𝐍𝐒_𝐇𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐧𝐫𝐲_𝐄𝐱𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐚𝐝𝐝𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐍𝐚𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐛𝐲 𝐇𝐢𝐭𝐥𝐞𝐫
Ｐａｒｔ （２／２）

The entire thrust of this portion of Hitler's 1937 speech was that humans are subject to nature, who alone dictates morality:

“For only then [if the instinct for self-preservation could be eliminated] could one try to let the statutes of a League of Nations or Geneva system take the place of the law of the ALL-POWERFUL NATURE (Allgewalt Natur), valid since the beginning of all life on this Earth. But just as the immutable laws of Nature governing the preservation of life have until now been decisive for humanity’s struggle for existence, so too will they remain so in the future." [3]

Hitler still relied on the righteous judgment of Providence. Germans would have to prove themselves worthy of his divine help:

"The Almighty will be the just judge. Our task, however, is to fulfill our duty in such a way that we are able to stand before him as the creator of all worlds according to the law of struggle for existence given by him, that we spare no life without ever despairing and shun no labour in order to preserve the life of our people for the future." [4]

Finally, Hitler had told Otto Wagner that: "it is only in the freedom of nature that a human being can also open himself to a higher morality and a higher ethic." [5]

Hitler did not construe prayer as talking to a personal God. Rather, he thought that knowing and following the laws of nature paved the true path to success. Since Hitler said what created the Laws of Nature and matter itself is unknowable instead of simply confessing it to be the Christian God, this creates a lot of nuance surrounding if Hitler was truly a Christian. The evidence indicates he was not.

Source:
[1] BArch NS 18/1432 Die Führer-Rede auf der Kulturtagung 6.9.1938 p.21
[2] Rede am 3. Oktober 1941 in Berlin Eröfinung des WHW in Der großdeutsche Freiheitskampf: Reden Adolf Hitlers vom 16. März 1941 bis 15. März 1942 (Zentralverlag der NSDAP., Franz Eher Nachf., 1944) p.87
[3] Reden des Führers am Parteitag der Arbeit 1937 (Zentralverlag der NSDAP., Franz Eher Nachf., 1938) p.87
[4] Völkischer Beobachter, 31. Januar 1943, p.2
[5] Hitler: Memoirs of a Confidant by Otto Wagener p.279

SEE: HITLER ON CHRISTIANITY CONTRADICTING NATURAL LAW

𝐅𝐔𝐑𝐓𝐇𝐄𝐑 𝐎𝐌𝐈𝐓𝐓𝐄𝐃 𝐂𝐎𝐍𝐓𝐄𝐗𝐓 𝐈𝐍𝐓𝐎 𝐇𝐈𝐓𝐋𝐄𝐑'𝐒 𝐂𝐎𝐍𝐂𝐄𝐏𝐓 𝐎𝐅 𝐆𝐎𝐃 𝐅𝐑𝐎𝐌 𝐖𝐀𝐆𝐄𝐍𝐄𝐑
Ｐａｒｔ （１／２）

Obviously, Hitler was not referring to Jesus as the Logos who became flesh, because he is not describing the Logos as God becoming an individual human. Rather, for him, the Logos was a God who is closely interconnected with the cosmos, “pervading” the entire world:

"For me, God is the Logos of St.John, which has become flesh and LIVES IN THE WORLD, interwoven with it and pervading it, conferring on it drives and driving force, and constituting the actual meaning and content of the world."

Hitler specifically stated that his interpretation of the Logos is pagan. In no sense does he imply that the Logos is conceptually related to Jesus or Yahweh. Hitler also believes that the Bible, Hell, Heaven and Purgatory are nonsense and distortions of the historical figure of Christ:

“Perhaps the adherents of the Roman Church would call this ‘paganism.’ That may well be so. In that case, Christ was a pagan. I call pagan their distortions of Christ’s ideas and teachings, their cults, THEIR CONCEPTION OF HELL AND PURGATORY AND HEAVEN, and their worship of saints. None of the religions of antiquity, no Negroid idolatry, not even the most primitive sects of the Mohammedan, Indian, or Chinese religions has created so many gods and auxiliary' deities as the Roman Church."

Furthermore, Hitler defined the Logos of John as an “urge” to procreate and fulfill the purpose of life, which is synonymous with the Wille of Schopenhauer's philosophy. This is obviously not a Christian concept:

“In this connection, I am repeatedly reminded of the Gospel of St. John, which begins with the words, ‘In the beginning was the “Logos” ’—which is why I translate it as ‘urge.’ Quite simply, in the beginning was the urge to fulfill this purpose of earthly life. From it, the instinct of self-preservation developed logically, as did the instinct to be fruitful and multiply. They are meant to carry out this task presented by nature, this meaning of all life, as long and as abundantly as possible—that is, to the greatest conceivable extent."

𝐅𝐔𝐑𝐓𝐇𝐄𝐑 𝐎𝐌𝐈𝐓𝐓𝐄𝐃 𝐂𝐎𝐍𝐓𝐄𝐗𝐓 𝐈𝐍𝐓𝐎 𝐇𝐈𝐓𝐋𝐄𝐑'𝐒 𝐂𝐎𝐍𝐂𝐄𝐏𝐓 𝐎𝐅 𝐆𝐎𝐃 𝐅𝐑𝐎𝐌 𝐖𝐀𝐆𝐄𝐍𝐄𝐑
Ｐａｒｔ （２／２）

For those who had bothered to read through the book they would have noticed Wagener was “crestfallen” at Hitler's rejection of Christianity and his advocacy of ethnocentrism and Darwinism:

"I was crestfallen. For the first time, I understood clearly the difference between my way of thinking and his [Hitler's]. I was a socialist, an advocate of cooperation, a Christian, even in reference to the relationship and cooperation among nations and peoples beyond their own borders; and he was a national socialist, a “Zeissist,” a nationalist of the English stamp, whose socialist thinking was only for his Volk and within his own Volk. Toward the rest of the world, however, he was, in the last analysis, a crass economic liberalist, egotist, and imperialist."

Hitler believed that the body of Jesus' was removed from the tomb, which is contrary to the idea of the divine resurrection:

“Immediately after the death of Christ, whom the reactionaries crucified, they set about exterminating, at least imprisoning and depriving of their rights, all those who had accepted Christ before his death. Christ’s body was removed from the tomb, to keep it from becoming an object of veneration and a tangible relic of the great new founder of a religion!"

Nevertheless, the only thing that would resurrect would be the teachings of socialism itself as Hitler is purported to say.

Source: Otto Wagener, Hitler—Memoirs of a Confidant, ed. Henry Ashby Turner, trans. Ruth Hein (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985) p.164, p.224, p.314, p.316

WAGENER'S RECOLLECTIONS ARE CONSISTENT WITH HITLER'S 1944 SPEECH

𝐈𝐧𝐚𝐜𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐂𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐫𝐲𝐩𝐢𝐜𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞 "𝐂𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐈𝐧 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐫𝐝 𝐑𝐞𝐢𝐜𝐡"

In 1:20:05, it says that "Hitler and Rosenberg were no fans of Horbiger's work" (called it "occultism" in the video) and although this is true for Rosenberg, this cannot be said for Hitler. Hence why no quotation could be provided for it. In July 1938, Himmler had written: "I state clearly and unequivocally: I advocate for free research in all forms, and therefore also for the free research of the World Ice Theory. I even intend to warmly support this free research and find myself in good company, as the Führer and Chancellor of the German Reich, Adolf Hitler, has been a convinced supporter of this doctrine, scorned by the guilds of science, for many years." [1] An SS document from Himmler's personal staff Rudolf Brandt in August 1942 also shows that in the spring of 1942, Hitler told Himmler the harsh winter of 1941–42 and other recent climatic conditions convinced him more than ever that the World Ice Theory of Hörbiger was correct: "In the spring of this year, the Führer stated in a conversation with the Reichsführer that the harsh winter of this year and also the climatic developments of the last few years had led him more and more to the conviction that Hörbiger's World Ice Theory was correct." [2] Which means according to the wording by the writers of this video, Hitler believed in "occultist" cosmology.

An example of cherrypicking in the video is shown at 1:22:05 when Albert Speer is used as a source to accurately portray Hitler's private thoughts. In the same source that the video is citing, it completely demolishes the entire premise of the video when Albert Speer recollects Hitler saying: "You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?" [3] Disagreeing with Himmler's fascination with excavation of Germanic prehistory isn't evidence in itself that Hitler was somehow Christian as when we look further down into the context, Hitler didn't want the historical inadequacy of our German forefathers to be revealed: "All we prove by that is that we were still throwing stone hatchets and crouching around open fires when Greece and Rome had already reached the highest stage of culture. We really should do our best to keep quiet about this past. Instead Himmler makes a great fuss about it all. The present-day Romans must be having a laugh at these revelations." [4]

Of course, we cannot forget in 1:26:26 the forged interviews that still remain sourceless to this day by the original people that posted it. The video talks about a Gudrun Himmler interview in 1992 that is so weirdly contradictory to all historical documents possible. When confronting the original website that posted these "interviews" about the actual source, they said: "Ultimately, if some armchair internet historian doesn't believe they are real, and some teenage history genius made it all up, that's fine with us. We don't really care." hence no type of academic recording exists and it only exists on a niche satanic website.

Interestingly, the video also mentioned what Goebbels wrote in his diary in 1939 and their best argument was "does this sound like something Hitler would say?" instead of actually addressing the substance of the source itself. The next sentence afterwards was "or was Goebbels simply hearing what he wanted to hear" the issue with this baseless argument is the fact that what Goebbels writes can directly be corroborated by other independent sources. Alfred Rosenberg too, in his memoirs, noted that "Göbbels kept a diary on his talks with the Führer ..." [5]

Source:
[1] NARA, RG 242, T-175, Roll 68 US National Archives and Records Administration, Washington, DC (NARA) p.372-373
[2] ibid, p.365
[3] Inside the Third Reich by Albert Speer p.96
[4] ibid, p.94-95
[5] Memoirs by Alfred Rosenberg

𝐍𝐒_𝐇𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐧𝐫𝐲_𝐄𝐱𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐜𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐂𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐨𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐨 𝐍𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐒𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐦

Friedrich von Rabenau was notoriously known for being against National Socialism. However, that's not solely the key point, the key point is the fact that Rabenau was anti-NS on the basis of Christianity. Rabenau had connections to the people behind the July 20 bomb plot:

"Von Rabenau had been an early intermediary between Beck’s resistance group and some of the leading generals who tried in 1940 to influence Brauchitsch. In March 1941 Hassell and Goerdeler discussed with von Rabenau whether Brauchitsch could be approached again. Before 20 July Goerdeler regularly sent von Rabenau as a trusted emissary to the individual generals. Retired from active service in 1942, the old general had completed a degree at the theological faculty of Berlin University and added the licentiate to his honorary doctorate. The Reich Central Security Office had tracked down von Rabenau as a friend of Goerdeler’s; like Bonhoeffer, he was executed in Flossenbürg." [1] Eduard Spranger, who had knew and talked to Rabenau, recalls him saying in 1944 that: "we had no way of getting rid of the Hitler government by force; we would have to go along with it to the bitter end ..." [2] Should we really take Rabenau's word on what can possibly be doctrine? Rabenau has always before and after the rise and fall of the Third Reich been connected with Christianity. For this very reason, he became a theologian.

It appears that Friedrich von Rabenau's theology studies in 1943 greatly helped him in attacking Hitler and the NS government as Goebbels writes in his diary that: "General von Rabenau, who was dismissed as the head of the Reich Archive and now wants to study theology in order to oppose the Führer. What kind of generals are these! They don't hesitate to accept pensions from the state, but they still want to fight against the state and the regime." [3] This is shown to be true as in Friedrich von Rabenau's lay sermons in 1944, he states that: "Others want to replace religion with a worldview. That simply won't do. Religion and worldview are not on the same level. They cannot even be in opposition; unless one makes the childish attempt to deify humanity. A worldview as a substitute for religion means substituting the finite for the infinite." [4]

A more authoritative source would be Gauleiter Friedrich Schmidt Head of the NSDAP Training Office, who wrote in direct contradiction of Rabenau:

"We National Socialists profess our allegiance to the eternal, divine, immutable, and inviolable laws of the moral order of creation, which apply equally to the life of the individual and to the life of nations. We profess our allegiance to the laws of race, blood, and heredity [...] we National Socialists are those who are closer to God because we experience and acknowledge God's laws within ourselves as laws that, through the will of God, serve and operate as forms and expressions of our lives." [5]

Of course, if we wish to point out what's published in the NSDAP publishing house, we can gladly point to: HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE just to name a few.

Source:
[1] Dietrich Bonhoeffer: a biography by Eberhard Bethge p. 919-920
[2] BArch N 62/93 Erinnerungsbericht von Eduard Spranger über Rabenau 1946 p.37
[3] Die Tagebücher von Joseph Goebbels: Band 7 Januar - März 1943 Teil II p.180-181
[4] BArch N 62/112 Laienpredigten p.153
[5] Der Hoheitsträger Weltanschauung, Religion, Konfession: Ein Kampfbericht vom weltanschaulichen Kräftefeld 2. Jahrg. (1938), Folge III p.4 and p.7

𝐍𝐒_𝐇𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐧𝐫𝐲_𝐄𝐱𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐬𝐞𝐞𝐦 𝐭𝐨 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐫𝐞 𝐩𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐚 𝐭𝐞𝐱𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐦𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐛𝐞 𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐫𝐲𝐩𝐢𝐜𝐤𝐞𝐝
Dishonesty on clear display

NSHE claims NSHeathenry has done minimal research on the passage regarding the 1934 diary entry while also doing exactly that. Mikael Nilsson claims that it was "probably, a sort of an inside joke." but what is Nilsson's source for this specifically? Nothing. Yet NSHE can say with confidence that it does not have any type of anti-christian overtone. While of course, this isn't meant to literally mean he was a Germanic pagan in the sense, its still outlined that this remark of being a pagan is still consistent with his views on Christianity. The full passage reads as follows:

"Now, with a laugh, he repeatedly emphasized that he has been a pagan all along, and the time has come when the Christian poisoning is approaching its end. These remarks have remained top secret, but recently a Berlin society woman has been proudly gossiping about them." [1]

NSHE cannot address the fact that the diaries have been used in the Nuremberg files and have been photocopied and archived ever since. When we see the photocopies of any anti-christian passage in Rosenberg's diary and compare it with the originals, it shows that there has been no textual change. There isn't a scholarly basis for which Alfred Rosenberg's diary isn't authentic. In fact, it seems as though NSHE likes to ignore the fact that Mikael Nilsson wrote that:

"There are also other published sources that have been helpful to me when writing this book. For example, the very extensive diaries of the Gau leader of Berlin and later Propaganda Minister, Joseph Goebbels. These are now available almost in their entirety courtesy of the IfZ; the only exceptions are the extremely few cases where the glass plate negatives (on which the diaries had been photographed) have degenerated over time and become illegible. [...] Another important source consists of the diaries of Alfred Rosenberg , which only rather recently became available in their entirety to historians. Rosenberg’s diaries are of course problematic, just like the rest of these sources, and the utterances ascribed to Hitler simply cannot be uncritically cited as being correct and verbatim. Nonetheless, together with other independent sources they offer important insights into Hitler ’s mind (and of course into the minds of the authors themselves) and his thinking on religious matters." [2]

Strangely, Nilsson does not go over the plethora of entries inside Goebbels's diary of Hitler either rejecting Christianity as a whole or its core doctrines. Until then, they will continue to be cited as we and Nilsson know that they are authentic records. Nilsson talks about forged sources such as the supposed Hitler poems and the 'Hitler diaries' by Konrad Kujau. [3] It was only by forensic evidence that they have been debunked, yet, after all these years, there is zero forensic evidence that the Goebbels/Rosenberg diaries are forged.

Source:
[1] 1749-PS [Handwritten Alfred Rosenberg Diary for the 14 May, 1934 - 18 March, 1935 Time Period] p.28 (Transcription done in Das politische Tagebuch Alfred Rosenbergs aus den Jahren 1934/35 und 1939/40 by Hans-Günther Seraphim 1956 p.32)
[2] Christianity in Hitler's Ideology by Mikael Nilsson (PDF pages 18-19)
[3] ibid, (PDF page 17)

𝐃𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 '𝐒𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐭 𝐟𝐚𝐛𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧' 𝐥𝐢𝐞
vindicating Goebbels's diary entries on Christianity

As we know, multiple different countries obtained and archived Goebbels's original diary rather it be through the glass plates or the actual paper entries. The American 'Hoover institute' managed to obtain the original notebooks of Goebbels from 1925–26 in the Führerbunker and have also obtained the original 1942–1943 typewritten entries from Lieutenant Colonel William Heimlich in 1946-1947 [1] these listed entries have been stored in the Hoover Archives since then.

Subsequently, the publication of these original 1942–1943 dairies happened in 1948 by Louis P. Lochner with the help of the Hoover institute. In the publisher's note of the book, Huge Gibson wrote: "The publishers regret that it was possible to make use of only a small part of the original material in a single volume. The level of interest could have been maintained if far more space had been available. The original diaries will serve as source material for many future writers, and to this end they are to be deposited in the Hoover War Library at Stanford University where they will be accessible to the public. It is hoped that this will result in further translations and publications." [2] Thus, the source of these diaries listed aren't from the soviet archives. Goebbels had ordered for his diaries to be copied in the form of microfiche onto glass plates [3] then these same glass plates were later found unopened in the Soviet archives.

In a May 1943 diary entry, Goebbels records Hitler thoroughly rejecting the Christian teaching of salvation. When we compare the originals from the Hoover institute with the later founded glass plate version, we can see that this entry is entirely authentic which shows Hitler was not a Christian. [4] [5]
[SEE IMAGE]

We have no scholarly reason to believe that the original diary entries of the great Joseph Goebbels is faked/edited based on direct cross reference of multiple sources.

Source:
[1] Curse of the Goebbels Diaries by Bertrand M. Patenaude August 13, 2012
[2] The Goebbels Diaries, 1942–1943. Edited, translated, and with an introduction by Louis P. Lochner. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1948 [See May 1943 anti-christian entry here]
[3] Joseph Goebbels und sein Tagebuch: Zu den handschriftlichen Aufzeichnungen von 1924 bis 1941 von Elke Fröhlich Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte Jahrgang 35 (1987) Heft 4 p.498–499
[4] NARA, RG 242, T-84, Roll 264 p.259
[5] BArch N 1118/54 Tagebuch-Aufzeichnungen p.375

𝐇𝐎𝐖 𝐂𝐇𝐑𝐈𝐒𝐓𝐈𝐀𝐍𝐒 𝐏𝐎𝐈𝐒𝐎𝐍 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐌𝐎𝐕𝐄𝐌𝐄𝐍𝐓 𝐖𝐈𝐓𝐇 𝐅𝐀𝐋𝐒𝐈𝐅𝐈𝐂𝐀𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍

For the sake of defending the Honor of National Socialism, we will go through one out of the many examples of Christian "National Socialists" injecting their way of thought into already formulated doctrines.

The idea that a non-white can be just as American as a White person of good character is a fundamentally anti-National Socialist talking point. Why? Because the foundations of America was built only for white men by White men. Even those who were foreign residents to America but White were able to be citizens.

ASSIMILATION IS AGAINST BLOOD AND SOIL

Hitler writes in Mein Kampf:
"But it’s an almost inconceivable mental error to think that a Negro or a Chinese will become a German because he has learned the German language and is willing to speak it in the future, or even that he will vote for a German political party. Our bourgeois nationalists could never clearly see that any such Germanization is in reality a de-Germanization. Even if today all the obvious differences between the various peoples could be bridged over and finally wiped out by the use of a common language, that would begin a process of bastardization that, in our case, wouldn’t signify Germanization but rather the DESTRUCTION of the German element. [...] That which makes a people, or better, a race, is not language but blood. Therefore it would only be justifiable to speak of Germanization if that process could change the blood of the subjected people. But this is impossible. A change would be possible only by a mixture of blood, but in this case the quality of the superior race would be debased. The final result of such a mixture would be the destruction of precisely those qualities that enabled the conquering race to achieve victory."

Assimilation will be the death of our race. A great example is when historically, Christians assimilated jews into society as long as they became confessing Christians/Baptism. Hitler actually mentions this in Mein Kampf:

"[Christian] anti-Semitism didn't upset the Jews very much, simply because it had a purely religious foundation. If worst came to worst, a few drops of baptismal water could always save the Jew and the business at the same time."

An order for a National Socialist who professes Christianity to be consistent in the area of the worldview itself, he must also profess the racial idea. Without it, its not National Socialism, but nothing else. As race is the basis of our humanity and development. Hitler writes:

"Generally speaking, we must not forget that the highest aim of human existence is not the maintenance of a state of government, but rather the preservation of the species."

National Socialism will forever be in our hearts and our selfless defense of it is rooted in the common good before the individual.

𝐇𝐈𝐓𝐋𝐄𝐑 𝐖𝐀𝐒 𝐀 𝐃𝐀𝐑𝐖𝐈𝐍𝐈𝐒𝐓
NS_Heathenry_Exposed grasping at straws

Another reason why the dubious document of the Protocols of Zion is bullshit even though some contents of it can be seen as consistent with jewish world domination, is the fact that parts of it that is so often cherrypicked by NSHE is what Hitler actually believed in. Prime example being Charles Darwin.

Hitler primarily believed in these two Darwinian concepts; Struggle for Existence and Natural Selection. Both of these concepts are thoroughly intertwined with the biology behind National Socialism. Belief in Darwinism does not necessarily contradict the idea of believing in God either.

In a 1944 speech at the Wolfs Lair, Hitler said:
"for what is called a world-view is in reality nothing other than knowledge of the world, i.e. knowledge of the primitive laws according to which human cultures and people have developed, but also according to which the whole universe and life in general develops: all are in accordance to the laws of struggle and NATURAL SELECTION. This means that the natural selection of life must not be artificially blocked and locked up, but that the way must be cleared for this natural selection."

A year before that, Hitler had professed that we ought to follow the Struggle for existence given by a higher power:
"The Almighty will be the just judge. Our task, however, is to fulfill our duty in such a way that we are able to stand before him as the creator of all worlds according to the law of struggle for existence given by him, that we spare no life without ever despairing and shun no labour in order to preserve the life of our people for the future."

Even all the way back to 1933, Hitler had quoted the work of prominent Darwinist Ernst Haeckel almost word for word:
"The gulf between the lowest creature which can still be styled man and our highest races is greater than that between the lowest type of man and the highest ape."

Hitler had confirmed all of this to Otto Wagener when he is recalled to have said:
"Everywhere in life only a process of selection can prevail. Among the animals, among plants, wherever observations have been made, basically the stronger, the better survives. The simpler life forms have no written constitution. Selection therefore runs a natural course. As Darwin correctly proved: the choice is not made by some agency—nature chooses. [...] That is the will of nature. What is healthy abhors that which is sick, the productive abhors the life of the drone, purposeful striving abhors indifferent depravity."

For more posts on Hitler's belief in Darwinism, see: HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE

Official endorsement of Darwinism from NSDAP sources
1.) The Völkischer Beobachter endorsed prominent Darwinist Ernst Haeckel as establishing the biology behind National Socialism
2.) File from the Reichssicherheitshauptamt endorsing Darwinism to be applied into the Waffen-SS
3.) Head of the Office of Racial Policy Walter Gross said the law of selection rules all of nature

If, we are to take NSHE's word implying that being a Darwinist does not make you Christian, then that is all the more a great concession that Hitler was not a Christian. It appears as though Christian larpers on telegram fear racial science.

𝐖𝐀𝐒 𝐃𝐀𝐑𝐖𝐈𝐍𝐈𝐒𝐌 𝐁𝐀𝐍𝐍𝐄𝐃 𝐈𝐍 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐓𝐇𝐈𝐑𝐃 𝐑𝐄𝐈𝐂𝐇?
The supposed ban of "primitive Darwinism" explained

NSHE cites the supposed ban on Darwinism, but further investigation into this shows that this is not a universal ban on Darwinism and its teachings as racial research is based upon it. The very source (Die Bücherei) used to prove there was a ban on Darwinism did the exact opposite. This is thoroughly explained:

"A much stronger piece of evidence that Richards and others have brought forward to contest the view that Nazis were Darwinists is a list of categories of forbidden books published in the periodical Die Bücherei in 1935. [1] This list, compiled for libraries in Saxony, included several categories of works that should be banned, including: “Works of worldview or biological character whose content is the superficial scientific enlightenment of a primitive Darwinism and monism (Haeckel and those emulating him, as well as Ostwald).” [2] Richards insists that this evidence seals his case that the Nazis rejected Darwinism. But does it? First of all, most historians recognize that the Nazi system was polycratic and Nazis often disagreed among themselves. Thus a Saxon official issuing a banned book list is important, but not decisive, evidence; it must be weighed in light of other evidence. Secondly, this statement does not ban Darwinism per se, but “primitive Darwinism and monism.” Many Nazis rejected Haeckel’s and Ostwald’s monism, not because it contained evolutionary theory, but because Haeckel’s Monist League, especially in the 1920s and early 1930s, had tilted toward socialism, pacifism, feminism, and other doctrines contrary to the Nazi worldview. [3] Finally, the same periodical that published the banned book list also published book reviews and recommended books that libraries should buy. In 1934 they published an article on books dealing with race and eugenics. They recommended that libraries acquire books expressly teaching biological evolution, such as Martin Staemmler’s Rassenpflege im völkischen Staat, the famous Baur-Fischer-Lenz work on human genetics and eugenics, and Günther’s Rassenkunde des deutschen Volkes. [4] This journal also approved many other works that promoted evolutionary theory. [5] Apparently the journal Die Bücherei not only did not think books should be banned simply because they contain Darwinism or evolutionary theory, but, on the contrary, they recommended that libraries acquire books teaching Darwinism."

As we can see in the image ^, Darwin was still promoted as a valid figure and compatible with National Socialism.

Source:
[1] Richards, Tragic Sense of Life, 446–47; Richards, “Was Hitler a Darwinian?”
[2] “Richtlinien für die Bestandsprüfung in den Volksbüchereien Sachsens,” Die Bücherei: Zeitschrift für deutsche Schrifttumspflege 2 (1935): 279–80.
[3] Richard Weikart, “‘Evolutionäre Aufklärung’? Zur Geschichte des Monistenbundes” in Wissenschaft, Politik, und Öffentlichkeit: Von der Wiener Moderne bis zur Gegenwart, ed. Mitchell G. Ash and Christian H. Stifter (Vienna: WUV Universitätsverlag, 2002), 131–48.
[4] “Zu unserm Sonderverzeichnis: Rassenpflege, warum und wie?” Die Bücherei 1, no. 1 (1934): 46.
[5] Review of Edgar Dacqué, Urweltkunde Süddeutschlands, in Die Bücherei 3 (1936): 278; Hermann Eisner, review of Erich Schneider, Entwicklungsgeschichte der naturwissenschaftlichen Weltanschauung von der griechischen Naturphilosophie bis zur modernen Vererbungslehre, in Die Bücherei 4 (1937): 67–68; Hermann Propach, review of Theodor Schmucker, Geschichte der Biologie: Forschung und Lehre, in Die Bücherei 5 (1938): 626–27; Margarethe Kölle, review of Bruno Gebhard, ed., Wunder des Lebens, in Die Bücherei 5 (1938): 620.
[Cited in The Role of Darwinism in Nazi Racial Thought | German Studies Review 36.3 (2013): 537–556]

𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐍𝐒𝐃𝐀𝐏 𝐀𝐃𝐃𝐑𝐄𝐒𝐒𝐄𝐃 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐂𝐋𝐀𝐈𝐌 𝐎𝐅 𝐃𝐀𝐑𝐖𝐈𝐍𝐈𝐒𝐌 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐁𝐄𝐋𝐈𝐄𝐅 𝐈𝐍 𝐆𝐎𝐃

The Völkischer Beobachter, published an article that honored Darwin's contributions to evolutionary theory. A 1932 article, “Darwin,” claimed that Darwin’s theory was the theoretical foundation for eugenics and racial theory:

"There is no longer any significant controversy surrounding the doctrine of descent, at least not here in Germany. All sides have long recognized that it is pointless to deny the Christian belief in creation in its name (as "proletarian freethinkers" and "Muscovite godless" still do today), nor conversely, to deny the doctrine of descent out of supposed religious self-interest. God could and can create the world of life by whatever means he chooses; our only task is to investigate retrospectively how it might have come about. [...] The meritorious work of German racial hygienists (Schallmanner, Ploey, Lenz, Fischer, etc.) has already opened the eyes of wide circles to the true state of affairs, and we will help to convey the results of racial biological research, so extraordinarily important for the regeneration of our people and for which DARWIN PAVED THE WAY, to the broadest sections of the population. In doing so, we are laying good groundwork for the racial renewal of the German people and at the same time honoring the great naturalist and scholar Charles Darwin in the best possible way."

The text explains how its pointless to deny Christian creation in specifically the godless sense in the same way Christians deny evolution from a religious "self-interest". It's addressing both opposing sides of irrational logic.

Source: Prof. Dr. B., “Darwin,” Rasse, Volk und Staat: Rassenhygienisches Beiblatt, in Völkischer Beobachter 15, Juni 1932, Folge 2, 167 Ausgabe, Seite 1

𝐇𝐈𝐓𝐋𝐄𝐑 "𝐇𝐀𝐓𝐄𝐃" 𝐏𝐀𝐆𝐀𝐍𝐒?
A Closer look at the relevant context surrounding Mein Kampf

A commonly used quote thrown at National Socialists who do not adhere to the Christian faith is a quote regarding religious reformers of ancient Germanic custom. This quote supposedly makes Hitler seem like he hated ancient German culture or anyone who professed it, however the context suggests Hitler is targeting religious zealots that do not fight for a national upheaval of the nation but their own religious delusions.

"It’s highly distasteful to toss around old Germanic expressions that are neither appropriate for our present day, nor represent anything concrete. This deceives people into thinking that the importance of movement lies in its external vocabulary. This is a real menace, and unfortunately is quite prevalent today. At that time, and later, I had to warn followers repeatedly against these German folklore-ish wandering scholars who never accomplished anything positive or practical, except to cultivate their own overflowing self-conceit."

Hitler goes on about how the jew respects these same "folk-lore comedians" as they are not revolutionaries themselves. Without a national movement against all current powers, it would only make you incompetent. The talk of religious purity leads people away from the jewish question:

"Among those people, it’s often hard to distinguish between those who are merely stupid and incompetent, and those who have a definite rationale. My impression, especially with the so-called religious reformers based on ancient Germanic customs, is that they are sent by those who don’t wish to see a national revival of our people. Their whole activity leads people away from the common struggle against the common enemy, the Jew. This causes people to waste their strength on senseless and ruinous religious controversies."

Nowhere in the entire passage is Hitler mocking the ancient Germanic faith itself, only its contemporary adherents who do nothing for the revolutionary racial movement. This is further shown by the fact that Hitler respected the culture of pre-christian Germans: "It’s therefore outrageously unjust to speak of the pre-Christian Germans as ‘cultureless,’ as barbarians. They never have been that."

𝐇𝐢𝐭𝐥𝐞𝐫 𝐡𝐚𝐝 𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐳𝐞𝐝 𝐂𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐬

In Mein Kampf, Hitler had pointed out this same problem in Christians as they are not directly fighting the jew and infighting over religious controversies. Along with being indifferent to racial mixing:

"This pestilential contamination of the blood, blindly ignored by hundreds of thousands of our people, is being systematically conducted by the Jew today. These black parasites of our nation systematically corrupt our innocent blond girls and thus destroy something irreplaceable in this world. Both, yes, both Christian denominations look on with indifference at the desecration and destruction of a noble and unique creature who was given to the world by God’s grace. The future of the world, however, doesn’t depend on whether Protestants defeat Catholics, or Catholic Protestants; what matters is whether Aryan humanity survives or perishes. And yet the two Christian denominations are not fighting against the destroyer of this kind of man but are trying to destroy each other. The folkish oriented man has a sacred duty, within his own denomination, to make people stop talking about God's will and instead actually fulfill God’s will, and to not let God's work be desecrated."

Just as Hitler says, what matters is if the biological humanity of Aryans is maintained and preserved, not if one particular faith in the native German people is true or not.

Source: Mein Kampf, p.416-417, p.613, p.449 (See also p.460)

SEE: HITLER'S STANCE ON FAITH THROUGH PERSONAL CONSCIENCE

𝐎𝐓𝐓𝐎 𝐒𝐊𝐎𝐑𝐙𝐄𝐍𝐘 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐓𝐀𝐁𝐋𝐄 𝐓𝐀𝐋𝐊𝐒
A strangely cited passage from NS_Heathenry_Exposed

A piece of evidence against the validity of the table talks is cited from Otto Skorzeny's memoirs in which he spoke about the process and handling of the notes. What isn't talked about is the further context inside his memoirs in which he had the opportunity to attend these table talks but refused Hitler's offer:

""Naturally," Hitler had told me, "from now on, whenever you are with us, you will always be our guest, Skorzeny. I shall always be delighted to see you again." I thanked the Führer, but thereafter I refrained from attending those "midnight teas," which often dragged on until three or four in the morning. It was there that many advanced their careers—thanks to flattery and intrigue—provided they held views similar to those of Reichsleiter Martin Bormann, who was invariably present. The documentary volumes published after the war purport to reproduce the conversations held during some of these "midnight teas." Without Hitler’s knowledge, two of Bormann’s aides—Dr. Henry Picker and Dr. Heinrich Heim—had been tasked with recording the Führer’s words. Dr. Heim specified that he dictated these accounts from memory, having only rarely jotted down a few keywords, which he scribbled on a sheet of paper resting on his knees. Bormann would modify the version handed to him—always behind the Führer’s back—and, furthermore, the publishers have subsequently edited the text of these books, which were, naturally, never intended for publication. These documents must, therefore, be treated with the utmost circumspection by historians. The Reichsleiter—who was fiercely anticlerical—portrays Hitler as an atheist, and others as militant anti-Catholics; yet, in reality, the Führer—who was raised as a Catholic—never renounced his faith. Quite the contrary: he believed—and frequently stated—that the two principal pillars of Western civilization were the Roman Church and the British Empire. I have the weakness of thinking today that, perhaps, I was wrong not to attend the midnight teas whenever it was possible for me to do so. Had I attended, I might have been able to alert the Führer to certain realities of which he remained unaware."

How does Otto Skorzeny know whether the contents of the table talks itself are valid or not if he had admitted not going to them? How does he know that Hitler never renounced Catholicism? Answer: He simply doesn't. Otto Wagener's notes shows that Hitler denounced the Catholic teachings of the afterlife. Along with Gerhard Engel noting that the Catholic Church was too clever to publicly excommunicate him and wanting to fight the Church from its root.

Citing Skorzeny against the table talks is pointless if we look at the context of the passage.

SEE: HITLER'S TABLE TALK IS ENDLESSLY CORROBORATED BY OTHER INDEPENDENT SOURCES

𝐃𝐔𝐁𝐈𝐎𝐔𝐒 𝐐𝐔𝐎𝐓𝐄𝐒
The case of the book surrounding Adrien Arcand

In the book 'Serviam: The Political Ideology of Adrien Arcand' emerges two supposed quotes from Arthur Kitson and Kurt Lüdecke on Hitler's fancy being the Virgin mary and his private apartments having many crucifixes. The issue with this is the fact that among the 100+ footnotes inside the book, none exists for these two quotes nor further elaboration. Being that these specific testimonies cannot be found in any other place besides this book, it would be safe to say that these quotes are dubious at worst and faked at best.

When we look at an authentic writing of this same Kurt Lüdecke in his book "I knew Hitler", there are a multitude of his own testimonies given that further show Hitler did not believe in Christianity. Lüdecke recalled Hitler saying:

"The French Revolution, Bolshevism, all of Marxism, in fact, our whole deformity and atrophy of spirit and soul would never have come into being except for this oriental mummery, this abominable levelling mania, this cursed universalism of Christianity, which denies racialism and preaches suicidal tolerance.” [1]

Another interesting point brought by Mikael Nilsson in his book "Christianity in Hitler's Ideology" is that:

"The fact that we know of no prayer books or crosses (crucifixes) having been in Hitler’s possession is perhaps a problem for the thesis of Hitler as an honest Christian believer." [2]

Source:
[1] I Knew Hitler by Kurt Lüdecke (1938) p.466
[2] Christianity in Hitler's Ideology by Mikael Nilsson (PDF page 180)

𝐎𝐧 𝐍𝐢𝐥𝐬𝐬𝐨𝐧'𝐬 𝐧𝐞𝐰 𝐛𝐨𝐨𝐤 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐇𝐢𝐭𝐥𝐞𝐫'𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐲
Taking the sources into account

Nilsson rightfully acknowledges that Hitler rejected the apostle Paul and his teachings. Such implication would then follow on being against the divinity of Jesus. What Nilsson argues is that there is an infinite nuance on what is Christian as according to him there is no objective definition of what is Christian:

"Some readers may think that what has been said thus far reasonably has to be interpreted as evidence that Hitler was not a Christian, because how could someone who thinks that the apostle Paul perverted Christianity be considered a Christian? However, it is not that easy to define who is a Christian and who is not. After all, various denominations and sects of self-proclaimed Christians have been fighting each other for centuries over this exact issue. [...] To talk of Nazi Christianity as heresy, writes Susannah Heschel, implies that there is an orthodoxy to compare it to. There is in fact no such thing." [1]

The greatest testament to what is Christian can be based on the divinity of Jesus, much of the evidence that isn't mentioned in Nilsson's book suggest that there doesn't seem to be a genuine belief in Jesus's divinity. Nilsson writes in his conclusion of the Jesus divinity chapter that: "All of what has been said above of course does not definitely prove that Hitler believed that Jesus really was divine, since it is impossible to know what someone truly believes." [2] This statement highlights that even Nilsson acknowledges that what Hitler said publicly on specific issues cannot be taken for granted.

Nonetheless, Nilsson does bring an interesting source to the table. He shows (although unsure how he knew this) that Heinrich Heim in a correspondence said Hitler seldom spoke about his personal religious beliefs openly. [3] This alone shows that Hitler's religious beliefs is nowhere near related to the established beliefs as any normal Christian would simply profess belief in Christ and go on with their day. Hitler's chief secretary Johanna Wolf was interrogated in 1948 about Hitler’s religious inclinations, she had just as much difficulty as many other's in Hitler's private circle in figuring out what Hitler actually believed in. [4] Taking Nilsson's own sources into account, Hitler believed Christianity itself was Jewish and had nothing to do with Jesus, further making the thesis of Hitler being exclusively against institutionalized religion false. The fact there aren't any private sources of Hitler affirming the divinity of Jesus in the same manner also is a huge problem to the central theme of Nilsson's book.

So what can we truly say about this?

Hitler rejected Yahweh, so there cannot be a "son of God" as there is no God the father. Hitler rejected appeal to revelation, Hitler deified Nature, Hitler gave an agnostic definition on what is the purpose of life and who created it, questioned if there was an afterlife, etc. Much of what Hitler appeals to in his worldview comes from Race, Nature, and Science. The fact that there are so many confidants in Hitler's circle independently attesting to Hitler rejecting Christianity only backs up the whole point.

A less talked about passage in Wagener's notes is Hitler recognized that Christmas was originally an old Germanic festival that was replaced with the birth of Christ. He commented "... the midnight sun and the yuletide festival are cosmic concepts already familiar to young people. But no one can say with certainty whether Christ was or was not bom on this particular day." [5]

Mikael Nilsson's book 'Christianity in Hitler's Ideology' doesn't add anything new to the debate.

Source:
[1] Christianity in Hitler's Ideology by Mikael Nilsson (PDF page 180)
[2] ibid, p.177
[3] ibid, p.179
[4] Hitler's Religion by Richard Weikart (PDF page 33)
[5] Hitler: Memoirs of a Confidant by Otto Wagener p.278

𝐇𝐈𝐓𝐋𝐄𝐑 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐍𝐈𝐄𝐓𝐙𝐒𝐂𝐇𝐄
Setting the record straight

To say that Nietzsche did not have a profound influence on Hitler would be denying one of the core individuals within National Socialism's ideological tradition of optimism and will-power. Many have seen the infamous photo of Hitler in the Nietzsche-Archiv but little seem to know the official caption behind it. In Heinrich Hoffmann's book Hitler wie ihn keiner kennt, the original caption writes: "The Führer at the bust of the German philosopher whose ideas inspired two great popular movements: that of National Socialist Germany and that of Fascist Italy.", [1] So already off the bat do we see public connection between Hitler and Nietzsche in official sources. Keep in mind that Hitler endorsed the Nietzsche-Archiv by privately funding it, giving 50,000 Reichsmarks. [2]

On July 30th of 1943, the NSDAP had documented that Adolf Hitler had personally gifted Mussolini a unique edition of the collected works of Nietzsche on his birthday:

"The Führer sent the Duce, as a personal gift for his 60th birthday, through Field Marshal von Kesselring, the collected works of Nietzsche in a specially produced, unique edition with a heartfelt dedication" [3]

If Hitler was not been influenced or simply had ignored Nietzsche, there would be no reason for Hitler to openly suggest the works of Nietzsche to others. The official NSDAP stance on Nietzsche was that he was: "the greatest defender and justifier of life and reality" [4] This was then justified by Hitler when in 1942 he appealed to Nietzsche's words for his own rightful fanatical optimism:

"Whoever thinks he can frighten me somehow or surprise me is wrong. I have always taken to heart the words of a great German philosopher: ‘A blow that does not knock a strong man over, only makes him stronger" [5]

In private, Hitler had equally praised Nietzsche. According to Walther Hewel in a conversation about Kant, Schopenhauer and Nietzsche in 1941, Hitler said that Nietzsche was: "More intuitive than purely analytical. Affirmation of the laws of nature and of struggle. Positive user manual. Hence, the true philosopher of National Socialism." [6] Goebbels corroborates this as in 1943 in a conversation about Kant, Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, he noted Hitler to have said "Nietzsche is naturally much closer to our viewpoint than Schopenhauer" [7]

So it appears that Hitler had approved of Friedrich Nietzsche both publicly and privately.

Source:
[1] Heinrich Hoffmann: Hitler wie ihn keiner kennt, 100 Bild-Dokumente aus dem Leben des Führers
[2] BArch R 43-II/894c Nietzsche-Institut Weimar 1935 p.63
[3] Der Führer: das Hauptorgan der NSDAP Gau Baden; der badische Staatsanzeiger 31.07.1943 p.1
[4] NSDAP Schulungsbrief 1937 #08 „Staat und Kirchen im 19. Jahrhundert“ (Reichsorganisationsleiter der NSDAP) p.299
[5] Völkischer Beobachter, Die Rede des Führers im Berliner Sportpalast, Januar 30,1942 p.3
[6] Diaries and Papers of Botschafter Hewel. Nachlass Walther Hewel. Microfilm DJ-75. Filmed February 1971. Film No 96928, Reel 23 [EP Microform Limited] p.151
[7] NARA, RG 242, T-84, Roll 264 p.296