Eckart and Hitler on Jewish Bolshevism, part 3

eckart_bookAmerican Dissident Voices broadcast of September 17, 2016

by Kevin Alfred Strom

ALL THIS MONTH, to celebrate the life’s work of National Alliance founder William Pierce, we will be broadcasting Vanessa Neubauer’s audio version of the first book ever published by Dr. Pierce, his translation of Dietrich Eckart’s Bolshevism from Moses to Lenin — a conversation between the author and the soon-to-be German leader Adolf Hitler. The book’s insights were, I think, fundamental to William Pierce’s awakening to a full understanding of the world.

Let’s continue with part 3 of this extraordinary book. When we left off last week, we were discussing the Jewish influence on Christianity, from the earliest times to the present — from the vile “Old Testament” — to Saul who became Paul — to Martin Luther’s unwitting betrayal of his own people, which he recognized too late — and now, I give you Vanessa Neubauer.

* * *

Bolshevism from Moses to Lenin:
a Dialogue Between Adolf Hitler and Me

“IN THE CASE of the struggling young Christianity, for example, the Jews, quick as a flash, began hanging onto its coattails. Consider Paul, properly called Schaul, who was a rabbinical student. That Schaul first chose the Roman-sounding name, Saulus, and then had himself renamed Paulus gives cause for thought. Still more, the fact that in the beginning he persecuted the fledgling Christian community with first-rate ferocity. I don’t know: Mass murderers who later become saints — is that not too much of a marvel? Indeed, the Jew Weininger supposed that Christ had also originally been a criminal. [36] But, my God, a Jew could say that a hundred times, and it still need not be true on that account.

“As a Jew, Paul certainly knew that of all the peoples of the world the Jews, first and foremost, needed their souls saved. ‘Go not … to the Gentiles, … But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel,’ demanded Christ (Matthew 10:5-6). Paul ignored it. He went to the Greeks and the Romans and brought them his ‘Christianity.’ A ‘Christianity’ with which the Roman Empire became unhinged. ‘All men are equal! Brotherhood! Pacifism! No more privileges!’ And the Jew triumphed.”

“I always think,” I spun the thread further, “of the admirable Herr Levine in the Berliner Lokalanzeiger. [37] He suddenly burst out one day, as if in rapture: only a Jew could have done that; could have, with Paul’s impudence, put himself in the middle of the capital and there expounded a doctrine which must bring about the utter ruin of the Roman Empire! That’s what the man said, word for word; I still remember it perfectly.”

“It certainly hits the nail on the head,” he rejoined. “It may be a long time yet before Christianity recovers from Paul. Oh, what gullible souls we are! A Jew murders hundreds of Christians; suddenly he notices that the rest only become even more zealous; the well-known light dawns on him; he pretends to be converted, throws himself into the great pose, and behold: even though he deviates in nearly all his doctrines from the other apostles, we listen devoutly to his sermons. The simple teachings of the Master, which the most childlike mind might comprehend, we must have ‘explained’ to us by a Hebrew.”

“The Jew,” I replied, “certainly must be tempted to say, ‘Why are you so stupid that you let everyone make fools of you?’ And there are many charmers and wizards who, on account of his extraordinary cunning, or ‘spirituality’ as they call it, look upon him with timid admiration.”

“If it depended on mere possessions,” he returned, “they would be justified. Someone named Goldstein once boasted that the Jews administer the spiritual property of the German people. [38] A pity that he didn’t add how they administer it.

“Well, let us be thankful that there will always be men who, for example, will read Goethe through the eyes of Goethe and not through the slimy spectacles of Goldstein. They may not be professors, but perhaps vagabonds of a sort. A breed, anyway, which will not become extinct and through which the original Goethe will be safely preserved. The Jews can then quietly ‘administer’ the new Goethe. It will not be begrudged them.” [39]

“Suppose, however,” I interjected anxiously, “the ‘vagabonds’ also listen credulously to them and fall into the trap?”

“It lies in the nature of the ‘vagabond,'” he laughed, “to have a heart so full that it matters not how his head happens to be persuaded; it will always be his heart that determines the outcome. They feel intuitively that which the clever, despite their understanding, are not able to see. And they preserve it. One may deceive their heads, but not even they have authority over their spirits.”

“And, you see,” he pounded on the table, “they alone are to be thanked that at least part of our Christian heritage, as well as our other cultural legacy, has survived administration by the Jews. Where are they? Where were they? Among high and low, among the kings and the soldiers, among the popes and the mendicant friars, among the learned and the illiterate, everywhere. But not among the nothing-but-rich; but not among the nothing-but-clever; but not among the greedy and the insatiable; but not among the Pöbelvolk. Here the Jew is at home. Whatever appears here in the way of spiritual possessions he matter-of-factly administers; it is his own. Just as everything was transformed into gold for King Midas, every deep and meaningful word is turned into filth at his touch. But for the others, for the…”

“Vagabonds of the spirit,” I threw to him.

“Everything remains as of old,” he nodded. “There have been popes of Jewish blood. [40] Also there has seldom or never been a shortage of other dignitaries of the same descent in the Church. Was that which they stood for Catholicism? No, it was Judaism. Let’s take just one thing: the selling of indulgences. The very essence of the Jewish spirit. We are both Catholics, but dare we not say that? Are we really supposed to believe that there has never been anything in the Church with which one can find fault? Just because we are Catholics, we say it. That has nothing to do with Catholicism. We know that Catholicism would have remained intact even if half the hierarchy had consisted of Jews. A number of sincere men always held it high, though often only secretly, many times even against the pope. Sometimes there were many such men, sometimes few.

“The investigation of the Jew and his activities should have been the alpha and the omega of our historians. Instead, they investigate the bowel movements of the past.

“Karl the Great favored the Jews at every turn. It seems to me that his slaughter of the 4,500 Saxons at Verden — the best German blood — and his Jewish advisers had something to do with one another.

“The notorious insanity of the Crusades bled the German people of six million men. Finally the Hohenstaufen, Frederick II, succeeded through mere negotiation, without striking a blow, in securing the Holy Land for Christendom. What did the Curia do? Full of hatred, they hurled the ban of excommunication on Frederick and refused to recognize his treaty with the sultan, thus neutralizing his great success. It seems that, to those pulling the strings, the incidental bloodletting was more important than the avowed objective of the Crusades.

“At last came the Children’s Crusade. Tens of thousands of children sent against the victorious Turkish army, all to be destroyed. I can’t believe that the idea for that absurdity originated in a non-Jewish mind. I am always reminded of the murder of the children of Bethlehem and the slaughter of the Egyptian firstborn. I would give anything for a photograph of the priest who preached that Crusade, and his flunkeys.

Giordano BrunoGiordano Bruno called the Jews ‘such a pestilential, leprous, and publicly dangerous race that they deserved to be rooted out and destroyed even before their birth.’ [41] This genial philosopher was burned at the stake. For his heresy? Opponents of the Church were swarming in Italy during his time, yet he, the most impartial of them, was seized.” [Image: Giordano Bruno (1550?-1600)]

“Well, how about now?” I interrupted him. “In Russia one Catholic priest after another is tortured to death by the Jewish beast; hundreds have already been liquidated; the Church is taking its last gasp; but Rome cannot bring herself to call the child by its real name. Many times she has made a small start in that direction — but only to be immediately squelched. Catholicism wants to speak; Jewry paralyzes its tongue.”

“Rome,” he replied, “will pull herself together, but only if we pull ourselves together first. And one day it can be said that the Church is whole again.”

“Since those who are responsible for the trouble will have been discovered!” I cried. “Since the disguised Hebrew, together with his cuckoo eggs, will have been thrown out of the Christian community! He has set not only the Egyptians but also the Christians against one another so that ‘they shall fight every one against his brother, and every one against his neighbor,’ and he is still at this game. He works from the outside, carefully building his pitfalls and making his destructive influence felt in the press. But he also works from the inside, where he is even more dangerous, in the mask of the Christian minister. The Christian confessions swarm with Jewish and half-Jewish clergymen, the Protestant denominations even more so than the Catholic. They already feel so sure of victory in the Protestant churches that in Dresden a certain Pastor Wallfisch had the impudence to announce publicly: ‘I am a Jew and will remain one; yes, now that I have learned the Christian beliefs I have become more than ever a true Israelite.’ [42] And in Hamburg a preacher named Schwalb said: ‘I consider myself a genuine Jew and have always considered myself thus’. [43] Where that sort of thing is possible, Christianity might as well let itself be buried.

“Luther’s spirit seems to be completely played out among our Protestants. On the question of all questions, the Jewish question, they either hush him completely or try to tone him down. One of the most well-meaning among their theologians, Professor Walther, calls Luther’s attitude toward the Jews ‘so offensive that it must arouse not only confused astonishment among Christians but also great indignation among Jews.’ Those Christians with a confused astonishment wouldn’t have found themselves in that state if they had not previously let themselves be confused by the Jews. And as for the great indignation of the Hebrews, we are not grieved a bit. Where, by the way, has that indignation been apparent? So far, Israel has been quiet as a mouse about it. They have always praised Luther greatly as the enemy of Rome. Heine began a ceremonious hymn of joy to the Reformer with the words, ‘Luther, you dear man.'”

“He had good reason,” he jeered. “All Jews have good reason to celebrate Luther and to ignore his anti-Semitism. Without intending to do so, he paved the way for them, and how! The more they extol his authority, the less the world notices his error. That he later cursed them as a pestilence is indeed bitter to them, but — how many people are even aware of his condemnation of the Jews?”

Nahum Goldmann“The Jew Goldmann,” I put in, “stated their reason plainly enough. ‘Luther has again brought the Old Testament to honor.'” [44] [Image: Nahum Goldmann (1894-1982)]

“Instead of to dishonor,” was the reply. “His translation to the German language might have been of some use; as it is, it has grievously damaged the German power of discernment. Lord in heaven, what a halo now surrounds Satan’s ‘Bible’! Luther’s poetry sparkles so that even the incest of Lot’s daughters has been given a religious shimmer. Jehovah’s command to be fruitful and multiply had to be obeyed by these two pious maidens — at any price!”

“Schopenhauer expressed a similar opinion,” I confirmed. “He said that if one wants to understand the Old Testament one must read it in the Greek version. There it has an entirely different tone, an entirely different color, with no presentiment of Christianity! Contrasted with the Greek, Luther’s translation seems ‘pious’; also ‘often erroneous, indeed, sometimes intentionally, and delivered throughout in a churchly, edifying tone.’ Luther has permitted himself changes ‘which one could call forgeries’ and so on.” [45]

“Not Luther,” he raised his finger. “The rabbis who helped him with the entire translation introduced changes and forgeries. Hebrew is a difficult language. Luther translated a certain word, for example, as ‘racial kinsman.’ But then the rabbi came in and said that the word means ‘neighbor.’ And so we have the translation: ‘Love thy neighbor as thyself,’ rather than, as it should be: ‘Love thy racial kinsman as thyself.’ A small piece of cunning, but — it served its purpose of giving the Jews the aspect of real humanitarians.”

“Yes, even Luther was taken in by the ‘chosen people,'” I replied. “He looked upon the Old Testament as divine revelation. He approached the book with infatuation, convinced that it could contain nothing but sheer preciousness. Then he began wading into the vile thing. After a few steps he blinked his eyes, bewildered. He was stunned. That just couldn’t be so! It must have some other meaning! And so, with perfectly honest intentions, he read between the lines what simply wasn’t there. Everywhere he managed to see allusions to Christ, although nothing could be farther from the Jews’ actual thoughts on the matter. Their Messiah is no ‘lamb’s tail,’ Heine jeered at Christ, no scorner of earthly existence. [46] On the contrary, their Messiah is a brutal dog who will conquer the earth for his Jews; he is the ‘prince of this world.’ Page after page it says: ‘Ye shall eat the riches of the Gentiles, and in their glory shall ye boast yourselves,’ or ‘Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.’ One of these is a statement of a ‘divinely inspired’ prophet, the other a ‘deeply spiritual’ psalm (Isaiah 61:6, Psalms 2:8).

“Credulously, Luther viewed everything in a rosy light. This became easier for him when, in the middle of the great morass, he came to passages like: ‘Ye will have no permanent existence among the nations, and the soles of thy feet shall find no rest,’ and ‘Ye will be an abomination among all peoples.’ Compassion seized him. “The Jews,’ he thought to himself, ‘have become untrue to their godly doctrine, but they will again find their way home to it.’ It never occurred to him that these direly threatening sermons served only the purpose of holding the Jews to their course.

“On the other hand, many passages of apparently lofty stamp have quite a different purpose: namely, they serve as a protective cover. He later recognized this Jewish tactic, but only in the living Hebrews, not in their Bible. ‘The Jews desire to make all their affairs ambiguous, so that nothing about them is really certain,’ he said. If one belabors them for an especially low-minded passage, they can indignantly point at one which is dripping with loving kindness. Heine, for example, writes an utterly vulgar poem about Germany; five minutes later he is praising ‘the dear homeland’ to the skies. A matter of changing mood? Oh, dear God, I suppose that we are to believe that an old street whore often finds herself in the mood to sing the ‘Ave Maria,’ or that a basically honest fellow is often in the mood to steal. What nonsense!”

Baruch (Benedict) Spinoza“No, you are right,” he said. “The Jew often plays the role of a benefactor only in order to accomplish his destructive aims without notice. It’s always been that way.

“This ambiguity,” I completed, “one finds even in Spinoza. One can hardly imagine a bolder, more outspoken world view than his; but his ethics would horrify a pig. ‘In all things seek that which is advantageous’ is the quintessence of his moral philosophy — the genuine Jewish viewpoint.” [Image: Baruch Spinoza, the greatest Jewish philosopher (1632-1677)]

“It is the most terrible tragedy,” he said sadly, “that Luther bears the responsibility for such a dire development — the consequence of deeds committed in perfect innocence — that today all civilization is in danger of running aground on it. The greatest German the unsuspecting cause of the German collapse; Luther, the mighty opponent of the Jews, the one who most disastrously paved the way for them — incomprehensible, I tell you, incomprehensible. To happen too late by a paltry ten or twenty years! To first become awake to the Jews shortly before his death, when everything had already been determined! [47] Previously, body and soul for the traitors! Then the Hebrews had still been ‘cousins and brothers of our Lord’ to him, while we Christians were only ‘brother-in-law and strangers.’ Wringing his hands, he entreated the populace to associate with them in a ‘decent and proper’ manner. To him they were exalted above the Apostles! The late Erzberger couldn’t have carried on more absurdly.” [48]

“Only not for an instant as sincerely,” I stopped him. “If Luther had been a contemporary of Erzberger, he wouldn’t have had to find out about the purpose of the Jewish hush-money first, in order to see through Judaism. As early as his student days he would have promptly leaped with both feet into the battle against the devil’s brood.”

“My God,” he immediately resumed, “one cannot blame him. A lot has happened in the last four hundred years. But there is one thing to remember: Popular instinct was more alert then than nowadays. All along the line mistrust of the Jews was quite firm. Luther was a man of the people, the son of simple folk. His predilection of many years toward the Jews is a bit misleading; one must take into account a certain naivete, a lack of worldliness, the result of his stay in the cloister. The same rule seems to have applied here as elsewhere: Too much studying ruined his vision. Nevertheless, Luther was a great man, a giant. With a shock which pierced the twilight he saw the Jews as we have only begun to see them today. But, unfortunately, too late, and even then not there, where he had done the most damage — in Christianity. Oh, had he only seen them there; had he only seen them in his youth! Then he would not have attacked Catholicism, but, rather, the Jews behind it! Instead of a wholesale condemnation of the Church, he would have let his whole, passionate impetus fall on the true villains. Instead of glorifying the Old Testament, he would have branded it as the arsenal of the Antichrist. And the Jew — the Jew would have stood there in his abominable nakedness, as an eternal warning. He would have been obliged to get out of the Church, out of society, out of the halls of the princes, out of the castles of the knights and the houses of the citizens. For Luther had the strength and the courage and the overpowering will. It would never have come to the splitting of the Church or to the war which, in accordance with the wishes of the Hebrews, spilled Aryan blood in torrents for thirty long years.”


[36] Otto Weininger, Geschlecht und Charakter (Vienna and Leipzig, 1903).

[37] I.e., Berlin Advertiser, a Berlin Newspaper. [Translator]

[38] Moritz Goldstein, Kunstwart, March, 1912.

[39] One is reminded here of what has happened to Wagner in recent years. If Eckart could have foreseen how Wagner’s immortal operas would be someday perverted at Bayreuth, he would have been far more distressed than he was over Jewish “interpretations” of Goethe’s writing. [Translator]

[40] Anacletus II (1130-1138), Innocent II (1130-1143), Calixtus III (1168-1178), Clement VIII (1424-1428), Alexander VI (1492-1503), and even Pius XI (1922-1939). In addition, Gregory VI (1045-1046) and others may have been Jews or part-Jews. Anacletus II, Calixtus III, and Clement VIII are generally classified as antipopes. [Translator]

[41] Giordano Bruno, Spacio della Bestis Trionfante (1584).

[42] In his lecture in 1894, entitled Umpires of the Jewish Question.

[43] In his farewell sermon in March, 1894.

[44] Nahum Goldmann, the well-known Russian-Jewish Zionist who also had the unbelievable audacity to announce that the Jews “no longer recognize the right of any country to consider the question of the treatment of its Jewish population as an internal affair.”

[45] Schopenhauer, loc. cit.

[46] Heinrich Heine, in his poem “Disputation.”

[47] Martin Luther died in 1546. His two principal anti-Semitic writings, Von den Juden und ihren Lügen and Vom Schem Hamphoras, appeared in 1543. A philo-Semitic tract by him was written in 1523. The modern reader may refer to Walther Linden, Luthers Kampfschriften gegen das Judentum (Berlin, 1936), which contains the complete text of Von den Juden und ihren Lügen and extracts from Vom Schem Hamphoras; or to E.V. von Rudolf, Dr. Martin Luther Wider die Juden (Munich, 1940), which has extracts from both. [Translator]

[48] Matthias Erzberger (1875-1922) was a left-wing member of the Catholic Center Party. A collaborator with the Jews and Social Democrats during World War I, he favored the Versailles Treaty and became German vice chancellor in 1919. He was executed for his treasonable activities by German patriots in 1921. [Translator]

Original html and additional notes by Irmin Vinson

* * *

You’ve just heard part three of of Dr. William Pierce’s translation of Dietrich Eckart’s Bolshevism From Moses to Lenin, read by Vanessa Neubauer. We’ll conclude our series based on this important, insightful work next week — right here on American Dissident Voices.

* * *

You’ve been listening to American Dissident Voices, the radio program of the National Alliance. The National Alliance is working to educate White men and women around the world as to the nature of the reality we must face — and organizing our people to ensure our survival and advancement. Write to National Alliance, Box 172, Laurel Bloomery, TN 37680 USA to learn how you can make your life count — or visit Once again, our postal address is Box 172, Laurel Bloomery, TN 37680 USA. Until next week, this is Kevin Alfred Strom reminding you of the words of Richard Berkeley Cotten: Freedom is not free; free men are not equal; and equal men are not free.