Hi Pastor Bret,
I saw a comment by Snidely Whiplash on Truth Social (I saw you responded with “good argument”) that I couldn’t really figure out. I asked about it in the thread, but he hasn’t responded yet and probably won’t as it has been a couple of days and it is likely buried under lots of other comments he gets.
I understand everything up to the metaphor he uses: “Or you can take their weapon from them, grind it into powder, and force them to drink it.”
I don’t have a problem with people who wish to correct the historical narrative about Hitler in comparison to the other leaders of his day (FDR, Churchill, Stalin, Mao, Mussolini, etc.), but that is a matter of scholarship and education.
What I don’t understand is the political tactic of rehabilitating Hitler, National Socialism, Nazi Germany, etc. I don’t see how maximizing Nazi good and minimizing Nazi evil; or trolling the opposition by flinging Nazi symbols or figures or books and what not into their face, presents a clear path to victory. Where does Scripture indicate that the people of God should embrace rather than refute malicious propaganda? Did the early Christians call themselves cannibals because the pagans did? Atheists? Fornicators? They usually turned such arguments against their accusers. I get that not all the Nazis did was evil, but when people think of Nazis they only think of their evil, which is the point of using the term disparagingly. The only analogy I can think of (I said this in my question) is blacks calling themselves niggers to co-opt whites calling them that. But what has it gotten them? Those who have taken up this identifier have tended to drift into the worst of black culture, and not anything redeemable.
What is worse, there do appear to be people (who knows how many) that aren’t just interested in the ideological battle, but want to rehabilitate political policies of National Socialism, Norse paganism, etc. who are happy to latch on to momentum gained by Christians capable of building something much better without that slag (as it seems the Ogden men are doing on the ground in Utah).
I know it wasn’t your post, but I thought you might have some insight, especially as a minister who has fought many battles against the religious and political Left.
Best,
Hello Alexander,
Thank you for writing.
When Snidely wrote,
“Or you can take their weapon from them, grind it into powder, and force them to drink it.”
I took that to mean that we can take the accusation of “racist” or “anti-semite” from our enemies, grind it into powder, and force them to drink it.” In my understanding that would be done by forcing them to realize what social order our enemies have created by making a shibboleth out of the catcalls “racist,” and “anti-semite.”
Maybe you are not aware but just recently here on Iron Ink I wrote on the folly of “rehabilitating Hitler.”
Continued Observations on the Protestant Regnant Folly’s Nazi Fever
The fact that I added “good argument” was centered on the idea that accusations of being “Nazi” shouldn’t make us quiver and shake if only because we both know it’s not true that we are “Nazis”, and because we know that “Nazi” is being used as a illegitimate way to “win” an argument. Personally, I think the best way to respond to being called a “Nazi,” is by simply casting it back in their teeth by calling them “AntiChrist,” or “destroyers of the West,” or, even “Marxist pigs,” would do fine. Certainly, we have to agree that something has to be done to take the sting out of these silly accusations that the Commie left throws at us.
I end here by saying I am beginning to appreciate the tight spot the Germans of the 1930s was in. Their only real options were Communism, National Socialism, or carrying on with the Weimar Republic – a Republic that was a unmitigated disaster. I can truthfully say that if someone put a gun to my head and said, “you have only two choices… Communism or National Socialism,” I’d choose National Socialism. Fortunately, I don’t have a gun to my head and I’m still holding out hope that a social order based on Biblical Christianity that teaches a plurality of governmental centers that don’t allow for the state becoming God walking on the earth (as was found in both National Socialism and Communism) may yet win out.
Thanks for the question Alexander. I hope it answered your question.
“Rehabilitate political policies of National Socialism, Norse paganism, etc.”?
It had already been done by the Fuhrer:
“Hitler had almost as little fondness for Nietzsche as he had for Ludendorff’s and Rosenberg’s ersatz religions. As became evident at a strained visit to Nietzsche’s sister Elisabeth, Hitler was not at all an admirer of the philosopher. (According to Sluga, Hitler’s real philosophical heroes were Schopenhauer and especially Richard Wagner, with whose politics Nietzsche violently disagreed.) Hitler’s mentor Dietrich Eckart had rejected Nietzsche as early as 1917: “We Germans, who profess through and through our faith in the Christian worldview, reject this despiser of our religious foundations.” p. 111.
Richard Stiegmann-Gall, ‘The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity 1919-1945’