 The Christian God created our Nation.

Historians like Prof. Wolfgang Ruppert see it as reflecting the era's high regard for H𝖎𝖙𝖑𝖊𝖗 among Protestants nationalists, portraying him positively or as a worldly "savior" figure in the 1938 to 1941 context. The full set comprises about 40 panels depicting scenes from the life of Jesus.

The Daily Mail reported, around 2014, that the likeness to the NS leader was discovered after the painting, one of dozens in the church, was cleaned.

From the Daily Mail:

“Evangelical pastor Martin Goelkel, who recently left after eight years at the church some call the ‘Nazi Temple,’ believes the likeness is just co-incidental but its discovery so long after it was painted is causing a stir among his flock.

‘Some people have called this a Nazi place over the years but I don’t think this is true,’ he said.

From Dekanat-Hof. de:

“The painter Holst, who gave Hitler the rank of a (worldly) “savior”, shared the “NS worldview” and was considered a prominent and successful representative of “German art.”

The painting still hangs today.

Painting Detail:

Part 1: Apocrypha reveals a hidden truth about the jews.

The Psalms of Solomon, which is a Biblical Apocrypha rediscovered in the 17th century* states that the Hasmoneans (Macabees) were not of Davidic Stock and were resented “aliens” and “foreigners” to the 12 Tribes.

--

Quote:

“The eschatological restoration envisioned by Psalms of Solomon is therefore not merely the “hope that all Jews [sic] will return to Jerusalem” or “the release and return of the dispersed Jews to Israel,” as is frequently suggested, since Psalms of Solomon nowhere mentions “Jews” (Ioudaioi).

Rather, these psalms hope for restoration and return for Israel – including all of the non-Judahite tribes – from their dispersion among the “mixed nations (συμμίκτων ἐθνῶν)” (17:15; cf. 9:1–2).

Moreover, in contrast to the Hasmonean or Herodian kingdoms, which were ruled by non-Davidic stock** and did not include the plenum of Israel, Psalms of Solomon. look forward to the day of the Davidic Messiah***, who will gather the tribes of Israel and rule in righteousness as promised.

The bitter indictment of the “sinners” who set up a non-Davidic kingdom in 17:4–6 and the foreigner who took their place illustrates the first concern the passages quoted above illustrate the second – these two themes appear to work together in this corpus, most evidently in Psalms of Solomon. 17, and throughout Psalms of Solomon, “Israel” terminology is employed in contexts closely linked to restoration eschatology.”

From the book:

“The Idea of Israel in Second Temple Judaism”
Chapter 11: Israel in Second Temple Eschatological and
Apocalyptic Literature
Pages 357/358.

---

You can read two of the Psalms in the insert image below.

Notes:

* The Psalms of Solomon appears in copies of the Septuagint and the Peshitta but were not included in the KJV. They are referred to in early Christian writings but lost to later generations.

** The Hasmoneans (Maccabees) were ultimately descendants of the southern tribes, and a priestly class (Sadducees that opposed Jesus) who had returned from the Babylonian exile, over 370 years earlier, and appeared in the historical record in 167 BC in Judea. They were mostly likely corrupted with paganism and inter-mixing from Babylon, which is why the first Christian Martyr Stephen accused the Sanhedrin (Sadducees/Scribes/Pharissees that opposed Jesus) of worshiping Remphan and Moloch.

This is the beginning of proto-judaism.

*** Psalms of Solomon sets up Jesus as the Davidic Messiah who is in contrast to the jewish Hasmonean who were trying to steal the Israelite identity.

Part 2: The Old Testament tells the same story through word frequency analysis:

2nd Maccabees is a book that Martin Luther rejected because it had no Hebrew source, “Hebrew” being a linguistic category that defined the high priest class of Israel. Remember modern “Hebrew” is a bastardization of Yiddish.

2nd Maccabees is the last book in the Old Testament in terms of Historical Chronology, covering events from 175 BC to 161 BC. 2 Maccabees was written around 100-80 BC which was only about 80 years before the birth of Jesus, or the space of time for us from now to World War 2.

Not for nothing, 2 Maccabees is were the Judahites began to hijack the notion of Israel and try to claim that being “jewish” was more important. This isn’t my opinion, this is clearly in the text itself:

---

Quote:

“This antipathy towards Hasmonean claims manifests itself in the way 2 Maccabees handles Israel and Ioudaios terminology. In contrast to 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees avoids narrative use of Israel language entirely.

The contrast between the two books is stark, as can be seen in Table 2. While 1 Maccabees uses “Israel” and cognates sixty-three times, 2 Maccabees uses the term only five times, restricted to prayer (1:25, 26), third-person reports of prayer (10:38; 11:6; 11:06), a reference to “the God of Israel” (9:5), and a reference (in a vision) to Jeremiah the prophet’s love for “the family of Israel” (15:14) – in Kuhn’s words, “always in strongly religious contexts.”

Proportionally, 1 Maccabees uses Israel language over eight times more often than 2 Maccabees, which avoids it in the narrator’s voice. On the flip side, because of its avoidance of Israel terminology, 2 Maccabees uses Ioudaios nearly two-and-a-half times as often as 1 Maccabees.”

From the book

“The Idea of Israel in Second Temple Judaism”

Chapter 5: The Restoration of Israel in the Persian and

Hellenistic Period

Page 188.

---

You can Also see in the table below that this is the FIRST mention of Ioudaismos/Ioudaikos which is “judaism” or a “jewish way of life/loyalty to jewish customs/religion” in contrast to Hellenism or Greek Culture*, only about 80 years before Jesus was born.

*Remember, the often quoted Galatians 3:28 is misunderstood to be about race, when it is actually about cultural difference between Judahites and Hellenes, as the concept of race didn’t exist yet, and ethnic boundaries were fluid in the Levant MAINLY because of the Roman and Greek empires that brought their culture with them.

Part 3: Judaism is a failed Israelite sect with no God.

In plain terms the corrupted jewish priest class tried to steal the identity of Israel about 80 years before Jesus.

Jesus Christ’s main mission on earth was to die for our sin, but he also made clear to his disciples that this jewish priest class was no longer a part of Israel and he was removing their authority, which would later be given to Gentile Christians who followed The Way (ἡ ὁδός) :

>Luke 22:30

New American Standard Bible 1995

30 that you may eat and drink at My table in My kingdom, and you will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

> Matthew 19:28

New American Standard Bible 1995

28 And Jesus said to them, “Truly I say to you, that you who have followed Me, in the regeneration when the Son of Man* will sit on His glorious throne, you also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Both of these verses are accounts of Jesus talking to the apostles, who rejected the foreign stock priest class of proto-judaism, and followed the Way (ἡ ὁδός). Jesus is literally promising them that they would rule and judge over restored Israel, which became European Christianity.

Thus, Christianity was not a “jewish sect”, judaism was a competing form of Israelism that tried to steal the Israelite kingdom, and was rebuked by the King of Israel, Jesus Christ. (This is the true theological reason that modern jews hate “Christ is King”)

Matthew 21:43

“Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit.”

This was aimed directly at the same corrupted priest class.

Modern rabbinic judaism is a reaction to this rejection and a continuation of Babylonian paganism. It’s also absurd for Zionists who claim to be jews/Israel to believe they have any connection to the Davidic Messiah of Jesus when this is clearly not in the historical record.

* The Son of Man title gave Jesus full authority over the future of Israel, and was more blasphemous to the jews than claiming he was God.

Additional Notes:

1. There are also records of the Hasmoneans forcing circumcision on Galilee roughly 100 BC.

2. It’s also funny that G r o k is very resistant to admitting the Hasmoneans came out of Babylon, probably because it’s been programmed to insist jews existed for 3,000+ years. After 4 attempts to point out the inconsistencies in it’s language it finally relented and proved my point. Yet, Grok is still fundamentally incorrect here because they couldn’t have been “descendants of jews” who had returned from babylon because “jew” didn’t exist until After Babylon according to Josephus.

   “From the time they went up from Babylon they were called by this name [Ioudaios] after the tribe of Judah. As the tribe was the prominent one to come from those parts, both the people themselves and the country have taken their name from it.”

   (Ant.11.173)

   Josephus specifically recounts that they took their name from the largest tribe returning from Babylon: “Both the people and the Country”, and stops referring to them as Israelites with Hebrew linguistic qualities at that point in time.

The replacement of our European Christian identity began long before the Woke era.

"By the all-powerful dispensations of Providence, I have been protected beyond all human probability and expectation; for I had four bullets through my coat, and two horses shot under me, yet escaped unhurt, altho' death was levelling my companions on every side."

- letter George Washington wrote to his brother, John Augustine Washington, on July 18, 1755.

During a 1770 trip to the Ohio/Kanawha River area which is now West Virginia, Washington meet some Indian leaders on that trip who remembered him from the 1750s. Some Indians were impressed by his survival at Monongahela where many warriors saw him as unusually lucky or protected. So this is verified by non-neutral observers.

Source:

4 July 1926 

Doc. 7

“Politics, Idea and Organisation”

Speech at the NSDAP Party Congress in Weimar

Typewritten minutes of the Reich Delegates’ Congress on 4 July 1926 with handwritten corrections; BA, NS 26/389.

The speech begins by asking what is the nature of politics?

---

“What is politics actually? What is the task of politics? What is its ultimate and deepest task? What is the meaning of this whole struggle that we experience within ourselves? What is the purpose of all the activity of the present time and of the past centuries? At its core, it is the search and yearning for the preservation of a people’s existence, that unconscious drive living in man so that he may continue to live after his own life ends. This is the most primitive phenomenon: human beings are filled with the search and urge to preserve themselves.”

“It even goes so far that individual life is set aside in concern for the continuation of one’s own life and that of one’s children, and one sees one’s own security in the preservation of this collective whole. And this elevates the individual man above the level of the masses. That is a certain greatness. And this concern for existence and survival is, at bottom, the task of politics.”

---

Here, AH defines politics simply as the task of ensuring the existence of the collective whole. For him, it was the question of the continued existence of Germany, for us, as Americans, it is the continued existence of the founding Ethnos which is under siege.

I ask you plainly, are there any political options in the United States today, on our 250th anniversary, that fit this basic definition of politics? The Democratic party essentially unifies around the idea of destroying the founding Ethnos, while the Republican party seeks only to profit off it’s slow demise.

This is a political landscape crafted by foreigners on both side, and it must be rejected for something new, and something committed to OUR survival.

AH merges the ideas of work, prayer, and providence to the people and the soil:

---

“And what are we to understand by this sentence? Christianity itself obligates the individual to action, that is, not merely when he asks God for something, but it obligates him: First work! and then pray. First do your duty and what is required of you, and only then may you step before the Almighty and pray: “Lord, bless my work.” The farmer ploughs and sows the grain and tends its growth. But then there is something that lies beyond the farmer’s power, whether it be the blessing of heaven or a single hailstorm that can destroy everything he has laboriously built. Thus we can understand the Christian prayer: that we work and provide for this bread, and only then step before the Almighty and humbly submit the request: “Lord, this is the result of our diligence and our work, now please also bless us, so that Your high blessing may join our small human strength.”

And this phrase “daily bread” can truly be established in the life of peoples as the foundation of all politics. We must fight to ensure that our people receives its daily bread. Only then do we want to take a further step, and here we must immediately pass through a double thorn: through the people itself and through the soil on which it stands. The character of the people and the nature of the soil are the two first points of entry from which alone we can make political observations, and they are the determining factors that influence politics. People and soil, that is, the amount of land and the size of a people, the nature of the soil and the character of a people, determine political activity.”

---

To AH Christianity is an ideology of action, just as Christ’s love was one of sacrificial action on the cross. He also ties this great work to his own struggle without pride. The fight for the daily bread of the people, or in our case as Americans the fight for a new standard of living away from corrupt capitalism and foreign conflicts, is the central goal of our new politics. It is how we must frame our Soil and People, and our fight for this American soil.

AH then discusses the history of Germany from the 4th century to the 14th, and how the Völkerwanderung and the Colonization of the Eastern Marches, or the Ostmark ( Ostkolonisation), shaped the future state of Germany:

---

“Another great event was the colonisation of the East in general. The German people begins to direct all its political activity toward this great project: opening up new areas for work and settling the German farmer. What would Germany be today without these territories? A small state in the heart of Europe with very few inhabitants. We would not be entitled to conduct great politics at all; we would only be tolerated on this earth.”

---

See here that AH did not look backwards to strange ideas of “Indo-European” migrations to define his people or their struggle, he kept his speech focused on the formation of the German state AFTER Rome because this created the actual Germanic Character and European identity.

We as Americans have a similar history, though an abbreviated one compared to Germany, in the great westward march of Manifest Destiny, which was built on Protestant ideals of freedom. Just as AH did not want his people in 1926 to focus on small divisions and looked at all the territories of the German empire, we as Americans cannot cede our lands to foreigners or those who hate the American Ethnos. If we want America to truly be great, we have to think simple, but think big.

AH also discusses, on the birthday of America, how Germans migrated to America, and then wished to return in the 1870s:

>

“For centuries the German farmer wandered into the other world as a coloniser, as fertiliser for other peoples, as cultural fertiliser for other nations. Thus he began to conquer the great continent. But all these Germans were ultimately lost to the motherland, and their children formed the new world power that confronted its motherland as an enemy in the last war. All that tall human material we saw on the American side in the World War, believe me, German mothers once bore these people, German fathers once begat them, and fate arranged it so that 50, or even 20 or fewer years later they faced us as enemies in the struggle for our existence. That is the terrible curse of the last political process.”

“after the new Reich of 1870 was created, one again knew what Germany was and could become. And the larger and greater it became, the harder it became for the individual to leave. Fewer and fewer volunteered to emigrate. At that time associations were formed in North America; people became conscious of their nationality again and believed they could thereby regain a German unity. They looked back longingly, and in crowds the old men returned men who could themselves speak their mother tongue only brokenly. They were suddenly seized again by this shattering tragedy: that they were the sons of this people who had once light-heartedly left their fatherland. They returned to our people without being citizens and tried overseas, through club life, to save what could still be saved.”

---

AH laments that the German people fought in the Great War against each other for the interests of foreigners, just as our sons fight for the interest of other nations in forever conflicts that sap our strength. Today we are entangled in the interests of foreigners in Europe, MENA, and Asia that do not change the standard of living for our brothers and sisters but simply enrich a small group who is adversarial to our politics and our daily bread.

* Ah on the streets on July 3rd 1926 before the Second NSDAP Congress.

As AH discusses the events of the Great War and the great loss of life of the German people, he returns to the motif of our daily bread and Christian prayer:

---

“We now stand once again before the most primitive question, which many a German farmer still has not understood: “Lord, give us this day our daily bread.”

We must be conscious that these words contain an obligation. God is not there to reward inactivity, but only diligence and energy, the principle of willingness to stake one’s own life so that the life of the future may be preserved.”

“That is the essential point. If you ask yourself the question: Can I take upon myself the responsibility for shedding blood? there is only one answer. The responsibility can only be borne if this blood becomes fertiliser for millions of further compatriots (Heil!), from which a new seed springs for our people if life is sacrificed in order to give life to those who are coming. But not in ideological madness, for the tiniest interests of parties, for economic views, for stock-exchange interests for then it is the greatest crime that can be committed against a people. If this selection achieves nothing at all, it is a cursed undertaking. And we have had so terribly many such cases in the course of our history.”

---

We as Americans must never shed blood for others. We must never shed blood for the Ukrainian, for the Israeli, for the Somali, for the Mexican, or the black. We must only shed blood to restore our Nation and sacrifice to reclaim the politics of our people.

Our only war is at home.

Our war is deportation, expulsion, and the unification of the American Ethnos.

AH then turns his gaze to the conservative and Liberal politicians of the day who were content with appeasement through the Versailles treaty:

-

“If we now look at our German people today, the tragic thing is not the lost war in itself, how many wars have already been lost without changing the shape of peoples, but that the German people is chasing a phantom; that millions of our people take no position on the problems of “Give us this day our daily bread,” but instead dreamily sacrifice their blood for cosmopolitan goals that will above all mean the end of us all. That is the tragedy in this time of greatest need: that our people does not resolve to give everything to overcome this need.

When we see the German people in its present fragmentation, we must ask ourselves: how do we secure its daily bread? And here we must recognise that we can achieve this only if we succeed in turning the forces of our people away from hypocritical goals and directing them toward reality, and in shaping this problem in a form that secures the nourishment of our people.

Believe me, Germany will never again reach a solution to this problem on the present path. No Stresemann* will accomplish that, that is nonsense. Unless the German people regains inner harmony and an inner concentration on these real questions, then we must understand that it will never rise again.”

-

For Americans today we will never regain control of our nation if we do not return to a simple and action based politics away from the two party system that is strangling us. Our politicians are only concerned with appeasement to foreign nations and their god Mammon. We must reject both the Democrats and the Republican.

We must define who we are by looking to our Founding Fathers, and filtering out all of the foreign ideas that have been injected into our worldview. From the poison of the melting pot, to the cancer of the civil rights movement, to the failed ideology of Neo-Conservatism foreign ideas must be expelled along with their peoples.

* Gustav Stresemann was the head of the DVP and chancellor of Germany during the Weimar Republic.

AH continues and lays out his ideology for the German people by comparing his movement to the Apostles who marched out of Judea to spread the Gospel to the Roman World:

-

“This is only possible if we arrive at a new analysis of the concepts “national” and “social.” Only in the clarification of these two concepts is the possibility of an approach, of a connection, given. Only then can a new common will arise, only then will a new common platform be created, only then will new forces form that one day will carry the banner forward, behind which millions will march.”

“How can this be achieved when one constantly hears the opinion: “That must first be tested in practice”? That is a delusion. For the most idealistic goals will initially be regarded as fantastic goals, especially when they interfere with old habits. It is first necessary to overcome the inertia, the sluggishness of the broad masses of the people who want to continue in the old ruts. Therefore ideals are not condemned to impossibility. That is simply a historical truth. At all times the bearers of new ideas have been in the minority. But that does not make them impossible. The apostles of the new faith must carry it forward as if it were already common property, and the success is all the greater the worse the opponents are and the more intense the faith of the bearers is. Then such a new watchword will tower far above the framework of the moment, of the events of the day; it will take on form and character; it will become a worldview, an all-embracing mission of faith.”

---

Our idea of deporting 60 million foreigners and more is not impossible. Our idea of returning to what the founding fathers wished for us is not “too fantastic”. We must not black pill over our situation or our capabilities. We must grow our minority until all men of good heart and learned truth follow us into the future.

We must be intolerable so that those who are broken will follow us.

AH discusses how weak and corrupt the establishment has become in Germany:

-

“We already see the fate of our fatherland: The bearers of our state in a dwarfish, small establishment, without ideals, without virtues, and smallest of all in courage. These are the bearers of the characterless state in which there is a smell of decay. We feel how ripe they are to be overthrown. It lies with us to ensure that in our movement the power arises that will one day erect the new Reich. And it lies with us that this fate is carried out in our people by us and not by the others.

Thus we oppose to the spirit of the present time, the time of black-red-gold confusion,* the spirit in which the coming Reich is embodied within us, in which the marriage of nationalism and socialism is accomplished in idealised form.

But however correct an idea may be in itself, it remains worthless for so long as it is purely theoretical and proceeds only from the green table or the scholar’s study. It is not enough to possess an idea, to embody it, and to endeavour to carry it forward. It is necessary that this idea has the power to bring its bearers together organisationally.”

-

AH is telling us Americans, 100 years later, that we must move to the organizational stage and take to the streets with our new politics. The idea itself is not enough. The spirit of the American Empire must be born out of our faith in God, our faith in our race, and the boundaries that we bled and died for in the past.

America is not an idea, America is a people who created specific ideas for our descendants that have been corrupted for people who wish to see us destroy.

* this is a reference to The Weimar flag

Before ending the speech AH takes a shot at the “pagans” or the “volkisch cowards” that he mentions in his book MK. Their ideas were not enough to stop the Weimar revolution of 1918:

-

“We know that into today’s decay there must step a new worldview, a blind faith that has an answer to all these things that leave people helpless today. But in order for this idea to be able to stand the test of battle, it must assume organisational form. Therefore all talk of a völkisch, all-destroying worldview is a fantastic construct. Many of the best men in our people have thought völkisch at all times. At all times there have been insightful and wise men who, in their studies, very well recognised the weaknesses of our existence. And yet on 9 November 1918 it was not the völkisch idea but Marxism that triumphed. Not because it was more correct and logical and more destined for success by Providence, but only because it had created an excellent, brutal crowbar for its theoretical rubbish.

The best plans and the greatest idealism and the boldest hope are worthless if a great energy in execution does not join them.

We are National Socialists.”

--

AH defines the volkisch movement as one of nihilism with no action and uses terms like Faith and Providence where are clearly Christian in character. National Socialism must meet the communist with an equal power on the street to reclaim our politics.

AH ends his speech with an Appeal to Heaven and a call to action:

-

“And we cannot leave the implementation of our idea to the play of chance or to a future democratic majority. Political power can only be won through the common connection of idea and organisation. And when this common connection exists among us, then, my dear friends, German politics will one day be able to be reoriented away from all the rubbish of the moment and back onto the great problems of the existence of our people. Then we shall once again be able to create what we now ask from heaven: that our people may once more gain the possibility of participating in the struggle of this earth, until it pleases a higher Providence to put an end to this existence and let the world dissolve into nothing.

We National Socialists stand as fighters, not merely as preachers, of a new worldview. And whoever today therefore sees in us an enemy of the state is mistaken of the state, I say; it is not a state at all, but a colony, and what we want is not a colony, but a German Reich! (Heil!)!!

-

AH clearly defines his movement as a patriotic one that rejects nihilism and empty words. We must not be an enemy of the state of the American ethnos, but an enemy of the false diseased state that controls our beloved Nation of America.

God Bless All Americans. May he Keep us, and inspire us to true sacrificial action for a new politics.

The Sadducees were mostly businessmen, so they would be angry at Jesus scourging the temple and shutting down the usury of the money changers. It would have cost them considerable money. They had a material, and earthly reasons to hate Jesus, but his statement gave them holy authority to condemn him to death.

After Jesus was betrayed by Judas, the chief priests and their council were trying to find testimony against him to secure his execution. The elders, teachers, and priests were making up stories about Jesus, so everything was inconsistent.

0ne of the council stood up and said that he heard Jesus say he would “I will destroy this temple that was made by hands, and in three days I will build another, made without hands.”

Jesus actually said, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” (John 2:19-21) This was a reference to his own death and resurrection in three days, where his own body was the Temple that would be brought up from the grave.

The jews then ask him “why won’t you defend yourself against these accusations?”, but Jesus did not answer. Finally, the the High Priest stood up and said, “Are you the Christ, the son of the Blessed one?”

Jesus said, “I am; and you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.”

This went beyond even Jesus calling himself God when he said, “before Abraham was born, I am.” because it combined the messianic and the divine authority of God.

Through this statement Jesus was claiming lordship over Israel, the ability to forgive Sin, rule over the Sabbath, and the power to Judge in Glory. (Daniel 7:13-14) (Mark 2:10) (Mark 2:28) (Mark 13:26). “Son of Man” gave Jesus Christ eschatological Authority into the future.

Jesus was finally convicted of Blasphemy.

- Sourced from Mark 14 : 53-65, Jesus before his Accusers.

This is why modern jews reject Daniel as a prophet, because Jesus Christ, the Son of Man, breaks their claim to Israel. (Daniel 7:13-14, 9:24-27)

This is also why only Christians can be Israelite now, because we follow the one true living God, and believe in his divinity. We are God’s chosen people.

Krause and Hitler joked about how fussy Dr. Theodor Morell could be, though he was a good doctor.

Also in the interview Karl recounts a story where Martin Bormann tried to get Hitler to sign a hall pass for his own House, which Hitler refused to do. Karl took the pass back. A day or two later Bormann tried again to get Hitler to sign the pass and Hitler became angry and told Karl: “Out!”.

Karl finally took it back to Bormann and said, “The Boss wouldn’t sign it.”

Bormann laughed and said, “Who does he think he is?”

After that the house pass requirement for Hitler was dropped but everyone else was required to have one.

Martin Bormann was the man who largely edited and crafted Table Talks, which has been presented as Hitler’s words for decades.

Karl also confirms that Hitler liked to talk about the Bible during their drives, and called men with beards, "beavers" as he pointed them out in the street.

In 1931, Karl joined the Reichsmarine. After the National Socialists seized power, Hitler personally selected him as his personal attendant in 1934. He held this position until September 1939. During the invasion of Poland, Krause had served Hitler Polish mineral water instead of the usual Fachinger medicinal water. Hitler accused Krause of attempting to poison him. A quarrel ensued between Krause and Hitler, which ultimately led to his dismissal. His successor was Heinz Linge.

Krause returned to the Kriegsmarine. However, after Hitler learned of the sinking of Krause’s warship — which Krause survived — he had Krause rehabilitated and transferred to the Reich Chancellery as an adjutant of the SS. Later, as an SS-Hauptsturmführer of the Waffen-SS, Krause participated in the war.

In 1945, Krause was arrested by the U.S. Army and was eventually released in 1946 after paying a fine of 7 marks.

Krause seen below between Hitler and Mussolini.

Quote 1:

“The Church must accustom itself to the teachings of blood and race. Just as the Catholic Church could not change the fact that the Earth revolves around the sun, so too can the Church not eradicate the irrefutable facts that are given with blood and race. If it does not acknowledge this, progress will simply pass it by.”

This comes from a January 1934 meeting between himself and two Protestant bishops named Meiser and Wurm.

This is just 𝐇𝐢𝐭𝐥𝐞𝐫 saying that the POLITICAL Church needs to recognize race realism and brings up the historical issue of Copernicus discovering that the Earth revolves around the Sun. The Catholic Church initially resisted this idea, much in the same way he mentioned that the Catholic Church had long been antisemitic in the quote below from 1933.

Hitler is treating race realism the same as heliocentrism, as biological and scientific fact that isn’t opposed to Religion, but need to be recognized regardless. This is also why Hitler often mentions the “law of nature”, what he really means is just scientific natural observation, not some weird Pagan cult.

___

Also, the sources they listed for both quotes only contain the January 1934 Meeting about race realism and Copernicus. These two sources do not contain the second quote.

1. Hans Müller’s book Catholic documents 1930–1935

2. Dokumente zur Kirchenpolitik des Dritten Reiches, Band 2 = Protestant documents 1934/35.

Quote 2:

“Christianity will disappear from Germany just as it did from Russia. The denominations were unable to prevent the French Revolution, Bolshevism, Marxism, or the 1918 Revolution. [...] Germans existed for hundreds of thousands of years before Christ without Christianity and will continue to live even after Christianity has disappeared. [...]”

These quote fragments come from a private conversation between Hitler and Hans Meiser, and were allegedly recorded in Hans Meiser’s private stenographic notebook (Wachstuchheft 1), pages 85–87.

Date: 13 March 1934 (not 25 January)

Hitler is explicitly warning the Protestant bishops (Meiser and Wurm) that if the churches continue to resist, or oppose National Socialism politically, Christianity in Germany will suffer the same fate it suffered in the Soviet Union, it will be suppressed, marginalized, or driven out. Hitler made similar statements in speeches before the war.

This is Hitler explaining to the Bishops that he’s trying to save Christianity in Europe, not destroy it. In public speeches and private statements, Hitler repeatedly claimed he was defending Christianity against Bolshevism, godlessness, and moral decay.

(See the Video Below Speech in Passau 27 October 1928 Bundesarchiv Berlin-Zehlendorf)

These two statements don’t deal with putting “race over religion”, or “worshiping race”, they deal with geopolitical realities and the political infighting between the German churches and Hitler.

There is no philosophical debate about race being “above” religion, or race idolatry to counter Hitler’s previous statements in these quotes. Volkisch Spirit and his collaborator RaceRevivial are trying to smash two separate meetings together out of order and out of context to call Hitler a liar.

𝐇𝐢𝐭𝐥𝐞𝐫 did not make Idol out of Race.

According to Otto Skorzeny’s memoirs Hitler “himself was not an Adherent of the this doctrine” of the “nebulous” theory of the Nordic Man purposed by Himmler.

Skorzeny also confirms most of the SS didn’t adhere to Himmler’s short bus ideas that online heathens rehash and claim are the truth, mostly because they are all allied propaganda agents and not authentic accounts.

Skorzeny also confirms Rosenberg’s ideas were confusing, and that his book was difficult to read while being ignored by most men in the Reich.

Otto Wagener also confirmed a similar idea in his memoirs. He recorded that the painter believed these Nordic Cults created and dredged up by Himmler were divisive to the German people themselves.

Just as online pagans today are divisive and dangerous to the White race.

Verklempt Spirit is also trying to confuse people by using a 2 year old version of the info meme that credited it to a speech, because it was in a book of speeches. However, I determined it was in a private meeting as a verbatim record of his word and updated a long time ago.

Regardless, if the quote was from a speech or a private meeting the quote itself is 100% verbatim and real.

These are the kosher tricks that feds like @ RaceRevivial and @ Ehrenkrieg2 will stoop to when their anti-Christian allied propaganda is clearly and cleanly defeated by actual history.

It’s the same pattern: misdirection and then mix in outright lies to fool their audience.

@ RaceRevivial is the kosher loser who runs the telegram channel “Christmutt” (Showing his schizophrenic Jesus derangement syndrome) and spends his days making up complicated lies about White people, White History, and Hitler for his zio*nist masters.

I appreciate that they spend so much of their time and energy trying to attack me personally, but at the end of the day they are just lying about Hitler in the same manner that the jewish press often does: Through distortion, fabrication, and reliance on audience ignorance.

I have revealed their scam and their only option is trying to discredit me by lying about the past. Their ideas are too weak to stand on their own and the historical record rejects them.

You can find the offending post here:

As a conservative, Mike Lee’s purpose should be to argue and advocate to conserve the core of the European American people. That core is creedal Protestantism. (White Catholics and Orthodox are welcome because even if we disagree on theology, we all share the same core theology). Because Mike Lee is a heretic who does not understand that core he has cause to side with every faith that exists on the fringe and/or argues for himself instead of the common good.

A real conservative would use his energy and powers to argue for the removal of the non-European American faiths like Judaism and Islam, or the scourge of Atheism (see everything in blue and red), but that advocacy is lost in the fray.

This is the real enemy and the real fight, but the yellow outliers create an overlap for the red, if they know it or not.

Pagans also help achieve this overlap on the far right by arguing for something that isn’t native to American shores and exists on the far fringes of lunacy. Pagan heathenism is essentially a selfishness of the uneducated degenerate that splinters the White identity, just as Mike Lee is a conservative who conserves nothing.

Lee’s Mormon apologetic, the yellow, is a distraction from the fact that our military is infested with satanism and atheism, or the blue and the red.

Because of this lack of awareness by a heretic in power the true vision of the American Ethnos is not advocated for inside our Military. So our Military remains a house divided against itself.

Jesus said: “Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand.”

Hitler said: “Anyhow, the Jew has attained his ends. Catholics and Protestants are fighting one another to their heart’s content, while the enemy of Aryan humanity and of all Christendom is laughing up his sleeve.”

Positive Christianity, as a political statement, is:

1. That the nation advocates for, but does not pick a side with, the two confessions (Confession restricted this point to creedal Christianity) of Protestantism and Catholicism within the German context.

2. That Materialism was against the interest of the German people.

3. That if you use your creedal freedom of religion to harm the German people you will be dealt with.

Though often misapplied and misunderstood, this is all that exists within point 24, and Positive Christianity itself as an official statement. It is perfect, simple, and easily applied to this situation.

Many misunderstand this “freedom” the same way that they misunderstand “freedom of religion” in America. This freedom is NOT for anyone and anything that is foreign to our ethnos. This freedom is only for the core cultural identity that founded the State.

If you’re a White Mormon, I don’t point this out to attack you, but you must step aside for the common Good. If you reject the creedal core you lose your right to advocate for that Ethnos. If you accept the creedal core and only want to argue about minor things you’re a dead weight.

This is why America needs a revolution in it’s politics and within the confines of it’s pews. A revolution that is not spiritually bourgeois and “conservative”. A revolution led by men who understand our identity.

Adam Green’s book, the Jesus Deception is Black Propaganda that violates logic, historical consensus, inverts replacement theology, and blasphemes the European foundation of Christendom.

This thread will examine the following:

🔻 The main concepts Green misuses to attack Christ.

🔻 Show why each chapter is poorly written from a logical, historical, and Christian perspective.

🔻 Show how his book is similar to ISIS rhetoric and extremist in nature.

🔻 Investigate if it was Written by AI Large Language Models.

The Jesus Deception begs you to believe that Jesus of Nazareth never existed as a historical figure and that Christianity itself was constructed by Heterodox and irrelevant jewish sects, or was simply retroactively invented through interpretive techniques that only later produced the Talmud.

The book was largely created by plagiarizing other fringe mythicist ideas, jewish frameworks from after the 1st century, a reliance on a surface level understanding of the dead sea scrolls and non-canonical books of the bible, and a dash of modern atheistic moralism. Green then tries to desperately tie all this cope together with a plethora of logical fallacies by stretching out maybe 8 chapters of content into 18.

The books methodology is non-existent as it basically just points the finger at all historical consensus and shouts, “NUH UH!” in a repetitive and soulless fashion, while also standing on fringe jewish and atheist understanding as it’s only authority.

The “book” itself is largely incomprehensible nonsense unless you’re already an acolyte to his brand of extremist propaganda. However, the purpose of the this new propaganda is to deliver a payload of cognitive warfare to skeptical right wingers and push them away from Europe’s true spiritual immune system: Christianity.

Basic Concepts Part 1.

To understand this gibberish we need to invstigate terms and ideas that Green uses to make his case. I’ll cover them here because most people won’t be familiar with them.

1. Midrash: Midrash is a post-70 AD framework that essentially created the Talmud. Halakhi midrash focuses on legal principals, while Aggadic midrash is more imaginative and what one might call Esoteric. Green doesn’t really understand the concept himself but clumsily applies it to Christianity anyway.

2. Pesher: Pesher is similar to Midrash but was created by an obscure and fringe apocalyptic sect in the 2nd Temple era that did not agree with any of the other Judahite sects of the time. The New Testament doesn’t mention the Essenes, as the Essenes thought the Pharisses and Sadducees were corrupt while living in caves.

It’s very key to understand that Green flattens these two unrelated “traditions” together to pretend mystical proto-judaism created Christ just to fool the goyim, while he also misleads his audience about their critical differences. Jews are fond of pretending all the sects were one unified “judaism” as well.

Basic Concepts Part 2.

Jesus Mythicism is a fringe atheistic community that believes Jesus wasn’t a real historical person. Instead he is a celestial being invented by Paul and others. Green mostly steals ideas from Richard Carrier and Earl Doherty and bakes their own logical inconsistencies into his extremist LLM stew. These arguments are fringe for a reason, but Green appeals to that fringe authority to elevate his cheap pamphlet into a serious work.

The Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in 1946 to 1947 in caves in the mountains in Palestine. The full set of photographs weren’t published until 1991 by the Huntington library.

The Gnostic Gospels or Apocryphal Texts are pseudepigrapha that were largely written hundreds of years after the first century and considered heretical. The Nag Hammadi was also discovered around 1945 and wasn’t published for English audiences until the late 1970’s. Much like the Prose Edda, most Europeans never had access to them until very recently, so the idea that it shaped Christianity is clownish amateurism.

Green throws these elements into his stew without any real contextual examination of the circumstances that led to their publication and classification as heresy by European Christians. The Gnostic Gospels and the Dead Sea Scrolls were literally stuffed in caves to prevent their destruction because they were rejected as Heresy.

Yet.. Adam argues they created Jesus via time travel.

Chapters 1 through 4

Building a house of cards

The first four chapters largely argue that Jesus doesn’t exist, that all of Christianity is a mass delusion, and credit should be given to obscure apocalyptic proto-jewish sects instead of Europeans. Green also makes the argument that Jesus was made a pacifist as a “survival tactic” to help conquer the Gentiles. He tells us that everyone else in European history is wrong and we should just trust the authority of jewish midrash instead.

Green builds these arguments on a whole host of fallacies.

The idea that Midrash, which only existed after 70 AD, created Christ is just pure anachronism. You essentially have to believe jews in 300 AD took their Talmud concepts and traveled back in time to create Jesus. Green builds most of his cases on sources that did not exist in the 1st century and projects them backwards in time as a “gotcha” argument.

The first four chapters rely heavily on false equivalence and conflation to smash very different ideas into a uniform whole, which is common in Zionist and Liberal jewish arguments that Judaism existed in an unbroken line to Moses.

Green is guilty of the genetic fallacy repeatedly in the first four chapters, meaning that since his sources are proto-jewish or jewish then Christian must be jewish too, which ignores that the religions are, and were, historically at odds with each other and separated by theology.

The idea that Jesus was a “pacifist” is just an appeal to motive fallacy. Green invites you to believe Jews were simply playing 6 Million D chess to live through 1800 or 1900 years of Christian anti-antisemitism just so they could control the gentiles.

Finally, Adam just dismisses all consensus like a sperg. All scholars, theologians, and historians for the last 2,000 years just got everything wrong so his head canon will make sense for his audience of reddit basement dwellers.

Historically Green just ignores the 20,000 attestations of Christ, Roman history, the non-Christian historians who recorded Christ, and applies a harsh scrutiny to Christianity that he doesn’t apply to his own jewish sources.

Chapters 5 through 7

Arguments from Silence

Adam Green then turns his gaze on the Apostles and the New Testament. He essentially steals the ideas of Carrier and claims that Paul’s Jesus is celestial and not historical. Green then steals the idea that James isn’t really the brother of Jesus to support the previous argument on Paul. Finally he argues that the book of Hebrews is just jewish midrash.

Logically this is all a problem because Paul isn’t writing his letters as a biography of Jesus to outline his Miracles. His audience already believes in these things, otherwise they wouldn’t be Christian. Green is just rehashing the argument from silence fallacy that many atheist use: IE just because a historian didn’t mention something it doesn’t exist. Paul isn’t writing a historical biography, he’s correcting theology. Not to mention Paul clearly mentions Jesus as a real historical person as the basis of his arguments for faith and grace. Paul also mentions the Lord’s supper, the betrayal, and the “flesh” of the lord all through his letters.

“We preach Christ crucified” (1 Cor 1:23)

“I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified” (1 Cor 2:2)

“Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified” (Gal 3:1)

The “rulers of this age” crucified the Lord of glory (1 Cor 2:8), etc.

The argument that James isn’t Paul’s brother is a rabbit hole all his own, that Christian will often debate for theological reason. To simplify the argument “Brother of the Lord” in Galatians carries an ordinary meaning of a blood relation in the first century. This is also backed by Josephus who calls James the brother of Christ.

Green’s attack on Hebrews is mostly selective reading and anachronism as well. He overemphasizes cosmic imagery while ignoring the clear grounding in historical fulfillment for Christians. Green builds on his earlier circular logic that Jesus doesn’t exist because consensus doesn’t exist to argue the entire epistle is a myth created by those sneaky sects of jews that aren’t even in the bible.

It’s also important to note that Green is secretly attacking Replacement theology in a disguised secularist way by attacking Hebrews. Zionist and Liberal jews also hate Hebrews because it codifies the New Covenant, but Green’s audience are generally right wing skeptics and atheists, so he has to dress up his jewish power fantasies. (More on that later in the thread when we examine Black Propaganda.)

You can easily say that these three Chapters are all just based on an argument from Silence, which is a common atheist cope that no real scholar takes seriously and neither should you.

Chapters 8 through 11

“Everything is Midrash Bro”

These chapters put forth the idea that the entire story of the gospel is just Midrash. It flattens all the Old Testament books into a conspiracy instead of a genuine religious eschatology. Green attacks titles like “The Son of Man”, “The Servant”, “The Branch”, and “the Pierced One” in Hebrew scripture and claims that either obscure Essenes, or anachronistic Midrash Rabbis weaved together a myth called Jesus. Green relies heavily on pseudepigrapha and Apocryphal books as well, which just aren’t canon to Christians.

Historically these ideas are rubbish because Isaiah’s concepts were already part of a living diaspora after the fall of the Northern and Southern Kingdoms.

There is zero historical evidence that these ideas were used to fabricate Jesus before Jesus. Jesus fulfilled over 300 prophecies from dozens of independent writers and books. This is a convergence that defies random chance or clever jewish myth making. Green also fails to account for Christianity as an organic movement galvanized by the real crucifixion of a real historical person, showing his complete lack of methodology in investigating his own sources.

Again, Green is doing the heavy lifting for modern Jews who also reject that Jesus is predicted in the Old Testament, but he’s doing it in a roundabout way that gives him some authority to those that reject “Abrahamic” religion and want to believe Christianity is jewish. (This is cognitive warfare).

These chapters again rely heavily on retrojecting much later jewish midrash backwards in time to create Jesus. Adam’s circular reasoning is on full display as well:

“Jesus is mythical so that proves that the epithets and the Old Testament were invented to create him.”

These are not serious arguments by an intelligent person.

European Christians embraced these writings in a Greek context because they saw themselves as the heirs to the new promise of Israel through Christ. As Paul writes in Galatians 3:29

“And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.”

Also in Romans 4:

“It was not through the law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith.”

Green is doing the dirty work for modern zionist jews and liberals by attacking Replacement theology on the right wing and far right in a disguised and subversive way.

Chapter 12

Parallelomania

Green makes the argument that Christianity is just repackaged Essene scrolls theology which is just Parallelomania which is common with Pagans. IE that just because a similar theme exists somewhere doesn’t mean it invented something else. This is common with the Nazi Hooked Cross. Just because swastika’s existed as a convergent shape, doesn’t mean the Nazis created their political symbol without a fundamentally independent idea of labor and Nationalism.

Also the scrolls never mention a crucified and risen Christ. The Essenes were a footnote in history that the majority of Europeans didn’t have access to until the 1970’s. Trying to argue they created Jesus is ludicrous in the extreme.

Chapter 12 is more anachronism. These arguments are also the fallacy of false analogy and oversimplification by equating surface level parallels.

Chapter 13

Pagan Fan Service

This chapter is just fan service for pagans. Chapter 13 claims Christianity “copied” pagan motifs. The Virgin birth, the Eucharist are all just pagan in origin, and not original at all. Green also drags Philo of Alexandria into this mess and claims he backs his points on this fabrication.

This is again Parallelomania and relying on superficial similarities very similar to when pagans argue about Christmas and Easter every year. The truth is that The Prose Edda and The Reckoning of time weren’t widely available to European audiences until the last 40 years. Scholars also didn’t know they existed until the 1600’s. It’s the exact same anachronism Green uses with the Gnostic Gospels and Dead Sea Scrolls. Just because certain themes appear in pagan religions does not mean Christianity borrowed or copied them.

A similar cope that you often see online is that Jesus and the Gospels stole ideas from Plato, but there is zero real historical evidence that supports this fantasy.

Modern scholarship recognizes that the resurrection parallels are greatly exaggerated and forced by sources that come after the New Testament. Also, historically Christianity and the early church devised it’s intolerance as a reaction against Pagan syncretism in Rome and later with the Nordics. Hitler talks about this idea at length as he use this intolerance as an example for his movement in 1920’s Germany.

Polytheism became a fringe outsider belief specifically because Christianity was so successful in arguing for the one True Living God, which had a real basis in history on the cross. Green is arguing it was successful because it copied the things it challenged all over the ancient world.

*

Chapters 14 through 18

“Everyone is wrong but me”

Green starts to run out of ideas in the later chapters and claims that all scholarly consensus is controlled. He then desperately relies on modern rabbis, the Toldoth Yeshu, and the Gospel of Judas to attack Christ and Christianity without really explaining the context of his sources. Again.

Green also uses Ad Hominem and Straw man attacks against Ehrman and Boyarin when they contradict his head canon that Jesus was a mythical deception.

Green essentially retreats to Carrier’s arguments which is supremely lazy. Carrier is a fringe figure that sits well outside scholarly consensus on the historacity of Jesus. This is just an appeal to a fringe authority that can’t be justified because you need more than one source to create a real idea.

To clarify, the Toldoth Yeshu was a medieval attempt to push back on Christian anti-semitism. The Toldoth Yeshua is not even one coherent work but a series of satires that mocks Christianity. The Gospel of Judas is a 2nd-century Gnostic text that European Christians long ago rejected as heresy. Green treats both as serious evidence while ignoring their polemical and very late nature.

To that point, the majority of content on “Know More News” is asking you to trust Polemic Rabbi’s about Christianity, and most of his pagan acolytes rehash these ideas in tired memes and talking points to harass White people who refuse to reject Jesus.

Green also returns to his previous argument that jews were just playing 6 Million D Chess down through the last 2,000 years by creating a religion that put them in Ghettos and ejected them from European Nations.

If Christianity is a jewish psyop, it’s a poor one. Why trade 1900 years of racial and theological hatred for 80 years of war in Palestine that is rapidly coming to an end. It seems rather inefficient.

“The Jesus Deception” begins to collapse into Motive-Mongering and repetitive anachronism that gives all power and agency to Medieval jews or modern Chabad because that’s what his audience wants to hear, and that’s what gives him a semblance of authority in right wing spheres.

Modern jewish rabbis and their twisted polemics are not a source for European Christian theology. Green finally resorts to moral judgement and liberal atheist hatred of White Christians in Chapter 18, which isn’t the task of a serious historiography.

Claiming that the faith which built European Christendom is a dangerous deception and should be abandoned is a direct spiritual attack (Black propaganda) on the Gospel that triumphed over decentralized paganism and unbelieving Talmudic Judaism. By extension, it’s a crypto attack on Nationalism and the modern hopes of White men to reforge our nations.

Why is the book Crypto Jewish propaganda or Black Propaganda?

By labeling Christianity itself a “Jewish deception” and a “prophecy deception” designed for world dominion by those pesky jews, the book invites its right-wing readers to abandon the very faith that declared the Church the rightful heir to Israel and built our morality.

Once Adam has done his job then Christianity is rejected as a Jewish plot, the vacuum is easily filled by either two choices:

1. Secular nationalism that views modern Israel as just another ethno-state deserving of “self-determination”, which is essentially what MAGA is arguing every day.

or

2. Demoralization and despairing acceptance that “Jews always win” spiritually and culturally, reinforcing perceptions of unchallenged supremacy. Green himself echoes these ideas when he talks about modern geopolitics, where he never questions the idea that Israel is capable of losing wars. Green just dumps all the world’s problems on the lap of normal White Christians and tries to sh*t test them into submission.

The “Jesus Deception” creates a controlled narrative, or Trojan Horse, that leads to either a paralysis or alliance rather than spiritual resistance to jewish supremacy.

A right-wing reader or consumer of his content is drawn in by the promise of “unmasking jewish manipulation” and escaping the “Abrahamic matrix” when in reality they are steered toward the conclusion that the greatest theological success in world history; Christianity’s conquest of Rome, Europe, and the world, was a somehow really just a jewish masterstroke.

The logical endpoint for most is not renewed European Christian vigor against Talmudic and progressive Judaism or Atheism, but de-Christianization. Which is exactly what most jews want in the west.

They will simply say:

“If Christianity was Jewish from the start, why defend it?”

And is this not the primary talking point of most Neo-Pagans, Heathens, and Anti-Abrahamic atheists? It most certainly is.

This cognitive warfare weakens the spiritual immune system of the European peoples and splits our struggle for determination, while making the White man more amenable to pragmatic alliances with Zionism or secular Atheism for expediency. This also fits neatly into the Esoteric, secret Philo-semitism of online Nietzsche larping. Nietzsche himself didn’t hate jews, he hated Christianity, just like Adam Green.

It also awkwardly confirms that jews are the “chosen people” in the story of history and surrenders all power and agency to modern jews who claim everything in the Bible is actually about their struggle for statehood. This is exactly what dispensationalism and Christian Zionism argues by proof-texting key verses in the bible.

Rather than rightfully investigating history and theology to see that the jews are replaced and not the central figure in the Old Testament, Adam Green invites you to call your ancestors traitors for believing in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

And I would remind everyone that without the Christian crusaders, the Battle of Tours, and Pope Leo the 1st, your skin would not be White due to mass invasion.

The Truth of Black Propaganda.

“We will create the heroes so we can also control them”

In the broader Israeli intelligence lexicon created by groups like Unit8200, this kind of book would fall under the category of “black propaganda”. This means the material conceals its true origin or intent while advancing an agenda or hatred of another group.

Controlled-opposition style content that appears anti-Jewish on the surface but attacks Christianity on all fronts is basically a summary of modern social media subversives from Nick Fuentes to Devon Stack to Volkish Spirit and Hitler Hated Christ. Black Propaganda is viewed as a sophisticated infiltration tactic and not genuine criticism. I would argue that nothing describes Adam Green’s Book more accurately that Black Propaganda.

“cognitive warfare” are operations that target perceptions, societal cohesion, and belief systems. A “book” like The Jesus Deception, which incites readers with the “joos invented Christianity as a conquest myth” while severing them from the very faith that built European Christendom (And the very concept of being European itself), should be treated as a cognitive attack. All of his extremism subverts the theological narrative that historically positioned the Church and White Europeans as the true spiritual and heavenly Israel by displacing unbelieving proto-jews.

The book qualifies as anti-Christian extremism because it does not merely critique with a solid methodology but openly denies the Incarnation, the virgin birth, the atoning death, the bodily resurrection, the divine inspiration of Scripture, and the Church’s identity as the true Israel.

To Adam Green, the faith of the White man is a “Satan Deception”. Just like the African who uses the English language to hate his colonizer, Adam Green uses Christian language to hate the White believers of Christ.

The side effect is bolstering Zionist narratives indirectly and creating a backdoor to secular nationalism, which of course splits far right groups for a niche and vocal minority of extremist pagans. The objective theological effect is to leave the European peoples spiritually disarmed or confused and blaming anyone but the real enemy. This is exactly what trolls like Handsome Truth argue:

“It’s not the jews, it’s the Christians”

The book’s power lies in its subtlety. Green reaches an audience already primed to distrust institutions and offers them a “deeper truth” that in reality is nothing but logical fallacies and a rejection of White history for a destructive and childish head-canon.

___

Other examples of this technique in history:

> Operation Gladio’s “Strategy of Tension” which created fake right and left wing groups to discredit real struggle.

> January 6 was an attempt to prevent America from swinging back to the conservative middle position by creating a fake “insurrection” to serve as propaganda to justify endless invasion and left wing totalitarian law.

> Operation Trust was a 1920’s bolshevik GPU operation that created a fake underground Anti-Communist resistance group called the Monarchist union of Central Russia.

Adam Green and ISIS.

ISIS calls Christianity the religion of the “polytheist Crusaders” and a corrupted perversion of true monotheism, while vowing to “break the crosses” as part of apocalyptic victory.

Green’s book opens with the same anti-Christ spirit. Christianity is “the greatest lie ever sold,” “the greatest deception ever perpetrated,” a “prophecy deception,” and ultimately a “Satan Deception” [See Chapter 16].

Chapter 18 is literally titled “The End of Jesus.” Both Adam Green and ISIS declare the entire Christian dispensation a lie that has duped the nations and must be dismantled for their respective “truth” to win.

Both ISIS and Adam Green deny the core historic realities of Christ that define the European Church.

ISIS rejects the Incarnation, the Trinity, the atoning death, and the bodily resurrection as blasphemous inventions. Green’s entire thesis [SEE: Chapters 1, 4–11, 18] reduces Jesus to a “mystical midrashic myth,” a “cleverly devised” literary fiction weaved in a spell from Old Testament prophecies by apocalyptic jews. Both erase the eyewitness, apostolic, and creedal witness of the Church [SEE: 1 Cor 15:3-8] and replace it with their own counter-narrative of destruction and opposition.

ISIS and Adam Green frame Christianity as a tool of spiritual conquest that must be overthrown for the “true” order to emerge. “You must free yourself from the Abrahamic matrix” is no different than “You must convert to Islam”.

ISIS sees the Cross as an obstacle to the global caliphate. Green portrays the Jesus story as a Jewish “theological weapon” invented to “conquer the nations” spiritually and achieve “authority over the world, as intended.” both Adam Green and ISIS invert Scripture in the same way. Instead of the Church inheriting the promises after the Judahite rejection of the Messiah, both thought streams treat historic European Christendom as the victim of a grand spiritual fraud that MUST be corrected or destroyed.

Adam Green and ISIS create a “permissive environment” for the erosion of Christian civilization.

ISIS does so through terror and cultural erasure. Green does so through intellectual subversion aimed at right-wing skeptical audiences already wary of institutional narratives. The NSDAP argued that they were the real Christians and to get on board with retaking the moral high ground. Modern Pagans argue that the European identity must be replaced with what they claim is “native” chaos.

“Kuffar” is no different than “Christcuck” and no true coexistence is possible.

Then pen can indeed be mightier than the sword when it comes to brainwashing impressionable minds.

Was it Written by Adam Green?

The overwhelming majority of the writing exhibits every hallmark of large language model or LLM generation typical of tools like GPT-4o, Claude 3.5 or Grok-class models.

Every chapter uses the same rhetorical template:

1. Thesis statement in the form of “X was not historical but actually mystical midrashic”.

2. Lists of parallels and block quotes to take up space with paraphrases by fringe authorities or scholars like Doherty, Lataster, Boyarin, and Carrier. This gives a pseudo sheen of academic effort when none exists.

3. A synthesizing conclusion is created by other people’s ideas.

Sentence length, vocabulary density, and transition phrases like “In this sense…”, “Taken together”, “Strikingly”, “The result was Jesus”, are all mechanically consistent and brutally repetitive starting with page 15 and don’t let up until page 369. The book has no personal voice whatsoever or original ideas. As mentioned above he steals ideas and ultimately retreats to Carrier and calls it a day.

If you search for first-person markers like “I argue”, “my view”, “in my research”, “personal experience”, nothing can be found. The only “I” appears in the minimal dedication and copyright page. This is the opposite of genuine long-form human scholarship.

The Book also features repetitive phrasing across chapters which is another hallmark of synthetic writing: “Cunningly stitched together,” “cleverly devised,” “mystical midrashic,” “theological deception,” “most successful plot ever conceived,” “prophecy deception,” “Messiah meme” and on and on for 400 tripled spaced pages.

There is zero stylistic drift or human tangents which shows the signature use of AI scaling across all 18 chapters. Humans tend to sprawl and have a vitality to their voice. LLM usually flattens all this out to the point that it sounds like a robot, because it is a robot.

Another huge tell is the abundance of fallacies, which is the result of this blender approach where you dump other ideas and books into AI without a clear authentic concept or voice to guide your intention. When I helped write the Christianity in the Third Reich Documentary I set out with a clear goal and an idea and then slowly created a voice and an argument over time that became a real work of history.

Grok, which was asked to consult other AI examination tools, gave the book a 87% AI written or assistance score, with 13% likely being generated by human editing including the Outline, TOC, and perhaps a few transitional sentences.

The core content is all synthetic and Adam Green charges his foolish follower 25 dollars for the privilege.

To add insult to injury to anyone who has the misfortune of reading this trash, The Jesus Deception feels artificially stretched. At nearly 400 pages, the book is bloated with poor spacing, excessive white space, large fonts, repeated images, and half-empty pages. It really does come off like a high school kid triple spacing a book report to meet a pre-set criteria by a teacher. If you remove the repetition and poor spacing it should only be about 180 to 200 pages tops.

Do not buy this book.

In conclusion, Adam Green’s book the “Jesus Deception” is really a deception by Adam Green. It rests completely on anachronism, a crypto backing of jewish supremacy, and a nest of illogical fallacies that one struggles to even understand. The Author simply dumped fringe anti-Christian ideas into an LLM blender and vomited out an extremist work based on hating the theology and faith of our ancestors.

I fully believe this black propaganda pamphlet should be marked as a work of extremism and banned or [redacted] in the future for it’s subversive cognitive warfare techniques.

This thread gives you a logical, historical, and Christian perspective on why it is absolute provocative trash aimed at those who are spiritually and mentally vulnerable, or bankrupt. It’s nihilism, it’s poor history, and it’s ultimately kosher from start to finish.

Please share this thread to help combat his destructive disinformation about the European Cultural Identity.

I also have a four hour stream that goes into more depth and investigates every argument in the book.

This is an actual page in the book. It’s not the end of a Chapter as you might expect. The book is filled with paragraphs floating in the middle of blank pages.