"Secular consumerism/nationalism is worse than religion

[K. A. Pital]

You're full of shit.

Firstly, the link is not direct - antisemitism goes through a number of permutations between the 1450s and 1930s; and secondly it is not causal in anywhere near the same way - there are a multiplicity of other factors involved in both the ideology of eliminationist antisemitism, and its realisation in the Holocaust, which have nothing to do with Christianity.

The link may not be "direct", but it's existing, and precisely between eliminationalist antisemitism, because Luther advised to get rid of the Jews by destroying their habitation places and slaughtering them. It's hard to claim with a straight face that this idea of "solving" the "Jewish question" could have made no impact on the German populace. Hell, the Kristallnacht pogrom was done on Luther's birthday.

If Christian anti-Semitism was one of the causes of complicity, how the hell would it be ignored? The relationship is causal - the fact that there are multiple causes does not change that fact now, does it?

[General Zod]

Which seems to be a varient of what was said above (with which I never disagreed), with perhaps the variation that Hitler's own anti-semitism was originally religious, and was later "rationalised" - that Hitler was a microcosm of the historical development of anti-semitism. You have, of course, no evidence for this, which is why it's only possible that you're making it - I don't want to put words in your mouth.

So where'd Hitler get the idea to start blaming the Jews and rationalizing his hatred for them in the first place? His asshole? Or did he maybe, just maybe, use the pre-existing hatred of them at the time due to the Church spewing centuries of anti-semitic propaganda among the common populace?

[Androsphinx]

The link may not be "direct", but it's existing, and precisely between eliminationalist antisemitism, because Luther advised to get rid of the Jews by destroying their habitation places and slaughtering them. It's hard to claim with a straight face that this idea of "solving" the "Jewish question" could have made no impact on the German populace

I'm not arguing with that in the slightest. You seem to misunderstand me- I pointed out that Lutheran (and more generally Christian) anti-semitism rested on two claims - that the Jews rejected Jesus' teachings, and that they killed Jesus. The comparison was made above to creationists, who attempt to pretend that they are not motivated by their biblical literalism. Hitler explictly rejected the first of these, and implicitly rejected the second (as shown previously). Therefore while Hitler's antisemitism is to a certain extent indebted to historical German models (which I have said from my first post on the subject), can hardly be attributed solely, or even to a major extent, to Christian anti-semitism, when he rejected its basic tenents.

Hell, the Kristallnacht pogrom was done on Luther's birthday.

Co-incidence. Kristallnacht occured because vom Rath, a German diplomat, was shot by a Polish Jew in Paris on the 7th November, and died on the 9th. Bishop Sasse used the co-incidence later for exegesis. That doesn't imply any type of causality. The 9th November (Luther's birthday is the 10th) is also the anniversary of the abdication of the Kaiser, and of the fall of the Berlin Wall. Were either of those linked to Luther? Was Kristalnacht linked to them?

If Christian anti-Semitism was one of the causes of complicity, how the hell would it be ignored? The relationship is causal - the fact that there are multiple causes does not change that fact now, does it?

I neither said that it would be ignored, nor said that it was non-causal. I said that it was "not causal in the same way [as the Crusades]" - that is, not of direct, immediate and overwhelming significane.

If you were paying attention, I was making a comparison between the relationship of Christianity and the Crusades- which were nakedly and obviously religious in nature; and Christianity and the Holocaust - where the motivations are more complicated, the association with Christianity is more distant and less significant; and the amount of influence that this anti-semitism then had on the Holocaust is far more disputed - we know where Hitler himself got his anti-semitism from, and it wasn't Luther (despite what Lucy Dawidowicz said in her more intemperate moments).

[K. A. Pital]

...we know where Hitler himself got his anti-semitism from, and it wasn't Luther

While I agree that the relationship of Hitler's anti-semitism to the Lutheran anti-semitism is more complex than the Crusade example, how can you claim it wasn't at least partly Luther? Hitler pointed to Luther as one of the heroes of the German nation in Mein Kampf, and his underlings spun Luther's name to get support from the masses of hardcore Lutherans in Germany.

Co-incidence.

That I do not deny, but it's remarkable that the German clergy, which wielded power over the populace, ex. Sasse, was quick to use this co-incidence to get popular support for the pogrom. So in terms of Luther's impact on German anti-semitism, we can make two conclusions:

1) it impacted German anti-semitism
2) it impacted Hitler's personal anti-semitism

Hitler's racial notions were also largely based on the Creation myth which he used as basis for his "lower race" theory (jew = embodyment of the devil, as he wrote), so obviously even his personal anti-Semitism has a lot to draw from Christianity.

Complex? Sure. Non-causal? Hell no.

[Androsphinx]

So where'd Hitler get the idea to start blaming the Jews and rationalizing his hatred for them in the first place? His asshole? Or did he maybe, just maybe, use the pre-existing hatred of them at the time due to the Church spewing centuries of anti-semitic propaganda among the common populace?

I don't think you quite understand. Racial, nationalist anti-semitism wasn't a "rationalisation" in the way you think of it - as an excuse to convince himself of something he was already prejudiced to believe. "Rationalisation" meant to make rational - to make scientific, accurate, and no longer dependant on such vaguaries as religious observance and appearance. People genuinely believed - in large numbers - in the science of eugenics, and that Jews and slavs were inferior races, determined to pollute and drag down "pure" Germans. It wasn't an excuse to cover for religious motivations - it was genuinely believed and felt on its own terms. What seems to have happened is that the core sentiment of Jew-hatred remained while through the nineteenth century the reasons for it radically changed - what Dawidowicz calls "Judenhaas".

The important thing to note here is that this happened in the 19th century - by 1880 you have anti-Church, anti-semitic racial nationalist parties. Hitler came into a world (in Vienna especially) where racially-based anti-semitism was proclaimed as its own ideology, and had been for 30 years and more (in the early/mid 1910s). Hitler didn't begin by hating the Jews for religious reasons, and then decide that this wasn't a good PR strategy, so he should switch - he hated the Jews as a racial unit, as communists and capitalists and controllers of the press and polluters of "pure" Germans, as white slave traders and pornographers and fundamentally anti-German. He later incorporated certain religious symbols- primarily the idea of degredation and rebirth, as well as historic precedents, some of which involved religion - not the other way round. This is exceptionally clear from reading Mein Kampf and Hitler's speeches throughout the 1930s. Instead of asking rhetorically "Where did Hitler get his anti-semitism from?", why don't you read something about the period, or even - gasp - something I wrote.

Actually, this is as good a time as any to remind you that you started off saying that a major Nazi slogan was "The Jews killed Jesus" (it was not). You then moved on to saying that while not explicitly mentioned, Christian belief directly underpinned Nazi ideology (it did not). You then said that Hitler himself was religiously-motivated (he was not), and now you've arrived at saying (if I understand you correctly) that Hitler "got the idea" of being anti-semitic from religious sources, and then used it in his own ideological matter (also incorrect). Do you not realise that you've moved from publically stated motivations in the 1940s to arguing (from ignorance) about the influences on Hitler when he first became anti-semitic? Why do you find it so hard to admit that you were wrong? Can you not at least admit that your original claim - that deicide was one of the major justifications for the Holocaust - is completely incorrect?

[K. A. Pital]

This is exceptionally clear from reading Mein Kampf and Hitler's speeches throughout the 1930s

It's patently clear from Mein Kampf that Hitler heavily weighed religious judgement on the Jews and the "race" issue in general. He believe in the Creation myth, saying that Jews as lower races evolved from apes, while Aryans are "image of the Creator". How the fuck is THAT not a religious base? Where have you seen a lack of religious motivation in Hitler's writings, especially in Mein Kampf? It's chock full of religious bullshit about "Creator" and "creation", "lord's image", "Lucifers" and "devils" as Jews and Bolsheviks, but that's it.

[Androsphinx]

While I agree that the relationship of Hitler's anti-semitism to the Lutheran anti-semitism is more complex than the Crusade example, how can you claim it wasn't at least partly Luther? Hitler pointed to Luther as one of the heroes of the German nation in Mein Kampf, and his underlings spun Luther's name to get support from the masses of hardcore Lutherans in Germany.

Of course it was partially Luther. I never denied that. The first time I mentioned the Holocaust, I mentioned Goldhagen, where he goes through at length medieval german anti-semitism (which went much further than just Luther), and traces its secularisation through into the early 20th century. That's in terms of the Germans as a whole - your point 1, with which I am in agreement.

Hitler himself is a different story. Raised a Catholic, then rapidly secularised, he would never have given Luther's brand of protestant theology a consideration. But as a historical figure, Luther was undoubtly a prominent one. Luther is mentioned only once in MK - and as you noted, it is in the context of a "national hero" like Fredrick the Great. He never mentions Luther's antisemtism, and certainly never assigns it any significance in his ideological considerations. That's your point 2, with which I have to disagree.

And the creation myth wasn't really the basis for his idea of racial qualities and identities. That came out of secular, scientific university research through the 19th century. As for his association between the Jews and Satan, I think that's fairly clearly a pejorative and rhetoical point, rather than a genuine attempt at exegesis of Genesis Chapter 1. I quoted from Kershaw's biography before, and if you want I can get another one as well (although Kershaw is the best avaliable in English, IMO), but the historical consensus is that his personal anti-semitism was not based on any conscious religious motivations.

And of course Sasse used Luther as an example! He was a Protestant bishop! I've never denied that - but Sasse was speaking post hoc, and Sasse was not a member of the Nazi heirarchy, so he doesn't add anything to our analysis of the basis of Nazi ideology.

Complex? Sure. Non-causal? Hell no.

Maybe we're just one post behind each other- I didn't say, and don't believe- that the relationship was non-causal, just that the linkage is much weaker than with the Crusades. I used the phrase "not as causal", which is not very good English, but served to convey my point.

[Androsphinx]

It's patently clear from Mein Kampf that Hitler heavily weighed religious judgement on the Jews and the "race" issue in general. He believe in the Creation myth, saying that Jews as lower races evolved from apes, while Aryans are "image of the Creator". How the fuck is THAT not a religious base? Where have you seen a lack of religious motivation in Hitler's writings, especially in Mein Kampf? It's chock full of religious bullshit about "Creator" and "creation", "lord's image", "Lucifers" and "devils" as Jews and Bolsheviks, but that's it.

Hitler had a Catholic upbringing, and believed throughout his life that he was divinely inspired, talking openly about "Providence" (especially after June 1944, but that's another matter). None of that is in dispute. As I said before, I'm not motivated by any apologetic motives, and Hitler would have certainly called himself a Christian - he believed that it was a vital part of German culture and identity. The question is whether that religion had any affect upon his political ideology and anti-semitism.

Religious anti-semitism, as I've said before, drew from two linked beliefs - that the Jews rejected Jesus - specifically, that their adherance to their religion represented a continued rejection; and that the Jews killed Jesus. This meant that if Jews were to convert to Christianity, they would be fine - they were no longer rejecting Jesus, and by accepting him they would be forgiven all their sins - including killing him.

Hitler, as noted above, rejected outright the idea that the Jewish religious was significant, and pursued Jews as a race - included intermarried Jews, converted Jews and assimilated Jews. He also implicitly rejected the deicide charge (due to Higher Criticism, as mentioned before), and did not use it as a rhetorical tool (despite its obvious utility). He thus rejected the bases of religious antisemitism.

When he uses religious language in MK, and most of his later speeches, he is imposing religious terms onto his external, racial-nationalist anti-semitism. Politicians throughout the world spoke of God and used religious language in a way that sensible politicians do not do today. For example, Churchill said:

I can say: It is to wage war, by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us; to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark, lamentable catalogue of human crime.

and

Behind them - behind us- behind the Armies and Fleets of Britain and France - gather a group of shattered States and bludgeoned races: the Czechs, the Poles, the Norwegians, the Danes, the Dutch, the Belgians - upon all of whom the long night of barbarism will descend, unbroken even by a star of hope, unless we conquer, as conquer we must; as conquer we shall.

Today is Trinity Sunday. Centuries ago words were written to be a call and a spur to the faithful servants of Truth and Justice: "Arm yourselves, and be ye men of valour, and be in readiness for the conflict; for it is better for us to perish in battle than to look upon the outrage of our nation and our altar. As the Will of God is in Heaven, even so let it be."

and

What General Weygand called the Battle of France is over. I expect that the Battle of Britain is about to begin. Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilization.

I don't think that you can use these, and the myriad other examples (I quoted from three of his most famous 1940 speeches) to argue that Churchill's resistance to Hitler was based on his religion.

[K. A. Pital]

Hitler, as noted above, rejected outright the idea that the Jewish religious was significant, and pursued Jews as a race - included intermarried Jews, converted Jews and assimilated Jews. He also implicitly rejected the deicide charge (due to Higher Criticism, as mentioned before), and did not use it as a rhetorical tool (despite its obvious utility). He thus rejected the bases of religious antisemitism.

You're full of shit again, sorry. Hitler did not "reject" the bases of religious anti-semitism, he merely updated them with his "race" theory. That is, Jesus was an Aryan, who came out of the jews but was not a jew, and that God created Aryans, but Jews were a mix of animals and men. He deeply respected Christianity for it's intolerance and the ability to crush other religions.

[Androsphinx]

You're full of shit again, sorry. Hitler did not "reject" the bases of religious anti-semitism, he merely updated them with his "race" theory. That is, Jesus was an Aryan, who came out of the jews but was not a jew, and that God created Aryans, but Jews were a mix of animals and men. He deeply respected Christianity for it's intolerance and the ability to crush other religions.

Especially the Catholic church, whose dogmatism, extremism and blind obedience he greatly admired. But I think we're talking past each other.

You highlighted the "Christian" elements of Hitler's ideology - Jesus was an Aryan, the Aryans were divinely created, the Jews - as a race - are subhuman. None of those are elements of historical Christian anti-semitism. Certainly Luther never dreamt of them - they draw entirely from 19th and early 20th century racial beliefs. In advocating them, Hitler was in no way drawing on a pre-existing Christian tradition of anti-semitism, but applied certain religious patterns and structures onto a pre-assumed ideology.

In other words, historic Christian anti-semitism was based on two assumptions - rejection of Jesus (A) and deicide (B), thus said that the Jews were damned unless they converted (Y), and therefore sometimes advocated the use of force against the Jews (Z).

Hitler's anti-semitism explictly rejected A and B, held that Y would do no good, and agreed only on Z. It was based primarily on racial (C), nationalistic (D) and social (E) considerations, with conspiricism (F) and plain old paranoia (G). He also introduced a number of elements to his religious rhetoric that medieval Christianity would not have recognised in the slightest.

If you completely reject the philosophical bases of a ideology, totally supplant them with your own, replace their "ideal" solution with your own, and agree only on the methodology (persecution), to what extent is that still the same ideology?

[Androsphinx]

Oh and I did tell you the reasons why Hitler became an anti-semite. He tells us himself in MK, it's quite clear, and it has nothing to do with Christianity:

He hated the Jews as a racial unit, as communists and capitalists and controllers of the press and polluters of "pure" Germans, as white slave traders and pornographers and fundamentally anti-German. He later incorporated certain religious symbols- primarily the idea of degredation and rebirth, as well as historic precedents, some of which involved religion - not the other way round.

Or as Kershaw put it:

Hitler's well known reply to Gemlich, dated 16 September 1919, is his first recorded written statement about the "Jewish Question". He wrote that anti-semitism should be based not on religion but on "facts", the first of which was that Jewry was a race, not a religion. Emotive antisemitism would produce pogroms, he continued; antisemitism based on "reason" must, on the other hand, lead to the systematic removal of the rights of Jews. "Its final aim, " he concluded "must unshakeably be the removal of the Jews altogether"

The Gemlich letter reveals for the first time key basic elements of Hitler's Weltanschauung which from them on remained unaltered to the last days in the Berlin bunker: antisemitism resting on race theory and the creation of a unifying nationalism founded on the need to combat the external and internal power of the Jews

You'll note there's no mention of religion anywhere. Once he had his ideas, he applied them to the shared-value system he had been brought up in. Not the other way round.

[K. A. Pital]

Hitler's Christian beliefs and anti-Semitism came hand in hand, just at the same time as he wrote the "race" letter to Gemlich, Hitler also had already defined a religious framework for his racial nonsense:
http://www.nobeliefs.com/HitlerBible.htm

The base for his race laws was in the transformed religious views, but religious nontheless. Hitler was not a classical religious anti-Semite, but so what? Why would we need him to be a "classical" anti-Semite to establish causality, if it's evident that the race law in Hitler's story is tied to his beliefs in the Creation myth?

[Androsphinx]

The base for his race laws was in the transformed religious views, but religious nontheless. Hitler was not a classical religious anti-Semite, but so what? Why would we need him to be a "classical" anti-Semite to establish causality, if it's evident that the race law in Hitler's story is tied to his beliefs in the Creation myth?

Well, all the way back when this thread was sidetracked (by General Zod's totally unfounded and incorrect statement, but I digress), the issue was the contribution of Christianity to the Crusades and the Holocaust. Which seemed to be broadly understood as being Christian doctrine, and historic Christian anti-semitism. It was never denied that Hitler believed in God, was a Christian, and worked within a symbol-value system which was heavily influenced by that. My remarks that Hitler's ideology was "not based on religion" referred to established Christian doctrine and practice, not that he didn't evolve his own system from a mixture of sources.

Now you're arguing something rather different - that Hitler made up his own religion and theology based on racial and religious lines. I'm very cautious with the source you provided, because it's a single piece of evidence and our picture of Hitler is built up of thousands of such pieces - one piece, no matter the context, will always be misleading. All we know is that sometime between 1920 and 1923 (Hitler's 30s, non-political) Hitler scrawlled down a few notes about religion and racial theory. The reason why no-one pays attention to this is that Hitler made his beliefs and his motivations crystal clear on many occasions, so it's hardly a case of an inconvienient but crucially important piece of information being ignored.

But even accepting everything therein, all we know is that in the early 1920s, at least five years after his exposure to German racial anti-semitism which he writes so vividly about in MK, Hitler was trying to merge religious and racial elements. He was, in short, making up his own religion based on a strange mix of Christianity and racial theory (Burleigh, which I PMed to you, describes the same thing). This is obvious to any student of the Third Reich - the "political theology" of Nazi Germany is a fascinating subject. But while its link to Christianity is clear, its link to historic Christian anti-semitism is tenuous as best.

Again, you are not arguing with me. You're arguing with the hypothetical position that Hitler was non-religious, which I do not hold (it's self-evidently false).[/i]

[Darth Wong]

Androsphinx, I hope you realize that by your logic, modern Christianity itself has nothing to do with the Christianity of the past. After all, the style of argument preferred by modern Christians is totally different.

[Androsphinx]

Androsphinx, I hope you realize that by your logic, modern Christianity itself has nothing to do with the Christianity of the past. After all, the style of argument preferred by modern Christians is totally different.

I'm not sure which style of argument you're referring to. Could you explain what you mean?

[Darth Wong]

Androsphinx, I hope you realize that by your logic, modern Christianity itself has nothing to do with the Christianity of the past. After all, the style of argument preferred by modern Christians is totally different.

I'm not sure which style of argument you're referring to. Could you explain what you mean?

You are saying that the specific arguments made by Christian Nazis and Hitler for anti-Semitism are different than the ones used by medieval Christians, therefore you can't tie medieval Christian anti-Semitism to Hitler's anti-Semitism, or tie Christianity to Nazi Anti-Semitism at all. This is the biggest non sequitur I've seen since the last time I watched Sean Hannity.

[Androsphinx]

I see what you mean now, but I don't see that's what I said. I never said that there was no continuity between the two (that would be flagrantly untrue).

We got to discussion of two different points - the general German public, and specifically Hitler.

General German anti-semitism was a constant throughout the period in discussion, but its motivations and ideological basis changed significantly. I don't see how anyone could argue with that. I described the link as "remote" because it's historically distant (racial anti-semitism had been political for sixty years before Hitler came to power), mingled with a variety of other fators, and because the subsequent link between the general German people and the Holocaust is one of considerable historical debate and is by no means a settled issue. So I wouldn't say that I was trying to avoid tieing Christianity and Nazi anti-semitism, just that it's one factor amongst many, and is a much more complicated matter than the Crusades, which was the other item mentioned.

There's also a subdiscussion about Hitler's anti-semitism, and how much it owed to medieval Christianity, as opposed to Hitler making up his own religion based on Christian texts. As I've said, I think Stas Bush and myslef are talking at cross purposes.

[K. A. Pital]

What's "own religion"? Are Mormons a Christian cult? Are Pentecostals? All of them devised their own religion based on the same Christian texts. Would we seek a special link to medieval Christianity for them? Why should we do that?

[Androsphinx]

What's "own religion"? Are Mormons a Christian cult? Are Pentecostals? All of them devised their own religion based on the same Christian texts. Would we seek a special link to medieval Christianity for them? Why should we do that?

Why should we do that? Because we were discussing the link between medieval Christianity and the Holocaust. That was the point of discussion - the linkage between historical anti-semitism and the Holocaust. Hitler created his own ideology, and neither his ideological impetus nor his justificatory motivations for his own anti-semitism had much to do with anything in Christian belief.

I was talking in terms of historic evolution and beliefs, and indebtedness to pre-existing Christian ideology in Nazi anti-semitism, on the (not unjustified assumption) that whatever was meant by "christianity", it did not include Nazism. If it makes you feel better, just put the word "traditional" before the word "Christianity" in my original proposition - "the link between traditional Christianity and the Holocaust is fairly remote".

[Androsphinx]

You're now arguing, by the way, a totally different proposition to the one you advanced before. Previously, you were discussing the ideological links between Luther and Hitler, and the role played by religious anti-semitism in the formation of Nazi-antisemtism. Now you're calling Nazism itself a religion, and that anything it therefore advocated must be "based on religion". Do you see how the two propositions differ? I was discussing the first.

[Darth Wong]

You're now arguing, by the way, a totally different proposition to the one you advanced before.

That's a pretty ironic statement from someone who started this by saying "Well, the linkage between Christianity and the Holocaust is fairly remote" and then ending up talking about "historic evolution and beliefs" and trying to declare Hitler's own obviously Christian justifications for anti-Semitism irrelevant. You've moved the goalposts many times, kiddo. Don't pretend otherwise.

[K. A. Pital]

Hitler created his own ideology, and neither his ideological impetus nor his justificatory motivations for his own anti-semitism had much to do with anything in Christian belief.

It had lots to do with his Christian belief. Sure, a particular form of that belief, but nonetheless, moron. You moved the goalposts, not I did. If there was nothing in Christian belief that pushed Hitler's motivation, how the fuck do you explain him using the Creation myth to build up his version of anti-Semitism and integrate it heavily with religion?

This precent isn't also uncommon for Christianity. The Hamite tale has been a justification for black slavery.

[Ryan Thunder]

Hitler created his own ideology, and neither his ideological impetus nor his justificatory motivations for his own anti-semitism had much to do with anything in Christian belief.

It had lots to do with his Christian belief. Sure, a particular form of that belief, but nonetheless, moron. You moved the goalposts, not I did. If there was nothing in Christian belief that pushed Hitler's motivation, how the fuck do you explain him using the Creation myth to build up his version of anti-Semitism and integrate it heavily with religion?

This precent isn't also uncommon for Christianity. The Hamite tale has been a justification for black slavery.

It might have been used as a justification, but a look at the rest of the Bible, specifically the New Testament, reveals that whole "love thy neighbor" thing.

So yeah. Somebody took the idea, and twisted it to suit their own ends. Is that anything new?

[Edi]

Hitler created his own ideology, and neither his ideological impetus nor his justificatory motivations for his own anti-semitism had much to do with anything in Christian belief.

It had lots to do with his Christian belief. Sure, a particular form of that belief, but nonetheless, moron. You moved the goalposts, not I did. If there was nothing in Christian belief that pushed Hitler's motivation, how the fuck do you explain him using the Creation myth to build up his version of anti-Semitism and integrate it heavily with religion?

This precent isn't also uncommon for Christianity. The Hamite tale has been a justification for black slavery.

It might have been used as a justification, but a look at the rest of the Bible, specifically the New Testament, reveals that whole "love thy neighbor" thing.

So yeah. Somebody took the idea, and twisted it to suit their own ends. Is that anything new?

So you picked out just one piece of advice from the Bible, the one that appears in every other ethics code even long before Jesus and that's supposed to negate all the other shit in there? You're a moron.

[Androsphinx]

That's a pretty ironic statement from someone who started this by saying "Well, the linkage between Christianity and the Holocaust is fairly remote" and then ending up talking about "historic evolution and beliefs" and trying to declare Hitler's own obviously Christian justifications for anti-Semitism irrelevant. You've moved the goalposts many times, kiddo. Don't pretend otherwise.

You're ignoring the second half of what I originally said - "not ignoring Goldhagen et al". Goldhagen, as I've mentioned throughout, takes precisely that approach - that earlier Christian anti-semitism secularised through the 19th and early 20th centuries, mainly based around racial theories and nationalism, to the point that when Hitler encountered it in Vienna, it was devoid of most of the features of traditional Christian anti-semitism (and Hitler himself, of course, was to remove more).