Archetypes of the Antichrist: Adolf Hitler

In this series I have examined figures who, despite not necessarily being anti-Christian in their persuasion, seem to misuse their lofty potential or great influence in ways that, either by intention or accident, negatively affect the Church or individual Christians, particularly Orthodox Christians. Such figures are archetypes of the Antichrist, not because they hate Christ or the Church, but because they are so elevated by their supporters that they come to occupy the place in one’s heart that is reserved for Christ. By this metric, anyone can become an “antichrist” and as Christians, we are called to guard our hearts so that we do not inadvertently give to man that which is reserved for God. As such, the individuals whom I have mentioned before would not necessarily be figures I would be naturally compelled to oppose. This is despite their failings (either religious or moral), as often times they still speak truth and stand up to protect that which is good in society. This is why it is needful for the Christian to be weary of leaders, especially those who claim to represent us. If Satan is to mislead the Christian, he will not do so by sending someone whom we can easily identify as our enemy, but instead will send someone whom even the elect could be deceived by. The Antichrist is dangerous because he will be someone who most Christians will see as their salvation. First as their political and social salvation, and then as their spiritual salvation, as he will according to Scripture, demand worship. Antichrist does not mean someone who is the opposite of Christ, or that he is outwardly evil, but rather an Antichrist is someone who establishes themselves as another Christ, or a substitute for Him. This is the perspective and reasoning of why I refer to Adolf Hitler as an archetype of the Antichrist. Hitler was an Antichrist not for the negative aspects of his reign but instead for the positive things he did, and the recompense he expected in return.

Other than Jesus Christ Himself, there has been no figure in history as lied about as Adolf Hitler. I am not here to advocate for any particular view of Hitler or his governance of Germany. I will say that had I been alive and politically conscious in the 1930s and 40s, I would have most likely supported Hitler in his opposition to degeneracy domestically, and his opposition to communism abroad. I also most likely would share his distrust and anger towards the Jews, as this was the prevailing view of countless millions in Europe, America, and Canada. After all, the modern philosemitic apologetics we are all accustomed to listening to and are expected to believe were not mainstreamed until after the Second World War. As such, my critique of Hitler does not come from someone who is a political enemy, but rather, as someone who would very much like to be able to wholeheartedly support Hitler and his movement. I am however forced to be more reserved in my views as a result of National Socialism’s excesses and faults. As it stands, I cannot sort through the truth and the lies regarding Hitler. I do not know if he died a Christian or if his alleged persecution of Christians transpired according to the mainstream narrative. After all, as a modern Christian living today, when I see clergy and high-ranking officials promote homosexuality, degeneracy, and even some who are guilty of sodomy and rape themselves, I want to see them punished. I want their punishments to accord with the law, and there was a time where rape afforded one the death penalty. My view is that those with societal power should receive stricter punishments according to their station. For example, a worker who is guilty of theft could be jailed for a month, whereas a prince who steels could face flogging etc. As such, I think that it is permissible and Christian for clergy who are found guilty of severe crimes to be executed for said crimes. Now I cannot vouch for the legitimacy of Hitler’s persecutions of all Catholics. I cannot even say if he was involved with these at all, or if it was undertaken by a subordinate. I can only say that in considering the state of Christianity in 1920s Germany and of Christianity today, I can sympathize and understand why those in political power would seek to repress and persecute individuals, who by their actions forfeit the name of Christian. That being said, although limited acts of persecution are justified for the excesses of certain persons affiliated with the Church, this does not mean that excesses should be committed against the Church, and if this is the case I of course condemn those excesses.

I do not know if Hitler’s Table Talk is authoritative, or if it was just a work of slander. I do not know if Hitler’s Second Book is authentically authored by the German führer. Furthermore, I do not know which of the dozens of both mainstream and revisionist holocaust narratives are correct, and therefore these factors are not considerations of this article. I oppose the German eugenics program, but similar programs were also implemented within the United States and Britain, and therefore anyone who claims that Nazi Germany was unequally evil for this reason is either ill-informed or a liar. I do not believe that Hitler was a pagan, as it was Heinrich Himmler who seemed to be enamored with that. I cannot say if Hitler was Christian. Hitler seemed to be a cultural Christian, where he espoused Christian values and morality and saw these as worth preserving in the face of encroaching secularism and communism. However, these values would probably be viewed as German in origin, and not uniquely or having originated from Christianity. These quotes are not reliable, but Hitler is recounted as having said that Christianity will die with the advent of scientific progress, and that Islam would have been a preferable religion for the Germans. Again, I cannot verify the authenticity of these quotes, but I put them here so as to be honest. Yet, in Mein Kampf and in his speeches, Hitler would identify himself as a Christian. I personally do not think that Hitler was particularly in favour of or opposed to Christianity, only that it is possible that he may have retained his Christian faith. However, for Hitler, issues of race were his preeminent concern, and this in part was a product of the times in which he lived and the problems that Germany faced. Hitler viewed Germany’s problems as relating to race and racial enemies, and thus the society he created would have race as its central element, with religion on the periphery. This is an error, and we can recognize the importance of race without it being elevated above all other aspects of the self and the nation. Of the state churches, and of Positive Christianity (which was a movement in the German Reich meant to merge Nazi philosophy with Christianity), as a whole, I am opposed. At best, these were state controlled churches like those in the history of other protestant countries, and at worse they established Hitler as a religious leader equal or above that of Christ. At worst, Positive Christianity is the prototype model for what the Chinese communists today do to control their state churches.

The sins of Weimar Germany were those which cry up to Heaven demanding vengeance. In Weimar, we saw experimentation with sex change surgeries, abortion, the creation and use of pornography, blasphemy, and the normalization of homosexuality and transgenderism. Berlin was a haven of degeneracy, where people from around Europe would flock to to do drugs, drink, and use prostitutes. Prostitution was such a huge industry that to compete with each other, prostitutes would offer exotic experiences including mother-daughter teams, children, and so on. Weimar deserved to be destroyed, as Weimar was an affront to God’s goodness and the order of the cosmos. Weimar deserved and demanded Hitler, as a punishment for the sins of the nation. Germany also demanded Hitler because the German people recognized in Hitler someone who could restore morality, order, and authenticity to the Germany nation and to the state. Hitler can be likened to the beast of Revelation 17. This beast makes war and consumes the Whore of Babylon, the Whore who is said to be the mother of harlots and abominations, is blasphemous by her nature, and destroys Christians. In Revelation 17:16-17, the beast kills the whore, as it is God who puts it into the hearts of the nation to give their kingdom to the beast so as to destroy the harlot. God permitted Hitler, not as a punishment against the German people, but because Hitler was the type of leader that Germany needed at that specific time in history. The German people needed to be corrected, just as God sent prophets to the Hebrews when they had fallen victim to sin and abominations. Without Hitler, Germany’s history would most likely have come to mirror that of the Soviet Union.

Hitler, for a time, saved his nation from moral and spiritual destruction. However, as his reign progressed, we saw the Third Reich engage in acts that, to many, seem excessive. In attempting to dispassionately examine Hitler and his reign, we need to determine if these excesses repudiate the good which Hitler and the Reich accomplished. All of the 20^th century anticommunist dictatorships utilized violence to gain and then to later maintain power. The use of violence in and of itself is not immoral, and those in political power expected to be able to wield violence, when doing so is needful and for the good of the nation as a whole. Political violence and repression were the norm in the ancient, classical, medieval, and post-medieval eras, and despite what liberals today will say, it still is. All power is derived from and contingent on force, and the purpose of politics, either by persuasion or coercion, is to impose order upon a collective. Creation itself can be seen as the ultimate act of violence, as God disturbs and annihilates the tranquility of the infinite void so that all may be. Many today still seek that void and pursue the rest assured by non-existence. When General Francisco Franco took power, he ordered the execution of thousands of communists and communist sympathizers. To Franco and his government, communism represented a disease, a disease like rabbis that was incurable in the individual and if left to fester within a population, would come to eventually destroy the nation. When someone is a pedophile, a cannibal, or a murderer, these people are seen as fundamentally broken and a risk to society. Such people cannot be permitted to live within society, as they are physical threats to those around them, and are thus to be either imprisoned or killed. One can act in such a way that disqualifies them from the rights and freedoms of the nation, and of humanity as a whole, as engaging in such activities renders one truly less than human. This is not to say that such persons cannot repent and be redeemed, but that their sins/crimes by their nature render one’s life forfeit, and that it is not the job of the state to determine the condition of the repentant criminal’s heart. That is for the next life.

It was understood in Franco’s Spain that communism represented a physical threat to both the nation and the state, but that it was also a moral and spiritual threat. Today, there are many who support the incarceration or even execution of those who physically threaten the nation. Less so are those willing to say that those who threaten the morality and spirituality of the nation should likewise face repression, even of the mildest variety. Yet, it is those who attack morality and Christianity who are the greatest threat to society as although a murder may kill the body, it is the pornographer and academic who destroy souls. As such, the use of violence in Franco’s Spain, although excessive, seems to be justified. No one of right mind wants to experience or see violence and death, let alone perpetrate it, but violence and its use is the purview of power. If, as a leader, your nation is being challenged by that which itself is excessive, you are duty bound to respond not only in kind, but to the extent to which you are capable of doing so. The failure to use power in the face of evil is a greater evil than the misuse and excessive use of power that may result in the opposition of evil.

Can Hitler’s persecution of the Jews be justified? Hitler, like Franco, realized that his nation was being subverted by communists. However, Hitler realized that the force behind communism in Germany (and world communism), as well as the force that had economically demolished the nation and promoted degeneracy, had the same origin point. That was the Jews of Germany and abroad. Hitler’s “antisemitism” was not the product of blind hatred but a response to the sins and actions of the Jewish people against not only the German nation, but all nations whereupon they exerted power and influence. It was the Jewish communists who instituted the Bolshevik revolution, which ultimately resulted in the deaths of tens of millions of Russian Christians. The crimes of the Bolsheviks are documented, as is the Jewish role in those crimes, and for those living in Germany and Europe in the 1920s-30s, antisemitism and fascism/National Socialism was a natural response and self-defense against those corrosive forces. However, is the individual Jew a threat to Christian, western, or European society? It can largely be agreed that Jews in gentile societies seek to accrue power and influence, and ultimately use that power to subvert and exploit that society. However, it is difficult to maintain that the Jewish bakery owner is working to subvert German society. Alas, if Jews are seen by their nature as being dangerous subversives, we can see why some would believe that their persecution or even liquidation would be needful. There is clearly something within Jewish nature that leads them to subvert and deconstruct gentile Christian societies. Even if it is only a small number of Jews that actually come to achieve power, this trait must be present in all Jews for it to be so universal within Jewish elites. I made the argument that Jewish subversiveness is a spiritual and not biological trait. What I mean by this is that although Jewish subversiveness is a product of race, and thus transmitted biologically, it is a spiritual compulsion and not a biological one. As such, it is possible for a Jew to be liberated from his spiritual bondage if he converts to Christianity, or at the very least recognizes his nature and works to correct it. This fact I think Hitler recognized, as the persecution of the Jews was not total. Hitler protected Eduard Bloch, whom he referred to as a “noble Jew”, and some 150 000 Jews were said to have fought in the German army. It is telling that in Hitler’s life, he was able to only find one noble Jew. Considering the state of the Jewish dominated Weimar Germany, the noble Jew was an exception. The communist sympathizer in Spain who failed to condemn or even condoned the slaughter of clergy and the destruction of churches was seen as an enemy of the state and nation, even if he had not performed those acts himself. Likewise, the Jew who benefited from the sins of his countryman, and who condoned or supported them, shared in the guilt. The average Jew in Germany did not condemn Weimar but instead applauded it, and thus shared in the portion of guilt for its sins, as did many Germans who were persecuted because of their libertine Weimar proclivities.

Many Christians supported Nazi Germany, even after the war. It is common knowledge that the Vatican aided German officials in their escape to Spain or South America. Hitler was seen as a champion against the totalitarianism of Soviet communism and the decadence of western liberal democracies. To many, Nazi Germany represented a type of the traditional order, one which was imperfect yet still superior to the political and social systems found in other countries at the time. This is why although the Pope publicly condemned Nazism, he tacitly supported Nazi allies and even gave aid to German refugees after the war. This is also why the Russian Church Outside of Russia supported the German invasion of the Soviet Union, and why the armies of the Russian Liberation Army and the Kaminski Brigade were blessed and prayed for by Orthodox priests. Lastly, this is why the monks of Mount Athos kept a picture of Hitler in a place of honour, as Hitler was seen as a return to sanity from the madness of the excesses of Bolshevism and liberalism. Hitler’s mistake was that he allowed others to view him as their savior. Hitler allowed people to have him occupy the place in their heart which is reserved for Christ. We make our own antichrists when we fail to guard our heart, as such, Hitler alone is not to blame for this. I do not know the mind or heart of Adolf Hitler. I know he loved his people and wanted to create a state for them which would best accomplish their interests. The ideals of Nazi Germany are ideals I can be sympathetic to. A street cleaner in the Reich was said to have more pride than a prince of a foreign land, as in the Reich, working for and contributing to society was celebrated. The Reich celebrated the family, femininity, masculinity, and tradition, even if some argue that those things were celebrated for the wrong reasons. It does not bother me when people honour Hitler, or celebrate 1930s-40s Germany, but like all things, these must be done for reasons that are correct and not errant. Hitler became an archetype of the antichrist not in his opposition to that which is good, but because individuals came to associate him as that good. Today, those who admire Hitler, or other political figures, risk making the same error, but it must be stressed that this is our error, and the lessons we learn from Hitler’s life and reign is to serve that which is good, just as our leaders also serve this good, and that this ultimate good which we should all strive to serve is Christ.

If you are able to donate I would welcome your support on Patreon or via the crypto wallets below: https://www.patreon.com/godkingandnation

Bitcoin: bc1q3q8qaff3d2zllj3yx7jtszrs349xv4av2r8mg3

Ethererum: 0x072E4EE9268AfAA436A8f4BBdAF775b28007eCD4