No one can publish Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler in unedited form, without politically favorable commentary and without getting punished in most of the European countries if released unedited.
Since European politicians treat their citizens as stupid sheep who cannot form their own opinions without sleazy commentary, religious books should be treated in such a way as well.
So when the crazy Mein Kampf is banned in its explicit form, what should we do about the Bible?
The differences between the Bible and Mein Kampf
One of the striking differences between Mein Kampf and the Bible lies in their structure and clarity. While Mein Kampf is a toxic and hostile manifesto, it is at least organized. It follows a clear line of thought, reflecting Hitler’s paranoid worldview and his political plans. It lays out enemies, goals, and grievances with a disturbing precision. The Bible, on the other hand, is a chaotic collection of myths, stories, laws, and poetry written over centuries. It lacks cohesion. Its contradictions are not just ideological—they are structural. Events shift timelines, characters change tone, and entire books push against each other in meaning.
Another difference is their relation to reality. Mein Kampf is partly based on real historical events. World War I, the Treaty of Versailles, and the post-war German crisis are its backdrop. While Hitler’s conclusions are delusional and dangerous, his references are rooted in actual political and economic circumstances. The Bible, especially the Old Testament, anchors itself in legend. Cities are mythical, timelines unverified, and even major characters often lack archaeological support. Some parts may reflect distant echoes of real places or events, but the vast majority of it floats in a mythological haze.
Which is more hostile?
Then comes the issue of hostility. Mein Kampf is openly hateful. Its racism is overt. Its militarism is intentional. It calls for domination. But the Bible is not innocent either. It too contains deep hostility. From genocidal commandments in Deuteronomy to the tribal violence of Joshua, it spreads the message of divine wrath. The early Bible was written in a world of blood and conquest, and it reflects that without apology.
Finally, the moral source. Mein Kampf comes from a man consumed by hate. The Bible comes from generations of warlords, priests, and scribes trying to make sense of survival through divine terror. The original texts of the Bible are soaked in violence—execution for heresy, stoning for trivial offenses, and slaughter in God’s name. That original brutality is often hidden behind modern reinterpretations. But it is still there, at the core.
Both books are dangerous in their own ways. One is modern, structured, and deliberately ideological. The other is ancient, scattered, and masked by sanctity. But neither is morally clean.
Mein Kampf or Bible: Which is more deluded?
While Mein Kampf is built on the grotesque delusion of European racial supremacy, its foundation—however twisted—rests on a recognizable world. Hitler draws from the political chaos of post–World War I Europe, economic crises, and national humiliation. His conclusions are racist, paranoid, and morally repugnant, but he at least refers to real countries, real treaties, and real historical moments. The danger of Mein Kampf lies in its calculated hatred and the way it warps history to serve a violent agenda. It is filled with myths of Aryan greatness, but these myths are structured to achieve a political goal: power through exclusion and domination. Its racism is methodical, its logic perverse but clear. It is a dangerous book, but its delusions are recognizable as ideological extremes built atop actual events.
The Bible, by contrast, is far more detached from reality. It is not just morally ambiguous—it is filled with talking snakes, people living hundreds of years, oceans parting at command, and a god who slaughters children and commands genocide. It stacks myth upon myth without any coherent ethical or historical framework. Unlike Hitler, who at least believed in a distorted version of history, the Bible often does not even pretend to align with historical truth.
Magic
It begins with magical trees and ends with apocalyptic beasts, passing through stories of mass killings, divinely sanctioned slavery, and arbitrary rituals that governed everything from food to sexual conduct. It claims to offer moral guidance, yet constantly contradicts itself and glorifies violence in ways no modern text would be allowed to get away with. In terms of sheer volume of nonsense, cruelty disguised as holiness, and detachment from reality, the Bible easily outpaces Mein Kampf.
The Bible as a delusion versus Mein Kampf
The Bible also collapses under the weight of its own philosophical contradictions, particularly in its treatment of evil and human freedom. Theodicy—the attempt to explain why a supposedly all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good god permits evil—remains the Bible’s most glaring failure. Its answers are either shallow or horrifying. In some parts, evil is punishment for disobedience; in others, it serves mysterious divine plans that mortals are not meant to understand. Yet the suffering of children, the cruelty of nature, and the brutality of history remain untouched by divine justice. If God is willing to stop evil but cannot, he is not omnipotent. If he can but does not, he is not good. And if he neither can nor wants to, then why call him God?
The Bible’s defenders retreat into metaphors or vague spiritual slogans, but the text itself offers no coherent explanation for evil—it merely commands obedience in the face of it. Meanwhile, the idea of free will disintegrates the moment God is said to foresee all future events. If the future is already known to God, then human decisions must be predetermined.
Interdeterministic or determinsitic world and free will
A predetermined world cannot allow for true moral choice. And if the entire world is deterministic under divine foresight, then God is not omnipotent either—he is bound by the unchangeable sequence of events he supposedly already knows will unfold. In that case, we have no free will at all. We are not moral agents but programmed creatures following an unalterable script. Which raises the deeper question: why would a god observe or judge beings who have no real agency? Why would he watch his own robots fail, suffer, or sin, when he authored their every thought?
The Bible’s understanding of human origins is equally detached from any reality. It offers a myth in which all humans descend from two people made from dust and ribs, placed in a garden with a magical tree and a talking snake. This origin story collapses under even the most basic understanding of biology, genetics, and archaeology. There is no evidence for a first couple, no global flood that reset the human race, no Tower of Babel that divided languages.
Worse, it tries to pass these myths as universal truth while ignoring the existence of thousands of indigenous origin stories with just as much poetic charm and just as little scientific grounding. The idea of prayer—speaking words into the air to influence an omniscient deity—is just as absurd. If God already knows what we want, why ask? If he is just, why would he change his mind for the pious and ignore the suffering of others? The Bible never resolves this. It simply praises prayer and warns against doubt, hoping fear will cover up the contradiction.
No soul, heaven or hell
Yet the deeper failure is spiritual: the idea of an immortal soul unique to humans, which supposedly floats off to heaven or hell, is never clearly defined. Neuroscience has never found any trace of such a soul, nor has the Bible coherently described it. And finally, the existence of an infinite number of religions across cultures and centuries—each with their own gods, heavens, rituals, and prophets—undermines the Bible’s central claim to be the one true revelation. Why this book, from this desert tribe, in this century? Why not the Bhagavad Gita, the Egyptian Book of the Dead, or a thousand other sacred texts? The Bible offers no answer—just warnings, threats, and declarations of supremacy. It demands faith while providing none of the clarity, evidence, or honesty that real understanding requires.
How should we treat it politically?
The Bible’s New Testament is full of contradicting, lying, illogical, cognitively biased statements with no evidence provided, it denies the truth, misleads the reader, perverts reality, alienates people against each other, is full of formal fallacies, is racist, homophobic, superstitious, demagogic, extremely silly, xenophobic, misogynistic, sporadic and dubious claims with Bronze Age-like pathos, parade of stupid fairy tales and charade of falsehoods.
Should every second sentence should be accompanied by some commentary of a deeply educated, rational and scientific person?
So if you want to be impartial what would you do? Since the Bible is really full of it, do we need a commentary after every sentence? Or are we going to ban the book?
Leave a Reply