“5000 Jahre Hakenkreuz” HITLER YOUTH ON THE HOOKED CROSS
Explicitly written "for German youth" ("für die deutsche Jugend"). The text directly addresses “boys and girls” (“Ihr Jungen und Mädels”) about the Hitler Youth emblem.
“Surely you will now be astonished to hear that the swastika was already known five thousand years ago. Some of you may shake your heads in disbelief. They will say: “Five thousand years is a very, very long time. It is not even two thousand years ago that our Savior Jesus Christ was born. And the birth of Jesus Christ certainly lies far back. How can we know anything about the swastika from the time five thousand years ago?” – I can understand your doubt. I can understand if you initially think that such a claim can probably only be proven with difficulty, or not at all. So I will first make clear to you that one is fully justified in saying: The swastika was already venerated as a sacred symbol five thousand years ago.” p.2
This page even strengthens the idea that it was very unlikely, even impossible that Hitler would’ve been inspired by a foreign “Swastika”. More precisely; a non-German Christian Hooked Cross.
Explicitly written "for German youth" ("für die deutsche Jugend"). The text directly addresses “boys and girls” (“Ihr Jungen und Mädels”) about the Hitler Youth emblem.
“Surely you will now be astonished to hear that the swastika was already known five thousand years ago. Some of you may shake your heads in disbelief. They will say: “Five thousand years is a very, very long time. It is not even two thousand years ago that our Savior Jesus Christ was born. And the birth of Jesus Christ certainly lies far back. How can we know anything about the swastika from the time five thousand years ago?” – I can understand your doubt. I can understand if you initially think that such a claim can probably only be proven with difficulty, or not at all. So I will first make clear to you that one is fully justified in saying: The swastika was already venerated as a sacred symbol five thousand years ago.” p.2
This page even strengthens the idea that it was very unlikely, even impossible that Hitler would’ve been inspired by a foreign “Swastika”. More precisely; a non-German Christian Hooked Cross.
Figure 26: Sun wheel symbols and swastikas from the 6th century on a church door in Ravenna.
Figure 28: Staff of St. Gregory from St. Mary’s Church in Lübeck, 16th century. The staff stone bears yellow swastikas on a red background.❤18👎3🥰3⚡2👏1
ADAM, ABRAHAM AND JESUS WERE WHITE AND NOT GENETICALLY RELATED TO CONTEMPORARY JEWS
Abraham is recorded eating butter and milk from a cow, with his wife Sarah:
This would mean their unmixed descendants could only be lactose tolerant. Meaning, the Jewish people who range between 78–90% lactose intolerant aren’t unmixed descendants of Abraham. Lactose intolerance is just as high for all other races... except “whites”. Nordic “whites” are almost exclusively lactose tolerant. The very definition of Adam’s name is “to blush”. There is only one race on earth which can visibly blush. The European race. Scientific studies support the statistic that between 75% and 83% of Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews experience lactase non-persistence, making them lactose intolerant.
Human Groups Lactose Intolerance Rate % Lactose Intolerance:
Throughout the bible, Jesus is called a Nazarene over 38 times. While the bible didn’t record what Jesus looked like, what did Nazarites look like?
See also:
1. MODERN POPULATIONS GENETICALLY CLOSEST TO ANCIENT ISRAELITES (This means that Swedes are the closest relatives of the ancient Israelites)
2. Was Jesus white? (Strengthening and reinforcing the study: “
Abraham is recorded eating butter and milk from a cow, with his wife Sarah:
“And he took butter, and milk, and the calf which he had dressed, and set it before them; and he stood by them under the tree, and they did eat.”
- Genesis 18:8
This would mean their unmixed descendants could only be lactose tolerant. Meaning, the Jewish people who range between 78–90% lactose intolerant aren’t unmixed descendants of Abraham. Lactose intolerance is just as high for all other races... except “whites”. Nordic “whites” are almost exclusively lactose tolerant. The very definition of Adam’s name is “to blush”. There is only one race on earth which can visibly blush. The European race. Scientific studies support the statistic that between 75% and 83% of Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews experience lactase non-persistence, making them lactose intolerant.
Human Groups Lactose Intolerance Rate % Lactose Intolerance:
Swedes: 1% – 4%
Dutch: 1% – 5%
Maasai: 4% – 20%
Afrikaners: ~10%
British: 5% – 15%
Northern Indians: 20% – 30%
Southern Italians: 50% – 70%
Hispanic / Latino: 50% – 80%
Southern Indians: 60% – 70%
Ashkenazi Jews: 60% – 80%
African Americans: 75% – 80%
West Africans: 75% – 95%
Indigenous Americans: 80% – 100%
East Asians: 90% – 100%Throughout the bible, Jesus is called a Nazarene over 38 times. While the bible didn’t record what Jesus looked like, what did Nazarites look like?
“Her Nazarites were purer than snow, they were whiter than milk, they were more ruddy in body than rubies, their polishing was of sapphire. Whiter than milk? This is a clear indication of their very pale complexion.” - Lamentations 4:7
See also:
1. MODERN POPULATIONS GENETICALLY CLOSEST TO ANCIENT ISRAELITES (This means that Swedes are the closest relatives of the ancient Israelites)
2. Was Jesus white? (Strengthening and reinforcing the study: “
suggesting that the Israelites were a Northern European-descended population who migrated to Canaan before 1750 BC and subsequently admixed with local groups.”)⚡22❤8👎5🥰3🤡3
Why do we oppose the Jews? Goebbels on Christian antisemitism.
“”
[…]
“Christ, too, saw that love does not work in every situation. When he threw the money changers out of the temple, he did not say: children, love each other! Instead he took a whip and chased the pack out.”
Source: “Warum sind wir Judengegner?” Der Angriff. Aufsätze aus der Kampfzeit (Munich: Zentralverlag der NSDAP., 1935), pp. 329-331.
Thank you all so much for 400 subscribers!❌
“”
Anti-Semitism is not Christian.” So being Christian means allowing the Jews to continue to rule, to look on as he slices skin from our bodies and then mocks what he has done. Being a Christian means to love your neighbor as yourself! My neighbor is my blood and ethnic comrade. If I love him I must hate his enemy. He who thinks as a German must despise the Jew. The one determines the other.”[…]
“Christ, too, saw that love does not work in every situation. When he threw the money changers out of the temple, he did not say: children, love each other! Instead he took a whip and chased the pack out.”
Source: “Warum sind wir Judengegner?” Der Angriff. Aufsätze aus der Kampfzeit (Munich: Zentralverlag der NSDAP., 1935), pp. 329-331.
Thank you all so much for 400 subscribers!
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
❤26👎5⚡4🥰2
CATHOLICS AGAINST JEWRY AND FREEMASONS
Early Church Fathers like St. John Chrysostom wrote vitriolic sermons accusing Jews of deicide (killing God) and depicting them as a people punished by God for their rejection of Jesus. In medieval Europe, theological anti-Judaism mutated into severe, state-sanctioned persecution. SEE Pope Innocent III (1198–1216)
Jews were often forced to live in ghettos, wear identifying badges, and barred from most professions (usury being a notable exception). They were frequently massacred during Crusades and expelled from entire countries like England, France, and Spain. The "blood libel" emerged in this era, an “accusation” that Jews murdered Christian children to use their blood in religious rituals.
"
"
"
And many more popes and priests can be quoted, that was just a small fraction of quotes.
For many within the Church, especially from the 19th century onward, Jews and Freemasons were seen not just as separate threats, but as a single, allied enemy secretly plotting to destroy Christian civilization.
“Our predecessors in the Roman pontificate have in the course of a century and a half outlawed this group not once, but repeatedly. We too, in accordance with Our duty, have condemned it strongly to Christian people, so that they might beware of its wiles and bravely repel its impious assaults. Moreover, lest cowardice and sloth overtake us imperceptively, We have deliberately endeavored to reveal the secrets of this pernicious sect and the means by which it labors for the destruction of the Catholic enterprise.” - INIMICA VIS ENCYCLICAL OF POPE LEO XIII ON FREEMASONRY
Early Church Fathers like St. John Chrysostom wrote vitriolic sermons accusing Jews of deicide (killing God) and depicting them as a people punished by God for their rejection of Jesus. In medieval Europe, theological anti-Judaism mutated into severe, state-sanctioned persecution. SEE Pope Innocent III (1198–1216)
Jews were often forced to live in ghettos, wear identifying badges, and barred from most professions (usury being a notable exception). They were frequently massacred during Crusades and expelled from entire countries like England, France, and Spain. The "blood libel" emerged in this era, an “accusation” that Jews murdered Christian children to use their blood in religious rituals.
"
We forbid Jews to be appointed to public offices, for under their cover, they are very hostile to Christians." - Pope Innocent III from a decree at the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), part of the "Constitution of the Jews""
Let the Trid, mentioning Jesus Christ in a disgraceful manner, be damned and burned." - Pope Julius III from the 1554 papal bull Cum sicut nuper, ordering the confiscation and burning of the Talmud and other Hebrew books."
Another threat to christians was the influence of infidelity [4] ... prayer offered for infidelity [5] from sunrise to sunset..." - Pope Benedict XIV from the 1751 encyclical A Quo Primum, discussing Jewish "faithlessness" and prayers for their conversion.And many more popes and priests can be quoted, that was just a small fraction of quotes.
For many within the Church, especially from the 19th century onward, Jews and Freemasons were seen not just as separate threats, but as a single, allied enemy secretly plotting to destroy Christian civilization.
“Our predecessors in the Roman pontificate have in the course of a century and a half outlawed this group not once, but repeatedly. We too, in accordance with Our duty, have condemned it strongly to Christian people, so that they might beware of its wiles and bravely repel its impious assaults. Moreover, lest cowardice and sloth overtake us imperceptively, We have deliberately endeavored to reveal the secrets of this pernicious sect and the means by which it labors for the destruction of the Catholic enterprise.” - INIMICA VIS ENCYCLICAL OF POPE LEO XIII ON FREEMASONRY
❤16⚡6🥰2
The Twelve European Genetic Pools
This PCA plot visualizes the genetic relationships among modern West Eurasian populations. Populations positioned closer together share more recent common ancestry, while those farther apart are more distantly related. The Bible says Israel must be "peculiar" and distinct from Canaanites (Deut 7:3, 14:2). In the PCA plot, you see that ancient individuals carrying Haplogroup R (found in Europeans) are classified by secular researchers as genetic "outliers". They plot toward the European-related cluster, entirely unlike the surrounding Canaanite population. Science calls them "outliers," but Scripture calls them a "peculiar people".
The Bible records that Israel entered Canaan (c. 1400 BC) and later was exiled (722 BC and 586 BC). The PCA plot shows that Haplogroup R (the European cluster) is not native to the Levant; it "pulses in" with the Israelites and then "pulses out" to Europe, exactly as the biblical narrative describes.
The same European populations (Haplogroup R) that cluster together on this PCA plot also have the highest rates of dairy tolerance on Earth (90–100%). This is a direct fulfillment of inheriting a "land flowing with milk and honey" (Lev 20:24). SEE ALSO: ADAM, ABRAHAM AND JESUS WERE WHITE AND NOT GENETICALLY RELATED TO CONTEMPORARY JEWS
The Bible prophesied that Israel would forget its heritage during dispersion (Jer 50:6). Today, if you tell a European with Haplogroup R they are an Israelite, they will laugh, exactly as prophesied. Meanwhile, the Edomite populations (Haplogroups J & E) have never forgotten their claim to the land.
Europeans await their awakening and gathering at the return of the Messiah (Ezekiel 37).
This PCA plot visualizes the genetic relationships among modern West Eurasian populations. Populations positioned closer together share more recent common ancestry, while those farther apart are more distantly related. The Bible says Israel must be "peculiar" and distinct from Canaanites (Deut 7:3, 14:2). In the PCA plot, you see that ancient individuals carrying Haplogroup R (found in Europeans) are classified by secular researchers as genetic "outliers". They plot toward the European-related cluster, entirely unlike the surrounding Canaanite population. Science calls them "outliers," but Scripture calls them a "peculiar people".
The Bible records that Israel entered Canaan (c. 1400 BC) and later was exiled (722 BC and 586 BC). The PCA plot shows that Haplogroup R (the European cluster) is not native to the Levant; it "pulses in" with the Israelites and then "pulses out" to Europe, exactly as the biblical narrative describes.
The same European populations (Haplogroup R) that cluster together on this PCA plot also have the highest rates of dairy tolerance on Earth (90–100%). This is a direct fulfillment of inheriting a "land flowing with milk and honey" (Lev 20:24). SEE ALSO: ADAM, ABRAHAM AND JESUS WERE WHITE AND NOT GENETICALLY RELATED TO CONTEMPORARY JEWS
The Bible prophesied that Israel would forget its heritage during dispersion (Jer 50:6). Today, if you tell a European with Haplogroup R they are an Israelite, they will laugh, exactly as prophesied. Meanwhile, the Edomite populations (Haplogroups J & E) have never forgotten their claim to the land.
Europeans await their awakening and gathering at the return of the Messiah (Ezekiel 37).
⚡18❤3🥰2
"Pharisees and Christian Scholars" interacting with a figure of Jesus. Der Stürmer newspaper.
“German women and girls, the Jews are your ruin
Two thousand years ago I cursed the Jews as the people of the Devil, and you make a people of God out of them
Do not hate other People, but love the German Nation! (Speech by Der Führer, 24.10.1933)
“German women and girls, the Jews are your ruin
Two thousand years ago I cursed the Jews as the people of the Devil, and you make a people of God out of them
Do not hate other People, but love the German Nation! (Speech by Der Führer, 24.10.1933)
”
Source: Der Stürmer in March 1934❤18⚡4👌2🥰1
Nordid phenotype: Israelites?
Anthropologists love to box the Nordid phenotype into Scandinavia and Northern Germany, as if it magically appeared there in a vacuum. But look closer at that humanphenotypes.net map; there is a clear Nordid or heavily Nordid-influenced enclave right there in the Levant, hugging the region of ancient Canaan/Israel. This is not an accident. This is the cartographic confession that the True Israelites were a Nordid people.
Now look at the contrast on that same map. Surrounding that Nordid enclave in Israel, you see the Armenoid, Orientalid, and Mediterranid types: the dark-haired, brachycephalic, lactose-intolerant populations that have always inhabited Canaan. The PCA plot, SEE: [1] ,showed the European cluster as the genetic "outlier" to the Levantine baseline. That map shows the Nordid phenotype as the anthropological "outlier"; a tall, fair, long-skulled, ruddy-complected people living smack in the middle of short, dark, round-skulled Canaanites. When Abraham arrived, he stood out. When Jacob’s sons grazed their flocks, they stood out. When David slew Goliath, he was described as "ruddy and of a fair countenance" (1 Samuel 16:12) while the Philistines were dark-haired Mediterranids. The map captures this stark anthropological divide.
• Adding connections with my previous posts
It also shows that the original inhabitants of that region , the true Israelites, were physically indistinguishable from the Swedes, Norwegians, and Danes who top that genetic distance list (0.034–0.036) SEE: [2]. Abraham served butter and milk (Genesis 18:8) SEE: [3] because his Nordid constitution could handle it. The surrounding Canaanite Mediterranids couldn't. This biological reality explains why the Promised Land was described as "flowing with milk and honey", it was a dietary promise tailor-made for a Nordid people who could actually digest it.
Anthropologists love to box the Nordid phenotype into Scandinavia and Northern Germany, as if it magically appeared there in a vacuum. But look closer at that humanphenotypes.net map; there is a clear Nordid or heavily Nordid-influenced enclave right there in the Levant, hugging the region of ancient Canaan/Israel. This is not an accident. This is the cartographic confession that the True Israelites were a Nordid people.
Now look at the contrast on that same map. Surrounding that Nordid enclave in Israel, you see the Armenoid, Orientalid, and Mediterranid types: the dark-haired, brachycephalic, lactose-intolerant populations that have always inhabited Canaan. The PCA plot, SEE: [1] ,showed the European cluster as the genetic "outlier" to the Levantine baseline. That map shows the Nordid phenotype as the anthropological "outlier"; a tall, fair, long-skulled, ruddy-complected people living smack in the middle of short, dark, round-skulled Canaanites. When Abraham arrived, he stood out. When Jacob’s sons grazed their flocks, they stood out. When David slew Goliath, he was described as "ruddy and of a fair countenance" (1 Samuel 16:12) while the Philistines were dark-haired Mediterranids. The map captures this stark anthropological divide.
• Adding connections with my previous posts
It also shows that the original inhabitants of that region , the true Israelites, were physically indistinguishable from the Swedes, Norwegians, and Danes who top that genetic distance list (0.034–0.036) SEE: [2]. Abraham served butter and milk (Genesis 18:8) SEE: [3] because his Nordid constitution could handle it. The surrounding Canaanite Mediterranids couldn't. This biological reality explains why the Promised Land was described as "flowing with milk and honey", it was a dietary promise tailor-made for a Nordid people who could actually digest it.
❤18⚡9🥰3💊2👎1
“Trust no fox in the hedge or a Jew by his pledge!”
- Dr. Martin Luther (fresco on the outside wall of a Nazi administration building)
Source
- Dr. Martin Luther (fresco on the outside wall of a Nazi administration building)
Source
🥰11❤5⚡2
Was Paul the Apostle really a Jew? (Responding to a critic)
• Response to the first argument: “Judean and Jew are the same word; INRI = “King of the Judeans”)”
He’s playing a word game by conflating political geography with racial lineage. Yes, Ioudaios in Greek and Iudaeus in Latin both mean “Judean”, someone from the province of Judea. That’s precisely the point. The Romans didn’t have a word for “Jew” as a race because they didn’t recognize the Babylonian‑Talmudic racial category that modern “Jews” claim. Pilate wrote “King of the Judeans” because Jesus was a king of the people living in that land, the remnant of the House of Judah. The “Frenchman/French” analogy backfires. A Frenchman is a citizen of France. A “Jew” today claims to be a race apart from any land. That’s not what Ioudaios meant. Translating it as “Jew” injects a 19th‑century racial theory into the 1st century.
• Responding to the second argument: “Paul from Tarsus, not Judea, calls himself a Jew – so it can’t mean only a resident of Judea”
He misunderstood my position. I never said Ioudaios means only a physical resident of Judea. It can also mean someone who adheres to the religion and customs of the Judeans; a “Judean by religion.” That’s exactly the sense Paul uses in Acts 21:39 and elsewhere. He says, “I am a Ioudaios from Tarsus” – meaning his religious identity is Judean, even though his racial identity is Israelite (Benjamite).
Paul makes this distinction himself in Romans 2:28‑29: “For he is not a Ioudaios who is one outwardly…” He clearly distinguishes a real, spiritual Judean from a mere fleshly one. So when he calls himself a Ioudaios, he’s referring to his covenant relationship with the God of Israel, not his race. And his race? He says “of the tribe of Benjamin” (Romans 11:1), an Israelite, not a “Jew” in the modern racial sense.
• Response to the third argument: “Mordecai called a “Jew” in Esther 2:5, yet from Benjamin and living in Persia, no geographic tie to Judea”
The Hebrew word in Esther 2:5 is Yehudi, which originally meant a descendant of the tribe of Judah. But by the time of Esther, it was used loosely for anyone from the southern kingdom (Judah + Benjamin + some Levites); in other words, the Judeans as a political/national group, not a race. Mordecai was a Benjaminite, so he was a Yehudi by nationality, not by tribal ancestry.
More importantly, this proves my point: “Jew” is a also mistranslation of Yehudi (Judean). There is no biblical word for a racial “Jew” separate from the land of Judea. The modern claim that “Jew” is a race descending from Abraham through Jacob is a rabbinic invention. The true descendants of Jacob are the “white” European nations; the “Lost Sheep of the House of Israel.” Mordecai, like Paul, was an Israelite who happened to carry the political label “Judean.” That doesn’t make him a “Jew” in his sense.
So no contradiction. Paul wasn’t lying or confused. He was a Benjamite Israelite, a Roman citizen, and a “Judean” by religion and political association; but never a racial “Jew” as you define it. Your argument collapses because you assume modern “Jews” are the same people as 1st‑century Judeans. The real Jews today are Edomite converts.
———
Now, this brings us to a different crucial point. In my view, Paul’s Benjamite lineage is not just a matter of ancient history, it is a vital clue in identifying the modern descendants of Israel.
Since Paul was a Benjamite, he was part of this same genetic pool. (SEE: The Twelve European Genetic Pools) Therefore, when I identify modern Northern Europeans as the people most closely related to the ancient Israelites, the Benjamite lineage of Paul is a direct, biblical confirmation.
The critics who try to dismiss this as a "false claim" are simply trying to sever Paul from his own people. But we have his own words, and we have the science. The evidence is undeniable; Paul was a Benjamite, and his people are found today among the nations of Northern Europe.
- Luke 24:45
• Response to the first argument: “Judean and Jew are the same word; INRI = “King of the Judeans”)”
He’s playing a word game by conflating political geography with racial lineage. Yes, Ioudaios in Greek and Iudaeus in Latin both mean “Judean”, someone from the province of Judea. That’s precisely the point. The Romans didn’t have a word for “Jew” as a race because they didn’t recognize the Babylonian‑Talmudic racial category that modern “Jews” claim. Pilate wrote “King of the Judeans” because Jesus was a king of the people living in that land, the remnant of the House of Judah. The “Frenchman/French” analogy backfires. A Frenchman is a citizen of France. A “Jew” today claims to be a race apart from any land. That’s not what Ioudaios meant. Translating it as “Jew” injects a 19th‑century racial theory into the 1st century.
• Responding to the second argument: “Paul from Tarsus, not Judea, calls himself a Jew – so it can’t mean only a resident of Judea”
He misunderstood my position. I never said Ioudaios means only a physical resident of Judea. It can also mean someone who adheres to the religion and customs of the Judeans; a “Judean by religion.” That’s exactly the sense Paul uses in Acts 21:39 and elsewhere. He says, “I am a Ioudaios from Tarsus” – meaning his religious identity is Judean, even though his racial identity is Israelite (Benjamite).
Paul makes this distinction himself in Romans 2:28‑29: “For he is not a Ioudaios who is one outwardly…” He clearly distinguishes a real, spiritual Judean from a mere fleshly one. So when he calls himself a Ioudaios, he’s referring to his covenant relationship with the God of Israel, not his race. And his race? He says “of the tribe of Benjamin” (Romans 11:1), an Israelite, not a “Jew” in the modern racial sense.
• Response to the third argument: “Mordecai called a “Jew” in Esther 2:5, yet from Benjamin and living in Persia, no geographic tie to Judea”
The Hebrew word in Esther 2:5 is Yehudi, which originally meant a descendant of the tribe of Judah. But by the time of Esther, it was used loosely for anyone from the southern kingdom (Judah + Benjamin + some Levites); in other words, the Judeans as a political/national group, not a race. Mordecai was a Benjaminite, so he was a Yehudi by nationality, not by tribal ancestry.
More importantly, this proves my point: “Jew” is a also mistranslation of Yehudi (Judean). There is no biblical word for a racial “Jew” separate from the land of Judea. The modern claim that “Jew” is a race descending from Abraham through Jacob is a rabbinic invention. The true descendants of Jacob are the “white” European nations; the “Lost Sheep of the House of Israel.” Mordecai, like Paul, was an Israelite who happened to carry the political label “Judean.” That doesn’t make him a “Jew” in his sense.
So no contradiction. Paul wasn’t lying or confused. He was a Benjamite Israelite, a Roman citizen, and a “Judean” by religion and political association; but never a racial “Jew” as you define it. Your argument collapses because you assume modern “Jews” are the same people as 1st‑century Judeans. The real Jews today are Edomite converts.
———
Now, this brings us to a different crucial point. In my view, Paul’s Benjamite lineage is not just a matter of ancient history, it is a vital clue in identifying the modern descendants of Israel.
Since Paul was a Benjamite, he was part of this same genetic pool. (SEE: The Twelve European Genetic Pools) Therefore, when I identify modern Northern Europeans as the people most closely related to the ancient Israelites, the Benjamite lineage of Paul is a direct, biblical confirmation.
The critics who try to dismiss this as a "false claim" are simply trying to sever Paul from his own people. But we have his own words, and we have the science. The evidence is undeniable; Paul was a Benjamite, and his people are found today among the nations of Northern Europe.
“And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures.”- Luke 24:45
⚡12❤4🥰2
NSHeathenry deliberately lies about Mikkael Nilsson’s book! (Christianity in Hitler’s ideology), @Christmutt, Unmaskin “NS” Heathenry Exposed [part 1/3]
———
Quick note on the NSHE situation: While i never associated with his community/ideology, i respect his dedication of “exposing lies” made by NSHeathenry. Not long ago NSHE account and/or channel got hacked, resulting the admins of NSHE to make a new channel. I’m quite certain that their new channel isn’t run by the owner of the original NSHE, so NSHeathenry’s post that they made showcasing NSHE’s “confessions” is very unreliable SIMPLY BECAUSE HIS ACCOUNT GOT HACKED. But I will remind you that i am ignorant and naive of this situation, so this is just me writing and speculating without proper explicit evidence.
———
🌚 Now enjoy reading this exposé that shows NSHeathenry deliberately lying about a book that they have never read to manipulate their viewers 🌚
———
NSHeathenry presents a selective and misleading reading of Nilsson's book. While it correctly notes Nilsson's argument that Hitler rejected Paul and cites some sources accurately, they fundamentally misrepresent his core thesis on Jesus' divinity and relies on questionable evidence. This post will show you how NSHeathenry doesn’t read most of its sources; takes things out of context, ignores primary sources and cherrypicks quotes that ridicule (in their sense) the individual they are critiquing.
For extra context: Nilsson is an independent Swedish historian who argues that Hitler's admiration for Jesus was genuine and central to Nazi ideology, not merely propaganda. He claims Hitler saw Jesus as an Aryan warrior sent to fight Jews, and that National Socialism was "religious to its core". The book has already drawn scholarly attention; some praise it, others are skeptical.
• Claim 1: "Nilsson argues there is no objective definition of Christian"
While it’s accurate, it’s taken out of context. NSHeathenry quotes Nilsson's methodological point that defining Christianity is historically contested. Nilsson uses this to argue that Hitler's own interpretation (rejecting Paul but embracing an "Aryan Jesus") can be considered a form of Christianity, rather than dismissing it as mere propaganda.
Nilsson uses this methodological point not to say Hitler wasn't Christian, but to argue that Hitler's own interpretation (rejecting Paul, embracing an "Aryan Jesus") can be considered a form of Christianity within its historical context. NSHeathenry presents this as if Nilsson is making a relativistic excuse; he isn't. He's making a source-critical point about definitional debates.
———
Quick note on the NSHE situation: While i never associated with his community/ideology, i respect his dedication of “exposing lies” made by NSHeathenry. Not long ago NSHE account and/or channel got hacked, resulting the admins of NSHE to make a new channel. I’m quite certain that their new channel isn’t run by the owner of the original NSHE, so NSHeathenry’s post that they made showcasing NSHE’s “confessions” is very unreliable SIMPLY BECAUSE HIS ACCOUNT GOT HACKED. But I will remind you that i am ignorant and naive of this situation, so this is just me writing and speculating without proper explicit evidence.
———
———
NSHeathenry presents a selective and misleading reading of Nilsson's book. While it correctly notes Nilsson's argument that Hitler rejected Paul and cites some sources accurately, they fundamentally misrepresent his core thesis on Jesus' divinity and relies on questionable evidence. This post will show you how NSHeathenry doesn’t read most of its sources; takes things out of context, ignores primary sources and cherrypicks quotes that ridicule (in their sense) the individual they are critiquing.
For extra context: Nilsson is an independent Swedish historian who argues that Hitler's admiration for Jesus was genuine and central to Nazi ideology, not merely propaganda. He claims Hitler saw Jesus as an Aryan warrior sent to fight Jews, and that National Socialism was "religious to its core". The book has already drawn scholarly attention; some praise it, others are skeptical.
• Claim 1: "Nilsson argues there is no objective definition of Christian"
While it’s accurate, it’s taken out of context. NSHeathenry quotes Nilsson's methodological point that defining Christianity is historically contested. Nilsson uses this to argue that Hitler's own interpretation (rejecting Paul but embracing an "Aryan Jesus") can be considered a form of Christianity, rather than dismissing it as mere propaganda.
Nilsson writes: "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."
[…]
Nilsson then cites Susannah Heschel: "To talk of Nazi Christianity as heresy... implies that there is an orthodoxy to compare it to. There is in fact no such thing." p. 170
Nilsson uses this methodological point not to say Hitler wasn't Christian, but to argue that Hitler's own interpretation (rejecting Paul, embracing an "Aryan Jesus") can be considered a form of Christianity within its historical context. NSHeathenry presents this as if Nilsson is making a relativistic excuse; he isn't. He's making a source-critical point about definitional debates.
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
❤7
Part [2/3]
• Claim 2: Nilsson's evidence "doesn't seem to show a genuine belief" in Jesus' divinity
This is an obvious cherry-pick. NSHeathenry isolates a cautious sentence, but the entire point of Nilsson's Chapter 3 is to argue the opposite. The chapter summary states Nilsson aims to show Hitler "did indeed refer to Jesus as divine on many occasions throughout his life," including calling him the "Son of God." Nilsson argues these weren't just propaganda because they were "too odd" for mainstream Christians. The critique omits this central argument entirely.
But look at what immediately precedes and follows this sentence:
NSHeathenry quotes Nilsson's methodological caveat (which any good historian would include) but ignores his substantive conclusion that the evidence strongly points to Hitler viewing Jesus as divine.
• Claim 3: Nilsson cites Heim saying Hitler "seldom spoke about his personal religious beliefs openly."
Heinrich Heim was an editor of Hitler's Table Talk. Nilsson himself has been a critic of these transcripts, noting they were "heavily edited" by Bormann. NSHeathenry uses this source to argue Hitler was secretive, but ignores Nilsson's own skepticism about the reliability of this very source.
Why this actually undermines NSHeathenry: If Hitler seldom spoke about his beliefs, then the fact that he did speak about Jesus (and called him divine) on multiple occasions over decades becomes more significant, not less. NSHeathenry uses this to argue Hitler was secretive, but Nilsson uses it to argue that when Hitler did speak, it was likely sincere, because there was no propaganda need to do so in private settings.
• Claim 4: "Johanna Wolf's interrogation shows Hitler's inner circle couldn't figure out what he believed"
NSHeathenry uses a questionable source. More importantly, historical records show Wolf was famously secretive and refused to discuss Hitler, making her silence an unreliable indicator of Hitler's private beliefs. This is a weak argument from an external source. It only says she wasn't privy to his inner thoughts; which, as Nilsson notes (p. 150), Hitler kept private.
• Claim 2: Nilsson's evidence "doesn't seem to show a genuine belief" in Jesus' divinity
This is an obvious cherry-pick. NSHeathenry isolates a cautious sentence, but the entire point of Nilsson's Chapter 3 is to argue the opposite. The chapter summary states Nilsson aims to show Hitler "did indeed refer to Jesus as divine on many occasions throughout his life," including calling him the "Son of God." Nilsson argues these weren't just propaganda because they were "too odd" for mainstream Christians. The critique omits this central argument entirely.
Nilsson writes: "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." p. 158
But look at what immediately precedes and follows this sentence:
Nilsson concludes: "The findings presented in this chapter ought to be considered as significant... Hitler consistently throughout his political life kept to his admiration of Jesus... He referred to Jesus as divine on several occasions, and in a least one instance he explicitly called him the Son of God. Then, we have the multiple instances when Hitler talked about Jesus as 'Lord,' 'Savior,' 'lawgiver,' etc."
"The brunt of the evidence that has been presented here appears to show that Hitler did indeed consider himself a follower of Jesus' original teachings." p. 157-158
NSHeathenry quotes Nilsson's methodological caveat (which any good historian would include) but ignores his substantive conclusion that the evidence strongly points to Hitler viewing Jesus as divine.
• Claim 3: Nilsson cites Heim saying Hitler "seldom spoke about his personal religious beliefs openly."
Heinrich Heim was an editor of Hitler's Table Talk. Nilsson himself has been a critic of these transcripts, noting they were "heavily edited" by Bormann. NSHeathenry uses this source to argue Hitler was secretive, but ignores Nilsson's own skepticism about the reliability of this very source.
Nilsson cites Heim: "Hitler considered his religious beliefs a very personal matter and therefore seldom spoke about them openly." p. 150
Why this actually undermines NSHeathenry: If Hitler seldom spoke about his beliefs, then the fact that he did speak about Jesus (and called him divine) on multiple occasions over decades becomes more significant, not less. NSHeathenry uses this to argue Hitler was secretive, but Nilsson uses it to argue that when Hitler did speak, it was likely sincere, because there was no propaganda need to do so in private settings.
• Claim 4: "Johanna Wolf's interrogation shows Hitler's inner circle couldn't figure out what he believed"
NSHeathenry uses a questionable source. More importantly, historical records show Wolf was famously secretive and refused to discuss Hitler, making her silence an unreliable indicator of Hitler's private beliefs. This is a weak argument from an external source. It only says she wasn't privy to his inner thoughts; which, as Nilsson notes (p. 150), Hitler kept private.
❤4
Part [3/3]
• Claim 5: "Hitler believed Christianity itself was Jewish and had nothing to do with Jesus"
NSHeathenry is misinterpreting. Nilsson's entire framework is that Hitler rejected institutional Christianity (Paul's church) to restore what he saw as Jesus' original (anti-Jewish) teachings. NSHeathenry conflates rejecting the Church with rejecting Jesus, which is precisely the nuance Nilsson explores. The conclusion of Nilsson's book states Hitler viewed Jesus as an "Aryan warrior" who began the fight against Jews.
• Claim 6: "There aren't any private sources of Hitler affirming the divinity of Jesus"
What a weak and complete false claim made by NSHeathenry.
1. p. 152-154 (Chapter 3): Nilsson cites Rudolf Heß's private letters (which the critique ignores) where Heß states Hitler was "deeply religious" and a "good Catholic."
2. p. 155 (Chapter 3): Nilsson cites the Landsberg fortress warden's notes, where Hitler stated he considered himself Catholic.
3. p. 143 (Chapter 3): Nilsson cites Alfred Rosenberg's diary entry from December 13, 1941, where Hitler calls Christ an Aryan. This is a private, contemporaneous source.
NSHeathenry claims "no private sources" but Nilsson provides multiple private sources; letters, diary entries, and prison records.
• Claim 7: "Hitler rejected Yahweh, so there cannot be a 'son of God'"
A logical fallacy made by NSHeathenry.
Page 67-68 (Chapter 1): Nilsson explains that Hitler and Chamberlain viewed the Jewish God (Yahweh) as a false god or Demiurge, while the God of Jesus was a different, Aryan God.
Hitler did not reject "God the Father", he rejected the Jewish conception of God. He believed in an Aryan Father God whose son was Jesus. NSHeathenry misunderstands Gnostic/Manichaean elements in Hitler's theology.
• Claim 8: "Hitler deified Nature, gave agnostic definitions of life, questioned the afterlife"
Nilsson shows Hitler repeatedly invoked "Providence" and "the Almighty" as active, personal forces in history. p. 92-93
Nilsson notes Hitler kept a painting of Mary and visited monasteries; hardly the behavior of a nature-deifying agnostic. p. 156 (see pages 25-26, where Nilsson criticizes Weikart's conclusions).
• Claim 9: “Nilsson's book doesn't add anything new to the debate"
Demonstrably false.
Nilsson states: "No study has yet investigated the role of Jesus in National Socialist ideology. This book therefore plugs a significant hole in the literature." p. 5
Nilsson provides the first systematic analysis of Hitler's references to Jesus as divine. p. 157-159
Nilsson presents an entirely original argument: that Hitler modeled his conversion narrative on Acts 9. p. 160-179
Nilsson argues that Hitler's admiration for Jesus was a direct factor in the Holocaust, a claim virtually no mainstream historian has made before. p. 235-242
NSHeathenry’s claim that the book "adds nothing new" is simply wrong. It is one of the most original contributions to Hitler scholarship in recent years.
• Claim 5: "Hitler believed Christianity itself was Jewish and had nothing to do with Jesus"
NSHeathenry is misinterpreting. Nilsson's entire framework is that Hitler rejected institutional Christianity (Paul's church) to restore what he saw as Jesus' original (anti-Jewish) teachings. NSHeathenry conflates rejecting the Church with rejecting Jesus, which is precisely the nuance Nilsson explores. The conclusion of Nilsson's book states Hitler viewed Jesus as an "Aryan warrior" who began the fight against Jews.
Nilsson states: "Instead of rejecting Christianity as a whole, it turns out that Hitler and his followers were seeking to reestablish the original teachings of Jesus, which they thought had been lost over the centuries due to the manipulations of the apostle Paul." p. 3
Nilsson cites Steigmann-Gall: "However much Hitler claimed to be an enemy of organized religion, this conception of Jesus displayed a clear limit to his apostasy and the retention of a specifically Christian dimension to his beliefs." p. 31
Nilsson writes: "The fact that Hitler constantly throughout his life, in several different sources, exempted the figure of Jesus from the vitriolic hostility that he often expressed toward the churches and established Christianity should tell us that he really admired Jesus in a very deep and sincere way." p. 80
• Claim 6: "There aren't any private sources of Hitler affirming the divinity of Jesus"
What a weak and complete false claim made by NSHeathenry.
1. p. 152-154 (Chapter 3): Nilsson cites Rudolf Heß's private letters (which the critique ignores) where Heß states Hitler was "deeply religious" and a "good Catholic."
2. p. 155 (Chapter 3): Nilsson cites the Landsberg fortress warden's notes, where Hitler stated he considered himself Catholic.
3. p. 143 (Chapter 3): Nilsson cites Alfred Rosenberg's diary entry from December 13, 1941, where Hitler calls Christ an Aryan. This is a private, contemporaneous source.
NSHeathenry claims "no private sources" but Nilsson provides multiple private sources; letters, diary entries, and prison records.
• Claim 7: "Hitler rejected Yahweh, so there cannot be a 'son of God'"
A logical fallacy made by NSHeathenry.
Page 67-68 (Chapter 1): Nilsson explains that Hitler and Chamberlain viewed the Jewish God (Yahweh) as a false god or Demiurge, while the God of Jesus was a different, Aryan God.
Nilsson notes: "Some volkisch ideologues argued that the Aryans had been the true Israelites and that the God of Jesus was a very different God from the God of the Jews (Jahveh), who was considered a 'false God.'" p. 145-146
Hitler did not reject "God the Father", he rejected the Jewish conception of God. He believed in an Aryan Father God whose son was Jesus. NSHeathenry misunderstands Gnostic/Manichaean elements in Hitler's theology.
• Claim 8: "Hitler deified Nature, gave agnostic definitions of life, questioned the afterlife"
Nilsson shows Hitler repeatedly invoked "Providence" and "the Almighty" as active, personal forces in history. p. 92-93
Nilsson notes Hitler kept a painting of Mary and visited monasteries; hardly the behavior of a nature-deifying agnostic. p. 156 (see pages 25-26, where Nilsson criticizes Weikart's conclusions).
• Claim 9: “Nilsson's book doesn't add anything new to the debate"
Demonstrably false.
Nilsson states: "No study has yet investigated the role of Jesus in National Socialist ideology. This book therefore plugs a significant hole in the literature." p. 5
Nilsson provides the first systematic analysis of Hitler's references to Jesus as divine. p. 157-159
Nilsson presents an entirely original argument: that Hitler modeled his conversion narrative on Acts 9. p. 160-179
Nilsson argues that Hitler's admiration for Jesus was a direct factor in the Holocaust, a claim virtually no mainstream historian has made before. p. 235-242
NSHeathenry’s claim that the book "adds nothing new" is simply wrong. It is one of the most original contributions to Hitler scholarship in recent years.
⚡9👏5❤2💩2🥰1
“The conclusion that Hitler was genuinely inspired by Jesus in
his antisemitic struggle against the Jews thus cannot be avoided.”
[…]
“Historians must start taking Hitler’s religious beliefs seriously…” p. 242
- Mikael Nilsson
his antisemitic struggle against the Jews thus cannot be avoided.”
[…]
“Historians must start taking Hitler’s religious beliefs seriously…” p. 242
- Mikael Nilsson
❤20⚡3💩3🥰2
EUROPEANS PRESERVED THEIR ANCIENT ISRAELITE HERITAGE
The Levites were commanded to remain endogamous, Moses' parents serve as an excellent example of this practice (Ex 2:1) In addition, the Levites were distributed across all 48 cities of Israel (Num 35, Josh 21) to serve as a priestly thread woven through the entire nation. If Haplogroup R represents Israel, the Levites, as the most rigorously endogamous tribe, should carry a preserved, ancient version of that signature.
They do.
Behar et al. (2003 & 2017) and Rootsi et al. (2013, Nature Communications) confirm that the vast majority of Ashkenazi Levites carry the R1a-M582 subclade, which is virtually absent in non-Levite Near Eastern populations. The modern Levite lineage (R1a-M582) descends directly from R1a-M417, the precise haplogroup of Sample 12189, buried at Megiddo (Agranat-Tamir et al. 2020; Mallick et al. 2024).
When we recalibrate the remains using the 14th-century BC radiocarbon plateau, the Old Wood Effect for surrounding strata (layer of material), and the Levantine Offset (Manning et al. 2018 & 2020), Sample 12189 fits comfortably within the Joshua/Judges period (c. 1350 BC). To further strengthen this recalibration, Sample 12190, found in the same K-10 strata at Megiddo (a city of Manasseh, was directly carbon-dated to 1496-1302 BC without any recalibration required (Table S1, Agranat-Tamir et al. 2020). In other words, there is a direct, unbroken biological line from a body buried in Megiddo during the era of Israel's Conquest of Canaan (1406-1399 BC) to the Ashkenazi Levites alive today.
There are approximately 300,000 Ashkenazi Levites today, roughly 4% of the total worldwide Jewish population. Among the Levites, the majority carry Haplogroup R1a-M582, while the broader Ashkenazi population carries predominantly Haplogroups J (~38%) and E (~20%) (Behar et al. 2003; Rootsi et al. 2013).
This distinction matters enormously. Haplogroups J and E have always dominated the Levant; before Israel arrived, during Israel's occupation, and after the exiles scattered them. They are the genetic baseline of the region. Haplogroup R, by contrast, is the outlier; the misfit whose presence in the Levant continues to perplex secular scholars who have no theological framework to explain it.
But we do.
The Lord declared it plainly: the Levites shall be Mine (Num 8:14). True to that promise, the most endogamous tribe in all of Israel has faithfully carried the ancient Haplogroup R signature across three millennia; preserved in the Levites, just as God said it would
Overall, five Haplogroup R bodies were found at Megiddo; three R1b (Northwest European) and two R1a (Eurasian). The Ashkenazi Levite ancestor is among them. Moreover, the Levites' closest living genetic relatives today are found in Iran; precisely where the medieval traveler Benjamin of Tudela (1173 AD) recorded remnants of four Israelite tribes: Dan, Zebulun, Asher, and Naphtali (itinerary, p. 59, Adler trans., Oxford University Press, 1907).
"Thus shalt thou separate the Levites from among the children of Israel: and the Levites shall be mine."
- NUMBERS 8:14 (SEE ALSO NUM 3:12, 3:45, EX 2:1, EZE 44:21-22, EZRA 9:1-4, NEH 13:28-29)
The Levites were commanded to remain endogamous, Moses' parents serve as an excellent example of this practice (Ex 2:1) In addition, the Levites were distributed across all 48 cities of Israel (Num 35, Josh 21) to serve as a priestly thread woven through the entire nation. If Haplogroup R represents Israel, the Levites, as the most rigorously endogamous tribe, should carry a preserved, ancient version of that signature.
They do.
Behar et al. (2003 & 2017) and Rootsi et al. (2013, Nature Communications) confirm that the vast majority of Ashkenazi Levites carry the R1a-M582 subclade, which is virtually absent in non-Levite Near Eastern populations. The modern Levite lineage (R1a-M582) descends directly from R1a-M417, the precise haplogroup of Sample 12189, buried at Megiddo (Agranat-Tamir et al. 2020; Mallick et al. 2024).
When we recalibrate the remains using the 14th-century BC radiocarbon plateau, the Old Wood Effect for surrounding strata (layer of material), and the Levantine Offset (Manning et al. 2018 & 2020), Sample 12189 fits comfortably within the Joshua/Judges period (c. 1350 BC). To further strengthen this recalibration, Sample 12190, found in the same K-10 strata at Megiddo (a city of Manasseh, was directly carbon-dated to 1496-1302 BC without any recalibration required (Table S1, Agranat-Tamir et al. 2020). In other words, there is a direct, unbroken biological line from a body buried in Megiddo during the era of Israel's Conquest of Canaan (1406-1399 BC) to the Ashkenazi Levites alive today.
There are approximately 300,000 Ashkenazi Levites today, roughly 4% of the total worldwide Jewish population. Among the Levites, the majority carry Haplogroup R1a-M582, while the broader Ashkenazi population carries predominantly Haplogroups J (~38%) and E (~20%) (Behar et al. 2003; Rootsi et al. 2013).
This distinction matters enormously. Haplogroups J and E have always dominated the Levant; before Israel arrived, during Israel's occupation, and after the exiles scattered them. They are the genetic baseline of the region. Haplogroup R, by contrast, is the outlier; the misfit whose presence in the Levant continues to perplex secular scholars who have no theological framework to explain it.
But we do.
The Lord declared it plainly: the Levites shall be Mine (Num 8:14). True to that promise, the most endogamous tribe in all of Israel has faithfully carried the ancient Haplogroup R signature across three millennia; preserved in the Levites, just as God said it would
Overall, five Haplogroup R bodies were found at Megiddo; three R1b (Northwest European) and two R1a (Eurasian). The Ashkenazi Levite ancestor is among them. Moreover, the Levites' closest living genetic relatives today are found in Iran; precisely where the medieval traveler Benjamin of Tudela (1173 AD) recorded remnants of four Israelite tribes: Dan, Zebulun, Asher, and Naphtali (itinerary, p. 59, Adler trans., Oxford University Press, 1907).
“…in the mountains of Naisabur four of the tribes of Israel dwell, namely, the tribe of Dan, the tribe of Zebulun, the tribe of Asher, and the tribe of Naphtali, who were included in the first captivity of Shalmaneser, king of Asswila, as it is written (2 Kings XVIII. 11)…”
-
THE ITINERARY OF BENJAMIN OF TUDELA. TRANSLATED AND EDITED BY MARCUS NATHAN ADLER, OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS, 1907, P. 59
🥰9🤡4⚡2❤2🤔1