A Book Review of Susannah Heschel's, 2008, 'The Aryan Jesus: Christian Theologians and the Bible in Nazi Germany', 1st Edition, Princeton University Press: Princeton
The Aryan Jesus is a strange book with a quite provocative title that we may presume is meant to evoke a sense of irony in Heschel's readers. Since it is widely taught, and believed, today that the historical Jesus was jewish regardless of what we may say. Although this is a rather materialistic assumption and quite opposed to what one might consider consistent Christian doctrine (i.e. how can Jesus even be part human if he is God, but rather must be God in human form, which is a subtle yet very important distinction that has to be made): it never-the-less provides the basis for an interesting and in some respects laudable study of one of the main institutes researching into what jewish academic Alan Steinweiss termed 'Nazi Jewish Studies' (i.e. a critical version of the rather uncritical jewish studies of modern times).
The academic institute around which Heschel's book is based was named 'The Institute for the Study and Eradication of Jewish Influence in German Religious Life', which both generally explains the focus of the institute's activities and its intellectual mission. To be more precise we can say that the institute's activities we targeted towards removing jewish ideas and concepts from Protestant Christianity in the Germanic homelands and its mission was to provide the intellectual and popular basis for a revival of Christianity in line with its Aryan roots.
Heschel, being a jewess, repeatedly scoffs at this intellectual postion (and its supporting evidence) and suggests that it is based on a 'series of unjustified inferences' without giving her assertion a basis in fact first. This is interesting, because Heschel simply takes it for granted that Jesus was a jew but merely assumes the equation of religion equates race (and then applies it to intellectual thought the Third Reich which specifically rejected this equation) and that Jesus was not, in fact, the Messiah (since the Messiah would not actually be of a race, but might take the physical form of a race).
In this Heschel is misstating, perhaps deliberately, the arguments of the one of the main theologians behind the institute, Walter Grundmann, who she notes had argued that Jesus was irracial in his earlier work and then went on to argue later that Jesus was, in fact, an Aryan as well as a precursor to National Socialism. This Heschel states is a contradiction in terms and is an 'evolution of thought' towards making Christianity in general, and Protestantism specifically, more acceptable to the Third Reich. This idea of an 'evolution of thought' lies at the very foundation of Heschel's argument in so far as she argues, and unsuccessfully attempts to evidence, the thesis that Grundmann and the many other theologians associated with the institute actively and progressively corrupted their own theology, the unstated adjective in Heschel's mind being 'jewish', contra their own scholarship in order to make their ideas congruent, or at least acceptable, to National Socialism. This idea is a, presumably deliberate, attempt to delegitimise the Institute's theologians and their scholarship by suggesting that, in effect, they became intellectually bankrupt and tried to save their own skins by bending their scholarship to suit the ideology of National Socialism.
This is not to say an 'evolution of thought' thesis is entirely incorrect for clearly individual and group's ideas evolve, but Heschel is misinterpreting the normal evolution of ideas to mean the deliberate corruption of ideas in order to fit a preconceived notion of the world. Although to be sure all organisms with the capability to think are guilty of this to a greater or less extent (due to biological subjectivity i.e. the affect of their own biology on their intellectual thought and psychology) if Heschel's logic were to hold she would have to actually demonstrate this corruption with evidence (which she does not). Rather Heschel produces a somewhat detailed chronicle of the intellectual currents and ideas behind the formation of the institute and then implies that shows the deliberate corruption of scholarship that she wishes to indicate (as to simply invalidate the scholarship she is discussing entirely). This would evidence a normal evolution of ideas but not a corruption of ideas in so far as the institute's mission was the logical result of a long and happy trend in German theological scholarship rather than simply a reaction to the formation and consolidation of the Third Reich.
Grundmann's logic should have been clear to Heschel, as it is not only logically implied but stated in his works on the question of Jesus' material origins, in so far as she characterises Grundmann as changing his position, but in fact all Grundmann did was elaborate on his position in regards to Christ when he argued that he was by nature irracial, but the form he took was that of an Aryan. This was also in line with what had been argued by German scholars in the 19th century, as Heschel notes, as it is based on the, correct, assertion that Galilee was not racially jewish and had Judaism imposed upon them by the jews when they invaded the territory. Heschel seems to be so desperate to discredit Grundmann and Institute, in order to facilitate the claim that Jesus was a jew and therefore all Christians should be pro-jewish, that she misstates his theses constantly. One can only suggest on the basis of these distortions that they are deliberate since it is obvious Heschel has read numerous works produced by the Institute, and Grundmann in particular, but hasn't represented them accurately but has in fact added in some of the intellectual context.
Readers might find it strange that we have concentrated on Grundmann, but we have done so in order to point out Heschel's agenda in her book in so far as she continually dismissing the institute's research, misstates its arguments and spends the last chapter of her book trying to substantiate the claim that there is a sinister 'Nazi conspiracy' in Protestant Christianity centred on the postwar activities of Grundmann and the institute's scholars who by enlarge survived the war. She also tries to suggest that Grundmann and the institute's scholars were in some way partially 'responsible' for the 'persecution of the jews' and the so-called 'holocaust', which is rather absurd given that an intellectual position can't be held to be 'causing racial hatred' without directly suggesting as such in much the same way as Alan Dershowitz can't be accused, as much as one might wish to, of advocating and supporting genocide.
'The Aryan Jesus' spends a lot of time concentrating on the particulars of the institute and these to my knowledge are largey accurate in terms of narrative and correctly notes that Reichsleiter Bormann was a large rabidly anti-Christian thorn in the side of the institute and the German Christians in general. Heschel also correctly notes that Bormann forced the Institute to take more extreme positions in order to be achieve the recognition it sought from the NSDAP, but this was never to be unfortunately. Heschel's notion that much of the NSDAP membership were devout Christians who saw in the NSDAP the force for spiritual regeneration through a newly invigorated Christianity will surprise many, but if one stops to think about it: it does make intellectual sense. If the NSDAP was to achieve power it needed to draw on the conservative demographic as well as the revolutionary demographic and the foundation of the conservative demographic of Weimar was its Christianity, in particular Protestant Christianity. We should however note that the NSDAP was more successful in recruiting the Protestant faithful as opposed to the Catholic faithful, because of the existence of the Catholic Centre Party (Zentrum) and that the NSDAP was suspicious of the Jesuits who were seen as the powerful agents of a foreign power (the Pope).
Heschel's narrative in 'The Aryan Jesus' is generally good and it is certainly a book that we can recommend reading as it offers an interesting insight into Protestant Christianity during the Third Reich and furnishes many intellectual ideas, often in passing, that are of value to National Socialism today. However it is worth remembering that Heschel often distorts the intellectual positions of the institute and hence her comments on this score should be taken with a pinch of salt and a critical mind rather than by simple acceptance. All in all 'The Aryan Jesus' is a worthwhile addition to any National Socialist's library and essential reading to a National Socialist theologian or philosopher of religion.
Hey Karl,
ReplyDeleteYour review of Susannah Heschel's book, The Aryan Jesus, has got me thinking again. What grabbed my attention was the name of the German Institute that Heschel's work focuses on. Specifically, The Institute for the Study and Eradication of Jewish Influence in German Religious Life.
What is interesting about this institute's name is the questions it poses to every neophyte considering the issue of Jewish influence over Western culture. And those questions are: What forms does Jewish influence take? and, What is Jewish thinking?
One of the difficulties National Socialists, or even White Nationalists have in addressing the uninitiated on the subject of Jewish power is the general ignorance among Westerners as to just how Jews proceed with their agendas and/or how Jews get open-minded people thinking in a fashion that furthers Jewish aims.
Remarkably, Heschel's book, even as it attempts to discredit pro-German Protestant religious study, infers the Jewish Question to the intellectually curious by simply recalling the provocative name of an institute that isn't mentioned in American scholastic instruction on the era before and including WWII.
And so that is why I am writing. Could you help me and others better understand what Jewish thinking is? Could you maybe elucidate a little on what influence Jews exert in Western religious life, or in Western culture generally?
I realise that my inquiry addresses a broad spectrum of issues. But a few intellectual and semantic foot-holds on the issue of Jewish influence could arm the pro-white citizen with arguments to counter the Universalist and multicultural sloganeering that inevitably drowns out debate in the public forum.
Thanks for your attention to my inquiry.
John
John,
ReplyDeleteI apologise since I hadn't seen you had posted this question until Johann emailed me a few minutes ago telling me about it. Your questions do indeed cover a broad subject. Let me address them separately as it easiest to do it that way. I will also address them in their logical order as I understand the JQ.
Now to understand jewish thinking if you will isn't nearly as hard as it sounds, but it does require you to think differently to what should be your natural inclination. Jewish thinking is almost entirely egoistic and self-centred. Aryan thought tends to be a reconciliation of egoism with altruism, but altruism is the defining trait of the Aryan (Mongoloids are actually similar to Aryans in this although their mentality and logic is very different).
Now to understand jews one merely needs to think in slightly wide egoistic terms i.e. what do I get out of this? Does this benefit me? [etc] Now this doesn’t just mean ‘how much money can I make’ as jews have been known to scorn money if they perceive it to be to their advantage to do so. Most of the time they will not, but they will if it is to their advantage to do so. For example a jewish communist (of which there are still a lot proportionally speaking [in terms of the number of communists in the US against the number of those communists who are jews]) will more than likely scorn money as part of their communist belief, because to them it is more important to be seen as ‘the best comrade’ and therefore build up a reputation so they can achieve power. This is what they regard as in their best interest and yes a jew will truly believe in something, but if it is not in his or her interest (as they understand it) to continue believing in it they won’t. In essence a jew will die for their cause if they believe they will be widely remembered as martyrs and therefore honoured thus achieving one of the ultimate egoistic fixes. An example of this is the Rosenbergs (Soviet atomic spies) who are universally regarded as communist ‘true believers’ and died for it. Ethel Rosenberg almost explicitly said they would be remembered as martyrs after what she saw as the inevitable victory of Communism (and if you believe in orthodox Marxism then this is a religious given no matter how long it takes).
Another example of a form of jewish egoism is common among the ultra-Orthodox in so far as it is ultra-Orthodox doctrine that they should pay no heed to their material surroundings but should instead focus on their spirituality as the especially pious (Chassidim/Hassidim) [frum] jews. This doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be wealthy (many of them are very wealthy especially in NYC), but they cannot be ostentatious in their appearance and in their homes. That means that for these particular jews they cannot, for example, refurbish their homes if they are strict and live among filth and pests. This is regarded as being truly pious because they don’t care for their material surroundings but rather focus on ‘worshipping hashem’. The advantage for the jews here is to be seen as pious as possible by other jews and this enables them to possibly be seen as ‘pillars of the community’ etc, which may lead to them gaining followers (one of the most important parts of understanding the reason for jewish power actually: as I’ll talk about latter) but most importantly fills their egoistic black hole.
ReplyDeleteWhat do I mean by egoistic black hole? I mean that jews naturally feel that they need reassurance about their own worth in the world. This is why jews are so egoistic and act the way they do, because they need to feel that they are superior and are worth something. In essence if you conduct some reading in Freudian psychology you will find the jewish mentality staring back at you, which makes sense if you think about it as Freud was simply assuming that the whole world thinks like jews (much like Aryans tend to assume, quite naturally, that everyone thinks like they do and this gets them into all sorts of trouble) and he also enacted his jewish mentality by his doctrine (i.e. becoming an ‘authority on the mind’) and his ‘treatments’, which allowed him (and still allow those of who endorse his theories) to dominate his patients (i.e. as an ego trip the Freudian psychiatrist comes to all but control his patient’s, well his victim’s, actions and thoughts) as well as keep the money flowing (Freudian treatments are notorious among psychologists for their length [often 10-20 years] and the huge bills the ‘patient’s’ wrack up). In essence jews are a walking inferiority complex and their behaviour can be understood by comprehending this fact.
What about MacDonald’s theories: well quite frankly they are wrong, because MacDonald only studied external not internal jewish behaviour i.e. jews relations with gentiles, while narrowed his focus to permit his conclusion of jewish altruism. He also didn’t focus on exceptions, which are important to explain in any theory like this and which my understanding explains without exception (myself and others have put it through numerous examples and it explains them all beautifully so far). An example is Nicholas Donin who was a jew who was expelled by the Paris ghetto in the mid-13th century who joined the Catholic priesthood and then proceeded to campaign for the extermination/forced conversion of the jews despite being a jew himself. You simply can’t reconcile this with MacDonald’s theory (which is also based on a very selective interpretation of jewish history and while I don’t deny its intellectual importance as a theory it is not useful for understanding jews as a people IMO [unlike MacDonald I am somewhat fluent in Hebrew and Yiddish]), but with mine it fits perfectly. In so far as did Donin do it for altruistic motives? Obviously not: so then why did he do it? Because he was slighted and the Paris ghetto forced him to go elsewhere for his personal benefit and he chose to go into the Christian clergy and then preach against the jews (becoming an ‘authority on jews’ at the same time). He in essence sought bloody revenge (he more or less caused the death of most of the jews in Paris and Northern France at this time as well caused the Talmud to be burnt in 1242) and did it in order to win personal domination over both gentile and jew therefore filling his deeply hurt inferiority complex (which his expulsion from the jewish ghetto had caused to go into crisis).
ReplyDeleteThis leads us nicely onto your next question of understanding jewish power. Now if we apply what I’ve outlined above it becomes very clear that the jews are neither a conspiracy (that doesn’t mean jews don’t engage in conspiracies, but rather they are not a conspiracy as a people) or an ethnocentric group. What they are is a significant amount of extreme egoists if you will and all of them are looking for their ‘ego fix’ for lack of a better term. This usually manifests itself in their concentration of occupations and ideologies, which bring them perceived advantages and benefits from an egoistic standpoint. This particularly manifests itself in the need to be seen as important, an authority and as having power over others.
We can see this when data about jewish occupations is presented, because one notices fairly quickly that they generally choose professions where one can wield great amounts of practical and theoretical influence. For example as lawyers (lots of money to be made, fits natural legalism of jews, possibility of becoming pillar of community as a judge or supreme court justice etc), academics (in a position to inject others with your ideas and found your own school of thought so as to become important and well know, ability to influence opinions as an ‘expert’ on a variety of subjects etc) and media (ability to influence opinions as a provider of information to people, lots of money to be made, fairly glamorous industry with a seedy dark side [women have to literally sleep their way to the top in jewish dominated industries particularly the media and banking]). One also finds a similar motivation among the numerous jewish cult figures (for example jews who form their own ‘ideologies’ or religious groups around themselves) in so far as one finds the common factor in the ‘power’ they exert over their followers.
ReplyDeleteThis also accounts for the multiplicity of jews in just about everything (their famous habit of wanting to be involved in everything characterises this quite well) and why they also like to be among gentiles. To explain briefly jews like gentiles for the very specific reason that they are far more malleable and less ‘bitchy’ (for lack of a better term: the jews call it ‘kvetching’ but that isn’t really covered by the literal translation ‘complaining’ so ‘bitching’ in my view is actually more appropriate). They tend to try to ‘convert’ gentiles into their followers in various ways for example a lesbian jewess told my wife about two years ago that jewesses preferred to ‘turn white girls into lesbians because they were easier to manipulate into doing whatever the jewess wanted them to do while another jewess would simply bitch about it the whole time i.e. she viewed Aryans, with some justification, as being far more submissive than jews. When the jewess (and this is particularly common among male jews especially medical students in my experience for what reason I couldn’t tell you) is finished with the Aryan then they will throw them aside (male jews like to try to impregnate and then marry an Aryan woman while they are a student and then they will throw her out when they are about forty and she has served their purpose so they can then marry their secretary who is likely a much younger Aryan woman).
Now after having taken all this into consideration: what are we left with? Well the simple reality is that it is the presence of the jew in society that is the problem, because what happens is that gentiles (and some jews) are bounced between a lot of different jews propagandising their own ideas and beliefs as to fill their own egoistic black hole. If you think about the folk are bounced between different jews espousing different ideas, but hardly ever do you find a ‘movement’ that lacks a large proportion of chosen or mischlinge within its higher echelons. When people talk of the ‘jewish media’ etc that is what they mean, but because of all the jews and the lack of a system for understanding their extraordinary concentration and presence in specific areas of Aryan society one suggests a conspiracy, which an racially-relative Aryan rationalisation of the observed behaviour of jews as that is what Aryans would have to do in order to achieve that same effect. In essence in my formulation the problem is simply the presence of jews (and Semites in general: Arabs are little different but a few decades behind the jews and are catching up fast now) that is the problem not that they are conducting a conspiracy: it is their biology that is the problem and that lends itself to a complete solution of the jewish question.
ReplyDeleteNow as to get you thinking (I don’t like to merely tell people what to believe) do you want to try and apply what I have just outlined to your third point about religion? Since unless you apply what I have just talked about then it is doubtful you will comprehend it: as one learns by doing not by listening.
If you want clarification on anything please let me know.
Kind Regards,
Karl,