Friday, July 24, 2015

Definitive Hitler quotes,204,203,200_.jpg

To supplement my older essay Hitler and Islam, I here provide some key quotes from Adolf Hitler drawn from the Table Talks (see links for each quote which all lead to the same book, each with different pagination, of course):

"Had Charles Martel not been victorious at Poitiers -- already, you see, the world had fallen into the hands of the Jews, so gutless a thing was Christianity! -- then we should in all probability have been converted to Mohammedanism, that cult which glorifies heroism and which opens the seventh Heaven to the bold warrior alone.  Then the Germanic races would have conquered the world.  Christianity alone prevented them from doing so." -- Adolf Hitler, Table Talks (p. 504).

"I can imagine people being enthusiastic about the paradise of Mahomet [Mohammed], but as for the insipid paradise of the Christians!" -- Adolf Hitler, Table Talks – (p. 111).

“...Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery." -- Adolf Hitler, Table Talks, -- (p. 111).

"Observe... that... the Mussulman [Muslim] was promised a paradise peopled with houris [virgins], where wine flowed in streams -- a real earthly paradise.  The Christians, on the other hand, declare themselves satisfied if after their death they are allowed to sing Hallelujahs!" -- Adolf Hitler, Table Talks – (p. 48).

“The fact that the Japanese have attained their political philosophy, which is one of the essential reasons for their successes, is due to their having been saved in time from the views of Christianity.  Just as in Islam, there is no kind of terrorism in the Japanese State religion, but, on the contrary, a promise of happiness.  This terrorism in religion is the product, to put it briefly, of a Jewish dogma, which Christianity has universalized and whose effect is to sow trouble and confusion in men’s minds.” Adolf Hitler, Table Talks (p. 297)

And, shades of Republican businesswoman and later vice-presidential candidate for the US Presidential race of Republican Ted Cruz, Carly Fiorina's swooning praise, just weeks after 911, of the Golden Age of Islamic Spain:

Only in the Roman Empire and in Spain under Arab domination has culture been a potent factor. Under the latter [Arab Spain], the standard of civilization attained was wholly admirable; to Spain flocked the greatest scientists, thinkers, astronomers and mathematicians of the world, and side by side flourished a spirit of sweet human tolerance and a sense of the purest chivalry. Then, with the advent of Christianity, came the barbarians.”  Adolf Hitler, Table Talks (p. 504).


Egghead said...

Long ago, I read a fantastic article critical of Islam (full of citations for that AIM you want) that said that you can learn all you need to know about religions by comparing their versions of heaven (i.e. In other words, what goal are the congregants working towards in perpetuity? What vision do the congregants have of the roles of God versus man in immortality?).

This technique enables one to easily bring the gaping chasm among religions into sharp focus.

When we look at their heavens, we clearly see that the polygamous religions of Islam and Mormonism have more in common with each other - and a sinful brothel - than Christianity. The 'powers that be' decide and fund BOTH Presidential candidates, and it was a major political victory when they 'convinced' Franklin Graham to declare Mormonism to be a Christian religion when Mormon heaven shows that it is definitively NOT a Christian religion - a point which I tried to make on Gates of Vienna but was censored from making because of the owners support of Romney.

Note: If Mormonism were a Christian religion and Romney were a great Christian candidate, why would anything that little old me said matter in the slightest?

Egghead said...

Now look at Trump who, upon recent political questioning by evangelicals, evidently stated that he has a great relationship with God BECAUSE Trump is rich. It seems that, to Trump, the very fact that Trump is rich indicates to Trump that God approves of Trump - which tells us a lot about Trump.

It is interesting to note that, historically, most world leaders have been known to FEEL as though God has placed them into power - thus indicating God's approval of their consequent actions while in power. As I recall, Hitler FELT that God protected him and approved of his actions by keeping him in power despite many assassination attempts.

Egghead said...

It is rather instructive to look at the Jewish and atheist visions of heaven for similarities. Just out of curiosity, do you know the official Jewish stance on heaven? Google it.

Here's a hint: If you lack a spiritually satisfying version of heaven, might you try to live forever as a human and create 'heaven' on earth? Like Communists try to create a Utopia on earth.... And Jews are often Communist leaders and proponents....

Egghead said...

Summary: the Christian, Jewish, and Islamic conceptions of heaven are VASTLY different - indicating that Judeo-Christian culture is an important misnomer. Jewish culture works towards an ultimate goal to 'repair' the world on earth by the act of installing 'genious' 'chosen people' Jews as leaders of a religious/racial oligarchy ruling over others who are deemed to be unchosen by God. Christian culture works towards a completely different ultimate goal to facilitate all people to spend eternity with God and fellow Christians (i.e. moral holy people) in heaven.

To Jews, God chooses religious and/or racial Jews to lead - just like to Trump, God chooses Trump (whose daughter converted to Judaism). It is a self-centered and earth-centered religion.

To Christians, Christians chose Jesus/God to be their leader as indicated by their moral Christian behavior. Thus, 'What would Jesus do?' is a legitimate question (with varying answers that are hotly debated and often twisted to be easy rather than moral and holy). It is a Jesus/God-centered and heaven-centered religion.

Egghead said...

To Muslims, Allah chose warlord Mohammed to be the final role model for ALL human morality. Thus, 'What DID (warlord) Mohammed do?' is the indisputable 'gold standard' for ALL Muslim behavior - with Allah murderously disallowing any and all questions or modifications of Mohammed's behavior as a warlord.

Muslim culture works towards the ultimate goal of establishing a worldwide oligarchy of religious Muslims ruling over others who are deemed to have consciously rejected Allah and Mohammed's moral standards codified in Sharia Law. It is a Mohammed/Allah-centered and earth-centered religion.

Egghead said...

Back to Trump: It appears that Trump has now said, 'If you can't get rich dealing with [i.e. donating money to (i.e. bribing)] politicians, there's something wrong with you.'

Which raises a few pertinent questions:

1. So, does his being rich signify that Trump has a great relationship with God - or with politicians?

2. Does Trump think that ALL rich people have a great relationship with God by virtue of their being rich? If so, this is a very Indian idea of religion (i.e., where people are born into (i.e., assigned) castes based past lives/actions/sins) If not, why not? What makes Trump different from other rich people that he has a great relationship with God - whereas they do not?

3. Taken to the extreme, does the richest person/people have the best relationship with God? If so, should the very richest person/people be the leader? If so, this is a very Jewish idea of religion (i.e., where some people are chosen by God but others are not). It is also a very Muslim idea of religion with Islam having its roots in Judaism (i.e., The richest strongman has the direct line to God who rubber stamps all of his thoughts and actions). It is also a very monarchical - and also atheist - idea of religion (i.e., The leader IS effectively the God because, without an outside moral code, the moral code is whatever 'benefits' the leader to be rich and stay in power thus signifying God's approval - with God being self.)

4. Does Trump believe the inverse that ALL poor people have a not-great relationship with God by virtue of their being poor?

5. As Trump is now a politician, does he expect to be bribed - at some future point?

6. If the subconscious mind cannot hear the word 'no' then what is wrong with Trump?

Egghead said...

Well, this fails to impress:

Egghead said...

Regarding the (rhetorical?) question:

Sometimes we ask the wrong question. The right question is 'Which assault matters more to God?!'

In the war of ideas, non-Christian leaders (and their fully compromised media INCLUDING powerful Christian priests and pastors) are waging an all-out ideological assault on traditional marriage in favor of polygamy - and it is demonstrable that polygamy leads to pedophilia.

Ok, so as I write this, it is very complicated to explain. But here goes:

As with many Westerners, it APPEARS that Trump is a serial monogamist - except, of course, when he was cheating on Ivana Trump by copulating with Marla Maples (and perhaps other 'ladies' before or after Marla). Then again, the original claim was that Trump had stopped sleeping with Ivanna for 16 months - so the marital rape would have been Trump 'cheating' on his then mistress and future 'wife' Marla Maples which is also an 'ew' moment.

Now, I put 'wife' in quotation marks here because, unless either Trump received a proper annulment from each other, in the eyes of God, Trump STILL only has ONE wife - and that wife is Ivanna.

A proper annulment is very rigorous - with scathing moral condemnation of immoral spouses. Generally, it is the ORIGINAL marriage vow that matters: we're both people sincere in their original marriage vow? If so, it is almost impossible to receive a proper annulment. Cue Henry the 8th. Luckily, Marla met a better end than Anne when Donald tired of his second 'wife'.

Egghead said...

Trump's alleged marital rape is MUCH more than a 'one time bad marriage moment.' Unless he has received a proper annulment, in the eyes of God, Trump has been and continues to live in sin with his subsequent 'wives' in serial polygamy.

Trump has literally morally raped the CONCEPT of Christian marriage. And, I think that, deep down, Trump knows it. I remember reading a long time ago - I think after his second 'wife' and before his third 'wife' - I remember reading an article about Trump where he expressed what appeared to be sincere regret about divorcing Ivanna.

Egghead said...

Now, in cases of spousal abuse, why is an annulment still important for the abused spouse to pursue? Because the CONCEPT of Christian marriage is TOO important to sanctify divorce in society over annulment.

I am confident that part of the reason that I was banned from commenting at a certain website was that the owners were personally offended that I wrote a comment that 'God intends marriage to be between one man and one woman for life.' When I wrote that comment, I was refuting the idea of 'temporary' serial polygamous (often pedophile prostitution) marriages as practiced by overseas Muslims.

But, it seems that the owners were offended because one owner was divorced and then remarried to the other owner. Thus, even potentially (still need that annulment in hand!) morally justified civil divorce becomes an impediment to describing Christian marriage on God's terms - which are clearly one man and one woman for life.

When people say they are divorced (instead of annulled), it damages the CONCEPT of Christian marriage by 'legitimizing' divorce - which used to be scandalous and rare - and by providing moral cover for people who divorce for immoral reasons.

Egghead said...

Back to Trump: Trump knew - or should have known - or his campaign advisors knew - that Trump would need to seriously address these marital rape allegations. The fact that Trump may have purposely sent his trusted lawyer out to spread the legally inaccurate message that, by 'legal' definition, husbands CANNOT rape their wives is repulsive if that is how Trump's campaign was trying to 'get ahead' of the marital rape messaging.

What Ivanna says now is largely irrelevant because she is probably a paid campaign spokeswoman at this point. What Trump says (and the spin being spun by his trusted lawyer) is important because Trump is the Presidential candidate.

All rape is bad. The word rape connotates a violent act. Is it worse to be raped by a foreign criminal stranger or your long time husband - the man who VOWED before God to love and honor you for all the days of your life? A wife should be safe in her home - and she is in a proper Godly marriage.

Hesperado said...

Thanks Egghead. Did one of your links contain the evidence for this charge --

The fact that Trump may have purposely sent his trusted lawyer out to spread the legally inaccurate message that, by 'legal' definition, husbands CANNOT rape their wives is repulsive if that is how Trump's campaign was trying to 'get ahead' of the marital rape messaging.

Or is this an inference based on indirect evidence?

Hesperado said...

Ah Egghead, sorry -- I see it probably is contained in the Daily Mail article you linked.

The concept of spousal rape (and thus being defned as illegal) is relatively recent in Western history -- though you may argue (with merit) that this recent legal development came about precisely because of the protracted breakdown of Christendom during which time the incidence of such spousal rapes was increasing so much something had to be done in the new vacuum of religious values having to a great degree decomposed. Interestingly, Islamic ulema around the world resist modern secular efforts to implement a law against spousal rape on the basis that such a law is "against Islam" (which of course, it is)>

Egghead said...

Hi Hesp,

To your point, Islamic law treats Muslim and non-Muslim girls and women as property to be dispensed in marriage which is a contract that can only be sealed by men anyway.

Additionally, girls and women may be entered into polygamous marriages without their own knowledge or permission.

In the situation where a girl or woman has NO consent over the disposition of her own body in an adult marriage between one man and one woman, then the marriage is enslavement and the marital sex is marital rape. The same is true whether the bride is Muslim - or not.

Anne Barnhardt and I disagreed mightily on that exact point - with her contending that past marriages of Christian girls 'given' by their fathers to Christian men was moral. Based on the experiences of my own great grandmother, I contend that it is patently immoral for an adult man to 'marry' a young girl and consummate said 'marriage' with a minor.

Egghead said...

Now to LC: Whether Americans rejected the 'Rape of Ivanna smear' is irrelevant. Why would you care - or cite - what sinful Americans 'feel' - and 'think' would be too strong a word - here versus other moral topics? What is relevant is that Trump's lawyer (misre)presented the idea in the national press that marital rape is legal - presumably to gain traction with the many who agree with that immoral position.

When I read the quotations attributed to Trump and his lawyer, I see a lot of 'negative' words that when removed tell the story.

It is one thing for you to present a candidate for consideration based on his merits. It is quite another to ignore or whitewash sin to promote a candidate. The very act of Trump's trusted lawyer 'promoting' marital rape as being legal is VERY sinful - especially when possibly used as a cynical well-planned campaign strategy.

Egghead said...

The act of 'promoting' marital rape as being legal is VERY sinful because the act encourages others to both sin and commit familial crime. When a husband rapes his wife, does that positively or negatively affect the children, extended family, friends, and society? Does marital rape make the world more or less Godly? Is a son who sees his father rape his mother - or sees or senses the emotional or physical devastation of that marital rape - more or less likely to rape a girl that he encounters, dates, or marries?

Egghead said...

We can look to King David as an example.

'The Bible records David's sins and weaknesses without excuse or palliation, but it also records his repentance, acts of virtue, his generosity towards Saul, his great faith, and his piety.'

Where is Trump's repentance? Virtue? Faith? Piety?

Trump should have answered the evangelical question about forgiveness differently. Trump should have humbled himself before God and dedicated himself to God in full knowledge of his own sin and frailty.

Egghead said...

Know who you are getting into bed with:

Egghead said...

Perhaps Trump is a Peronist?