The Enduring Allure of Hitlerism"/>
Print this post Print this post

Hitler as Enlightenment Intellectual:
The Enduring Allure of Hitlerism

Graphic by Harold Arthur McNeill

2,410 words

Lawrence Birken
Hitler as Philosophe: Remnants of the Enlightenment in National Socialism
Westport, Conn.: Praeger, 1995.

A specter is haunting the world — the specter of Hitlerism. That, in short, is the stern warning of this provocative book, written by an Assistant Professor of History at Ball State University (Indiana), and published by Praeger, a leading US academic publisher.

In spite of decades of vehement vilification, says author Lawrence Birken, Hitler’s views have enduring and dangerous appeal — not because they are bizarre and alien, but precisely because they are rational and well grounded in Western thought. In particular, Birken stresses, Hitlerism is firmly rooted in the rationalist and scientific outlook of the 18th-century European Enlightenment. This is not meant as a compliment, however; the author is hostile to the West and its traditions. Rejecting the American and Western historical legacy, Prof. Birken openly calls for a new, racially homogenized America.

For more than half a century, Hitler and his views have been ceaselessly demonized in motion pictures, on television and in the print media. And yet, according to Birken, the appeal of Hitlerism remains so potent that it threatens the ideal of a racially “redefined” America of “higher unity.” As traditional standards and long-established cultural, racial and religious values come under ever greater attack, and as this country’s racial and cultural crisis becomes ever more acute, Birken fears that those who are unwilling to accept the “redefined” society that is developing in America and Europe will turn in ever greater numbers to Hitler’s alternative vision of society. Hitlerism, Birken says, will loom ever larger as a dangerously seductive “siren song.”

The author has no doubt made a sincere effort to provide an informed and objective look at Hitler and his views. But even if we overlook the numerous misspellings of proper names and titles, and the often polemical prose style, this is a badly flawed work. Birken’s understanding of what Hitler really thought and believed is both limited and skewed.

This is due in large part to the author’s exclusive reliance on English translations of Hitler’s writings and speeches (apparently he cannot read German), and a naive trust in unreliable secondary studies. These include Robert Waite’s The Psychopathic God: Adolf Hitler (1977), a sensationalistic psychodramatization, and Hermann Rauschning’s Revolution of Nihilism (1939), a thoroughly discredited diatribe. (See “Rauschning’s Phony ‘Conversations With Hitler': An Update,” Winter 1985 Journal of Historical Review, pp. 499–500.)

Birken also quotes repeatedly from The Testament of Adolf Hitler: The Hitler-Bormann Documents, supposedly a transcript of “table talk” remarks made by Hitler in February and April 1945. These “documents” are fake, says British historian David Irving, who reports that the late Swiss banker François Genoud admitted to him that he was the author.

‘A Genuine Intellectual’

Reflecting the ideological perspective that prevails in the Western world today, scholars of Hitler and Third Reich Germany have tended to dismiss the German leader’s intellectual outlook as simplistic and crude — or even crazy. Many play down or simply deny Hitler’s place in Western culture “as a means of sanitizing that culture,” says Birken. “But if we are to read Hitler neither to condemn nor to praise but merely to understand, then we come away with a very different conclusion about his place in European history.”

Scholars and others have made a major mistake in failing to take Hitler seriously as a thinker, argues Birken, who believes that the German political leader “must be regarded as a genuine intellectual” on a par with Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud. Birken’s assessment is not as startling as many might believe. As he notes, as early as 1953, British historian Hugh R. Trevor-Roper “evoked the image of Hitler as a kind of synthesis of Spengler and Napoleon, noting that of all world conquerors the German leader had been the most ‘philosophical’…” More recently, German historian Rainer Zitelmann established in a study of impressive scholarship that Hitler’s outlook was rational, self-consistent and “modern.” (R. Zitelmann, Hitler: Selbtsverständnis eines Revolutionärs [second edition, 1989].)

Moreover, Hitler’s outlook was very much a part of the Western intellectual tradition. In his “combination of an almost religious faith with a revolutionary secularism,” writes Birken, “Hitler represented the continuation of an essentially Enlightenment style of thought … Nazism, and especially Hitler’s exposition of it, represented an attenuated and popularized form of the Enlightenment style of thought.”

Hitler had a gift for presenting his message in an attractive, accessible form. Writes Birken:

The most attractive feature of Hitler’s ideology was thus its optimism. It was not merely his mood but his message that carried an infectious excitement. He was a secular messiah proclaiming a Germanic version of the “good news.” The possibility of class reconciliation, the plans for a national revival, the identification of a universal enemy whose elimination would usher in the millennium, all stirred his audiences to the very depths. Hitler spoke the language of the [Enlightenment] philosophes, a language that had almost passed out of existence in the rarefied strata of the grand intelligentsia.

However, placing Hitler and Hitlerism in the intellectual tradition of the West, Birken continues, “should do less to raise our opinion” of Hitlerism, than to “lower our opinion” of “the intellectual history of the West.”

Economic Views

Hitler’s economic worldview, writes Birken, was likewise rational, self-consistent, progressive, and entirely in keeping with Western tradition. “Hitler’s economic ideas were also permeated by Enlightenment notions of progress,” and were “closer to Ricardo and Marx than to Machiavelli or Keynes.” Birken adds:

. . . A careful reading of his speeches and writings suggests that he was neither a mercantilist nor a Keynesian, neither a medievalist nor a marginalist. Rather . . . his economic ideas fit all too well into the classical-physiocratic style of thought.

Hitler believed that social and national considerations, not economic ones, should be paramount in society. The economic and political system must serve the nation, not the other way around. Thus, Birken points out, while “political economy played an important role in his thinking,” Hitler

did not restore the primacy of the state after all but, quite the contrary, subordinated the state itself to a dynamic of aggressive technological and cultural expansion. In doing this, Hitler also asserted himself against the last remnants of aristocratic civility at the same time that he opposed the emerging relativism of consumer culture.

As Birken explains, Hitler believed that “all growth could be traced to individual effort — but only at the service of the common good. He thus tempered what might be taken as a ‘libertarian’ definition of inventiveness with a somber collectivism.” Believing that socially useful creativity was “the product of individual geniuses of high personality value,” Hitler supported equal social opportunity for all, and opposed legal and social barriers to individual economic achievement and success. Governmental and social policies, he believed, should encourage merit-based social mobility.

Hitler was critical of both capitalism and Marxism — the first because it was “insufficiently democratic,” and the latter because it was “too democratic” or “leveling.” While supporting economic growth across national boundaries, “Hitler also took what he considered to be a conservative stand against the coming hyper-commercialism of an emerging global economy.”

Views on Race and Religion

Although he is endlessly castigated as “the most notorious racist of the twentieth century,” Hitler’s racial views were actually quite in harmony with mainstream 19th- and early 20th-century European thinking. “It should be obvious,” writes Birken, “that Hitler possessed a ‘classical’ theory of race which dovetailed nicely with his classical notions of political economy.”

Far from being aberrant or bizarre, his views on race were consistent with those of most prominent Westerners in the decades before the Second World War. And while Birken does not specifically mention it, Hitler’s racial views were comparable to those of Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Winston Churchill.

Contrary to popular belief, Hitler never supported notions of breeding a homogeneous blond “hyper-Aryan” race. Accepting the reality that the German population consisted of several distinct sub-racial groups, he stressed the German people’s national and social unity. A certain degree of racial variety was desirable, he thought, and too much racial blending or homogeneity could be harmful because it would homogenize and thus eliminate superior as well as inferior genetic traits.

Hitler believed that “both conservative prudery and radical eroticism” harmed society, and he opposed birth control because it tended to lower the genetic quality of the society that practices it.

While he was critical of Christianity, Hitler was no atheist. “The religion of Hitlerism was thus essentially a kind of deism,” concludes Birken. Like Thomas Jefferson and other prominent early American leaders, Hitler equated God with “the dominion of natural laws throughout the whole universe.” Thus, “for Hitler, national socialism was natural socialism.”

Attitude Toward Jews

It is “of course, a great mistake to see anti-Semitism as a rejection of Enlightenment values,” writes Birken. “On the contrary, the Enlightenment simply secularized rather than destroyed traditional Judeophobia.” (No Western thinker was more outspokenly anti-Jewish than Voltaire, the great French philosophe, who regarded the Jews as “enemies of mankind.”) The Enlightenment concept of social “fraternity,” Birken writes, demands social solidarity, which implies that Jews, as an alien and self-absorbed people, cannot fit in.

Hitler’s hostile attitude toward Jews, Birken writes, was neither irrational nor aberrant. He saw “Jews as the personification of a great lie”: that is, while they pretended to be merely a religious community, in fact they constituted a self-selected national-ethnic group with international ambitions. Because he regarded the Jews as the enemies of all peoples, Hitler held that combating Jewish power and influence should be the common duty of all nations — a view that Birken calls an expression of “Germanic universalism.”

The United States

Hitler’s attitude toward the United States was mixed. He saw much to admire in 18th- and 19th-century America, and as Birken notes, he praised this country’s pre-1940s pro-White racial policies, its restrictions on non-White immigration, and its pioneering adoption of eugenics measures.

But Hitler also saw ominous trends during the 1920s and 1930s. Echoing the views of American industrialist Henry Ford, he was dismayed by the spectacular growth of Jewish power and cultural influence, and regarded Franklin Roosevelt’s “New Deal” administration as a virtual revolution in American life, through which Jews largely usurped the country’s traditional ruling class.

A Persistent Allure

The defeat of Germany in 1945, Birken rightly notes, “clearly marked a watershed” in world history, and especially for the West:

In a real sense, Hitler’s defeat implicitly became the defeat of the European nation-state and the Enlightenment values that underpinned it. Germany’s heirs, the United States and the Soviet Union, were both fundamentally transnational, multiracial empires whose territories were seemingly unlimited.

As a result, for half a century we have been living in what Birken calls a “consumer capitalist” world in which “the hierarchical order of sex and race which had originally sustained bourgeois nationalism has been disintegrating” and in which “the increasing relativization of values is encouraged by the ever greater globalization of the economy and consequent emergence of a multinational business elite.”

This new world order is less durable than it might appear, says Birken. The recent collapse of the multi-ethnic, multi-racial Soviet Union, he warns, portends similar problems for the American empire. Even a mere contraction of the economy could threaten “to dissolve the United States into several races.” In Birken’s view, racial nationalism threatens “the continued existence of the United States.” He warns:

What Hitler said in the thirties is thus what our racial nationalists are saying today: namely, that a genuinely inclusive multiracial nation violates the natural order of things. The United States must either be a white-dominated state or a collection of breakaway republics made up of this or that group.

In short: if Hitler was right, America is an increasingly unnatural and artificial construct that does not deserve to survive, and will not survive.

Birken fears that Hitlerism will become ever more attractive to those who reject today’s supra-national “consumer capitalism,” and who resist the rapidly emerging “genuinely inclusive multiracial” order. This alternative vision has appeal beyond America and Europe, Birken believes. As he notes, Hitler’s fight against the British empire — a war he actually never sought nor wanted — “won him [Hitler] the admiration of colonial peoples from Ireland to India ….”

A New ‘Cosmic’ Nation

Birken concludes his book with a fervent call for “the gradual formation of an American race as a higher synthesis. Then the Americans will truly constitute a universal or ‘cosmic’ people.” In Birken’s view, the “race myth” and Hitlerism “will continue to tempt us” unless Americans “can be given a genuine metaphysical foundation.” This “metaphysical foundation” must be to “uncreate race” through massive racial mixing. Therefore, Birken writes, “we should not be afraid of that dirty little word, ‘miscegenation’.” (Consistent with this vision, President Bill Clinton, in his much-discussed June 14, 1997, speech in San Diego on race relations, openly proclaimed the goal of making America “the world’s first truly multiracial democracy.”)

Given the reluctance of many Americans, particularly conservative Whites, to warmly embrace this new “universal” nation, Birken says “we must have an education system that is able to instill this redefinition of American culture.”

“Before we try uniting the world,” Birken concludes, “let us try uniting ourselves. Until we do so, the siren song of Hitlerism will call to us.”

Stark Alternatives

To anyone who views the past with an open mind, history demonstrates the utterly fantastic nature of the goal laid out by Prof. Birken (and President Clinton) — a vision no less utopian than Marxian Communism. In any case, to meld the American population into a “universal” racial-cultural entity would require government repression on a scale unimaginable today.

Few Americans today are able or willing to fully grasp the enormous implications of the radical program that intellectuals such as Birken (and political leaders such as Clinton) are spelling out for our future. But once they do (and as Prof. Birken fears) many will likely turn to Hitlerism as an alternative to the official prevailing ideology. The decades-long campaign of vilification of Hitler and Third Reich Germany may actually contribute to this by convincing millions of Americans that Hitlerism is the antithesis of the Establishment’s ideology, and thus the only real alternative.

In spite of its defects, Hitler as Philosophe effectively dispels some widely held misconceptions about Hitler and Hitlerism, acknowledges the critical importance of the race issue, and boldly spells out stark alternatives for the future of America and Europe. For this the author deserves credit.

Source: Journal of Historical Review, 16/5 (Sept.–Oct. 1997), 34–37.

If you enjoyed this piece, and wish to encourage more like it, give a tip through Paypal. You can earmark your tip directly to the author or translator, or you can put it in a general fund. (Be sure to specify which in the "Add special instructions to seller" box at Paypal.)
This entry was posted in North American New Right and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , . Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

10 Comments

  1. Posted April 28, 2011 at 11:31 am | Permalink

    My worst fears are becoming reality: Who would have thought that some intellectuals are already planting, through respected publishing houses, the seeds for a truly horribler future than 1984, Ward Kendall’s Hold Back This Day? Incredible. When will poor whites finally awake?

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted April 28, 2011 at 11:53 am | Permalink

      Yes, it is interesting how the “miscegenationalists” agree with us racial nationalists, namely they reject the idea that a racially diverse society can work and embrace the “ein Volk, ein Reich” principle. But if you accept those principles, then you have to ask: Which path is easier, more humane, and less destructive? The forcible homogenization of all existing races and cultures? Or preserving the existing diversity of races and peoples by creating homogeneous ethnostates? Clearly the latter is preferable, and can be accomplished with far less force and destruction. Indeed, it would eventually happen if people were simply left free to choose their neighbors and friends, because it is fundamentally in accord with natural impulses.

      • White Republican
        Posted April 28, 2011 at 8:31 pm | Permalink

        A heterogeneous world of homogeneous peoples is clearly the best way to preserve human biological and cultural diversity as well as reduce conflict between ethnic groups. But our rulers and enemies think otherwise. Their racial ideology is fundamentally dogmatic, irrational, contradictory, perverse, and absurd. One thinks of the following:

        The belief that “diversity is strength” and the advocacy of cultural homogenisation that destroys diversity. The line that “diversity is strength” seems to be regarded as a self-evident truth, as something that requires no demonstration, but is actually a self-evident absurdity in relation to the mixture of peoples and cultures.

        The belief that “race does not exist” or that “race is a social construct” and the belief that race (more specifically, ours) must be destroyed through large-scale immigration and miscegenation. Similarly, although “race does not exist,” it is held that the state must practice “affirmative action” or “positive discrimination” in favour of particular racial and ethnic groups.

        The belief that all peoples and cultures are equal and the systematic denigration and vilification of White people and their culture. Whites, it seems, are much less equal than other peoples.

        The belief that racial and cultural miscegenation will promote “democracy,” “tolerance,” “peace,” and other catchwords of those infected with mental AIDS, and large-scale “social engineering” (which would more accurately be called “social demolition”) that destroys popular communities, freedoms, and self-government, and that generates ethnic rivalry, hatred, and violence.

        Our rulers habitually make two problems grow where one grew before. Their power is to a considerable extent based on their ability to foment rather than fix problems. They will undoubtedly make increasing use of negative legitimation: confronted with the ruin they have caused, they will be increasingly shrill in claiming that what they are promoting is “inevitable” and “irreversible,” that the alternative is even worse, and that the “international community” will pulverise us if we get uppity. (I can’t say that I would joyously look forward to an ethnic civil war, but I would nonetheless regard it as a cloud with a silver lining, provided that such a war breaks out sooner rather than later.)

        Guillaume Faye’s Pourquoi nous combattons, which will soon be available in English as Why We Fight, is well worth reading concerning the above issues.

    • Posted April 28, 2011 at 1:26 pm | Permalink

      The miscegenationalists’ worldview is unhistorical. One of the things that alarms me the most is their stance against all real history.

      Americans ought to take heed of the history down the south of Río Grande. Half a millennium of misceginating experience should be enough reason for Americans not to repeat our mistakes.

      Mexico in particular is fascinating. Years ago a Newsweek article asked humorously, “Is Mexico blond?” because the Mexican TV commercials show blond Mexicans indistinguishable from Europeans even though they are a tiny minority here.

      Due to Mendel laws, it is not uncommon that the very brown Mexicans, the product of a miscegenation experience of centuries, celebrate that one of their newborns surprisingly came up much whiter than most family members.

      With five hundred years of misceginating experience the proles here, who have not been brainwashed by the Jew, can tell the astronomical difference between the Aryan looks and the more Neanderthalesque native. In Mexico you won’t find much pc bs that prevents the brown proles to tell the obvious truth they have seen for 500 years with their own eyes: whites look much better, they are better.

      Geographically speaking, Mexico is part of North America. Did CC readers know that NorthAm mestizos are “hijos de la chingada”, an insult in Mexico?

      Although the Europeans conquered the Aztec and the Inca empires with unprecedented easiness in the historical record (due to their much higher IQ), with time the Spaniards’ genotype got overwhelmed by miscegenation and the geometrical breeding of the lower castes in Mexico—just what happened in India to the whiter Brahmin. This is the tragic moral of Mexico’s history: Don’t misceginate or allow the browns breed like rabbits unless you want to turn your country into A Nation of Hijos de la Chingada (just note today’s drug wars in Mexico and see what I mean).

      But again, how is it possible that Americans cannot see something so patently obvious? What happened right in their backyard is now happening in California and Texas and, if business as usual, it will happen throughout the States.

  2. Fourmyle of Ceres
    Posted April 28, 2011 at 6:50 pm | Permalink

    A useful theme is realizing how deeply our Racial Enemy truly hates “The Enlightenment,” and all that it made possible.

    The seminal works of Horkheimer and Adorno (Dialectic of Enlightenment) reveal, once you Know The Code, how deeply they wish to destroy the Western nation-state, starting with the organic Western nations, at their very foundation.

    A Cliff’s Notes for Mein Kampf might be very useful.

    It could be written on several levels, from elementary school to postgraduate.

    The same could be done for Yockey, especially Imperium.

    This Time, The World

    Focus Northwest

  3. JJ
    Posted April 29, 2011 at 5:11 am | Permalink

    And so here we are, elites that profess a universal genocide!

  4. Armor
    Posted April 29, 2011 at 8:27 am | Permalink

    Weber: “Few Americans today are able or willing to fully grasp the enormous implications of the radical program that intellectuals such as Birken (and political leaders such as Clinton) are spelling out for our future. But once they do (and as Prof. Birken fears) many will likely turn to Hitlerism as an alternative to the official prevailing ideology.”

    When the Whites finally rebel against their governments, they won’t start reading Mein Kampf. Birken and Weber think that Hitler’s views were rational and well grounded in Western thought. It means that Hitlerism doesn’t really exist. If we believe in tradition and common sense, if we oppose the policy of replacing White people with non-Whites, and if we would like to bring an end to the Jewish domination in the media, academia, and so on, then we have a lot in common with Hitler. But as the article says, it also means that we have a lot in common with Churchill. Are we Churchillists? Hitler’s remarkable quality is that he was able and willing to take action and hurt some people’s sensibilities in order to protect his people. It isn’t his views that make him special.

    I had a look at Birken’s picture. It is understandable why such a man would dream of miscegenating the Whites out of existence. What is funny is the dyed blond streaks he had in his dark hair.

    What makes this book useful it that its author was a Jew. It’s not often that a Jew writes that the Enlightenment concept of social “fraternity” demands social solidarity, which implies that Jews, as an alien and self-absorbed people, cannot fit in.

    In France, I suppose a non-Jew who says that Hitler’s views were rational and well grounded in Western thought could be sent to court. Hitlerism is supposed to be about killing 6 millions Jews, and nothing else.

    • Fourmyle of Ceres
      Posted April 29, 2011 at 7:05 pm | Permalink

      Armor:

      The formulation, “Hitlerism,” attempts to limit National Socialism, and Race as the organic foundation of the nation-state, to one man, who can be “actively silenced” over time.

      It seems their fear, shared by the Frankfurt School members, is the success of the Enlightenment in offering the West the same Racial unity that serves the Jews so well.

      Seemingly, Birken’s solution is to eliminate the White RACE.

      Time for Bob Whitaker’s Mantra?

      Ready to abandon Lucy’s Rules Football, and join Fight Club, Charlie Brown?

      This Time, The World

      Focus Northwest

    • icr
      Posted May 2, 2011 at 8:25 am | Permalink

      The anti-Hitler hysteria in the US was intense well before any significant number of Jews had been harmed:
      http://mises.org/books/backdoor.pdf
      (…)
      Bullitt had been more cautious but at times he gave similar assurances. In a conversation with Count Potocki, Polish Ambassador at Washington, he spoke of the possibility of a conflict between Germany and the European democracies. When asked if the United States would enter such a war he replied: “Undoubtedly yes, but only after Great Britain and France
      had made the first move.” Sentiment in the United States was “so tense
      against Nazism and Hitlerism” that it amounted to a “psychosis” similar
      to that which existed “before America’s declaration of war on Germany
      in 1917.”54

      After stating that this “psychosis” was partly created by “emigrants
      from Germany and Czechoslovakia” who incited the American public
      against Germany by the use of “various calumnies,” he finally came to
      the topic of American sentiment towards Russia:

      “It is interesting to note that in this extremely well-planned campaign which
      is conducted above all against National Socialism, Soviet Russia is almost
      completely eliminated. Soviet Russia, if mentioned at all, is mentioned in a
      friendly manner and things are presented in such a way that it would seem
      that the Soviet Union were co-operating with the bloc of democratic states.
      Thanks to the clever propaganda the sympathies of the American public are
      completely on the side of Red Spain.”55
      (…)
      pp.450-51

  5. Posted May 1, 2011 at 8:39 am | Permalink

    This piece is sneaking way too much optimism in through the back door!

  • Video of the Day:

  • Kindle Subscription
  • Our Titles

    The Eldritch Evola

    Western Civilization Bites Back

    New Right vs. Old Right

    Lost Violent Souls

    Journey Late at Night: Poems and Translations

    The Non-Hindu Indians & Indian Unity

    Baader Meinhof ceramic pistol, Charles Kraaft 2013

    The Lightning and the Sun

    Jonathan Bowden as Dirty Harry

    The Lost Philosopher, Second Expanded Edition

    Trevor Lynch's A White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    And Time Rolls On

    The Homo & the Negro

    Artists of the Right

    North American New Right, Vol. 1

    Forever and Ever

    Some Thoughts on Hitler

    Tikkun Olam and Other Poems

    Under the Nihil

    Summoning the Gods

    Hold Back This Day

    The Columbine Pilgrim

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater

    Taking Our Own Side

    Toward the White Republic

    Distributed Titles

    Carl Schmitt Today

    A Sky Without Eagles

    The Way of Men

    Generation Identity

    Nietzsche's Coming God

    The Conservative

    The New Austerities

    Convergence of Catastrophes

    Demon

    Proofs of a Conspiracy

    Fascism viewed from the Right

    The Wagnerian Drama

    Fascism viewed from the Right

    Notes on the Third Reich

    Morning Crafts

    New Culture, New Right

    An eagle with a shield soaring upwards

    A Life in the Political Wilderness

    The Fourth Political Theory

    The Passing of the Great Race

    The Passing of a Profit & Other Forgotten Stories

    Fighting for the Essence

    The Arctic Home in the Vedas

    The Prison Notes

    It Cannot Be Stormed

    Revolution from Above

    The Proclamation of London

    Beyond Human Rights

    The WASP Question

    Can Life Prevail?

    The Jewish Strategy

    The Metaphysics of War

    A Handbook of Traditional Living

    The French Revolution in San Domingo

    The Revolt Against Civilization

    Why We Fight

    The Problem of Democracy

    The Path of Cinnabar

    Archeofuturism

    Tyr

    Siege

    On Being a Pagan

    The Lost Philosopher

    The Dispossessed Majority

    Might is Right

    Impeachment of Man

    Gold in the Furnace

    Defiance