Print this post Print this post

Some Thoughts on Hitler

1,687 words

Translations: French, Norwegian

Buy the book here.

“Hitler” as Multiracialist Propaganda

The argument advanced by some racial nationalists that any defense of Adolf Hitler, in light of the hostility and even revulsion that his name now evokes, risks alienating mainstream Whites is plausible on its surface and should receive a respectful hearing. But it is still on balance mistaken.

Although most nationalists in the United States and even in Germany do not consider themselves national socialists, multiracialists and anti-White Jewish advocacy groups call each and every one of us a “nazi.” It is an undeniable fact that in our contemporary political climate any white nationalism, as recent events in the Balkans amply demonstrate, will be labeled Hitlerian and will summon, in breathless media presentations, “the specter of the Holocaust” and anguished fears that “it” might just happen again, if the goyim get too restless. That, after all, is the central lesson taught by the countless Holocaust Museums sprouting up, like noxious toadstools, throughout most of the West: that White racial consciousness is literally lethal and must therefore be actively combated, a lesson which we have now enshrined, in deference to Jewry, at the Holocaust Museum in Washington, a national memorial to our White wickedness.

We are thus obliged, like it or not, to live under Hitler’s shadow. Our enemies have ensured that any expression of White racial consciousness, however innocuous, will be officially pronounced hatefully Hitlerian and “nazi,” whether we admire Hitler or despise him. It is therefore incumbent on us, as a simple matter of self-defense, to arrive at a balanced view of Hitler and the movement he founded.

Anyone who doubts all this should recall the abuse that Pat Buchanan received at the hands of the controlled media and the organized Jewish community during his campaigns for the Republican nomination. Buchanan is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a national socialist, nor even a conscious racialist. He is, instead, a traditional Christian conservative, with all the virtues and liabilities that entails. But he was persistently labeled a “nazi” nevertheless. His 1992 speech at the Republican National Convention, liberal columnist Molly Ivins opined, “probably sounded better in the original German.” Her meaning was clear: She was identifying Buchanan as a “nazi,” delegitimizing his nationalism and social conservatism with the most potent weapon in the Left’s rhetorical arsenal.

So as racial nationalists we can either manufacture false “anti-racist” credentials by claiming to hate Hitler just as much as Abe Foxman does, a subterfuge that I very much doubt will convince anyone, least of all Abe, or we can tell the truth.

The truth is that the maniacal Hitler of popular demonology is a World War II propaganda fiction, and the principal purpose of the fiction’s incessant repetition more than fifty years after the war is to stigmatize any nationalist movement, NS or otherwise. Hitler now represents not a specific historical figure and the political party he led, but nationalism of any variety, from timid anti-immigration conservatives to angry White-power skinheads. The System’s anti-Hitler orthodoxy, invoked almost daily, is in effect tacit propaganda for multiracialism and a potent device to keep all nationalists perpetually hiding in closets, too afraid of labels like “racist” and “nazi” to openly say what we sincerely believe. We have, therefore, a real interest in demythologizing Hitler, and we have no hope of escaping our association with what he now represents. We can’t run away from Hitler, however much some of us want to.

Let’s Notice the Obvious

The crucial facts about World War II are uncomplicated and readily available in mainstream sources. NS Germany had limited war aims: the recovery of territory taken from Germany at Versailles, the acquisition of living space for the German people in the East, and the destruction of the Marxist Soviet Union, history’s most brutal regime. Insofar as the United States had any stake at all in the outcome of the war, it would have been to help Germany and her Axis allies, including thousands of Russian patriots, accomplish the latter. Absent the campaign conducted by the Western democracies to save Stalinism by defeating Hitler, the Soviet Union would have collapsed.

Since America had no national interests in the conflict in Europe, our government deliberately lied about German war aims in order to manufacture the perception that we did, claiming that Hitler had global territorial ambitions, a plan for “world domination.” Over fifty years later most Americans still accept the lies.

The predictable result of the Allied victory and the German defeat was Stalin’s occupation of half of Europe. A war that ostensibly began to restore Polish sovereignty ended with Poland, along with the rest of Eastern Europe, being handed over to the Communists. And in quite concrete terms no American would have died in Vietnam if Hitler had destroyed Soviet Communism, arguably the central objective of his political career; American soldiers fought in Europe so that their sons could die in Southeast Asia.

None of this should be the least controversial. It is a symptom of the effect of persistent propaganda that so many of us fail to notice the obvious.

It is only a slight exaggeration to say that multiracialism itself, along with our servile deference to Jewry, is founded on the mythical image of Hitler as evil incarnate, Satan’s secular counterpart in modern history. Remove the false, childishly simplistic Hitler myth, and a significant ideological justification for multiracialism would collapse. The simple question, “Were Hitler and NS Germany really as evil as everyone says?,” therefore has huge repercussions, and an entire machinery of propaganda — ranging from Hollywood films and “Holocaust education” in the public schools to off-hand comments in the controlled media (“better in the original German”) — has been designed to discourage anyone from even contemplating the obvious but heretical answer.

National Socialism
Hitler defined his own national socialism as a uniquely German movement:

The National Socialist doctrine, as I have always proclaimed, is not for export. It was conceived for the German people. (Hitler-Bormann Documents, Feb. 21, 1945)

In other words, German National Socialism arose at a specific time in a specific place under the pressure of a unique set of historical circumstances, none of which could ever be precisely replicated elsewhere. In particular, the autocratic Führer state, central to NS Germany, would never be acceptable to Americans; our republican political culture and belief in individual rights are, thankfully, far too strong. Hitler was a dictator and his government authoritarian; Americans prefer their political and civil liberties.

Which doesn’t mean that NS Germany was a police state. It had in fact fewer policemen per capita, and far fewer secret police, than either modern Germany or the United States, despite the misleading image most of us have of legions of sinister Gestapo agents kicking down doors in the middle of the night.

The basic principles of national socialism are, nevertheless, universal: that God (or Nature) has assigned each of us to a racial group and has endowed each group with distinct qualities; that a nation is not simply a geographical concept, a set of lines arbitrarily drawn on a map irrespective of the people living within them, but instead derives (or should derive) its political institutions and national objectives from the character of the people themselves; that a nation organized to preserve a race and develop its distinctive character is therefore “natural”; that the strength and social cohesion of a nation derives from its sense of a common identity, of which race is the most important determinant; that in addition to our individual rights we have larger social obligations, not only to the present generation of our nation but to its past and future generations as well; that the primary purpose of a nation is not economic, but the preservation and advancement of its people, economics being subordinate to the volkisch (racial/national) objectives that should be a nation’s core reason for existing.

“The [Nation-] State in itself,” Hitler wrote, “has nothing whatsoever to do with any definite economic concept or a definite economic development. It does not arise from a compact made between contracting parties, within a certain delimited territory, for the purpose of serving economic ends. The State is a community of living beings who have kindred physical and spiritual natures, organized for the purpose of assuring the conservation of their own kind and to help towards fulfilling those ends which Providence has assigned to that particular race or racial branch” (Mein Kampf, I, iv).

In the generic sense of the term national socialism is (arguably) not inconsistent with democratic institutions, despite Hitler’s own view of the matter; its true antonyms are multiracialism and capitalist, one-world globalism. Nor is national socialism inconsistent with an American “melting pot” view of ethnicity, provided that the various ethnic groups that comprise the nation are sufficiently similar that each can see a common identity and common destiny in the others — that is, insofar as they, despite their ethnic differences, are branches of the same race and can, therefore, be effectively acculturated to a common set of national ideals.

I consider Hitler less a model to be followed than an avalanche of propaganda we must dig ourselves out from under. Never in human history has a single man received such sustained vilification, the basic effect and purpose of which has been to inhibit Whites from thinking racially and from acting in their own racial self-interest, as all other racial/ethnic groups do. Learning the truth about Hitler is a liberating experience. By the truth I mean not an idealized counter-myth to the pervasive myth of Hitler as evil incarnate, but the man himself, faults and virtues, strengths and weaknesses. Once you’ve done it, once you’ve discovered the real Hitler beneath the lies and distortions that have buried his legacy, you’ll be permanently immunized against anti-White propaganda, because you will have seen through the best/worst the System has to offer.

Originally posted in 1999 on the old Stormfront listserv. Source: http://library.flawlesslogic.com/hitler.htm

You’ve read the article; now buy the book.

Editor’s Note: For more articles on Hitler, click here. For more articles by Irmin Vinson, click here. For all articles tagged Hitler, click here.

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.

20 Comments

  1. Wandrin
    Posted April 20, 2011 at 1:04 am | Permalink

    “So as racial nationalists we can either manufacture false “anti-racist” credentials by claiming to hate Hitler just as much as Abe Foxman does, a subterfuge that I very much doubt will convince anyone, least of all Abe, or we can tell the truth.”

    Or thirdly we can use our brains.

    Hitler didn’t win an electoral majority. He won the most seats and was given the Chancellorship by the German elite in 1933. 1933, the year after the Jewish Bolsheviks deliberately starved six million Ukrainians to death. Can there be any real doubt that the threat of the Bolshevik terror influenced both the German voters and the decision to give Hitler the Chancellorship? Why isn’t this taught in the schools?

    Tens of millions killed in the first industrial scale mass murder in history from 1917 onwards – the Red Terror and War Communism under Lenin and Trotsky’s leadership long before Stalin – culminating in the deliberate starvation of six million Ukrainians in 1932 as revenge for past anti-Jewish pogroms. Why isn’t this taught in the schools?

    Trillions of dollars and millions of man-hours have gone into creating a global memorial to the holocaust – films, books, indoctrination of millions of school children, countless museums… and absolutely nothing to commemerate the tens of millions murdered by the Jewish Bolsheviks, not only a holocaust in its own right but the primary cause of the subsequent Fascist reaction they say came out of inherent evil of the Aryan nature – a position that would be impossible to sustain if Jewish involvement in the Bolshevik holocaust was more widely known.

    So, compare and contrast the collective memorial to the Jewish dead with the collective non-memorial to the non-Jewish dead and you have Talmudic morality caught in the headlights. Every single penny they spent on building holocaustianity then works for us. Every film, every book, every museum highlights their denial of the Bolshevik holocaust and the value they place on non-Jewish dead. Zero.

    Use this to destroy their moral authority first and then their power to enforce taboos on historical revision will crumble. Go after the matador, not the cape.

    • Euromike
      Posted April 20, 2011 at 6:57 pm | Permalink

      very true

    • Joe Smith
      Posted April 25, 2011 at 7:35 am | Permalink

      Shhh. Don’t remind the Slavs and Eastern Europeans who genocided them long before Hitler even came to power. P.S. The Democratic Party of the United States has passed a resolution condemning the Holodomor in the last month and American colleges are finally teaching real history and offering real political education.

      • Edgardus de la Vega
        Posted April 25, 2011 at 2:03 pm | Permalink

        Given the gradual implosion of our American Imperium: there is no choice but to finally divulge the truer contents of history. While America was becoming an un-constitutional empire, much of her history, (and that of others) was manipulated for political and corporate gain.

        The paradigm of deceit is pretty much over. Although painfully slow: our pan-European people are gradually re-awakening to the historical crimes of Wall Street and their alliances. In light of their broken model, the political academics are unable to further their lies to the young.

        My comment isn’t adding anything new, but nevertheless it is plainly good to see that certain figures and events CAN be opined and/or FAVOURED upon without guilt or tension.

    • Posted May 17, 2011 at 2:27 pm | Permalink

      Wandrin, This comment of yours is so good that I’ll post it today as a single entry in my blog. Cheers.

  2. Posted April 20, 2011 at 6:24 am | Permalink

    It’s interesting in this context to read a book like “China in the 21st Century: What Everybody Needs to Know” by Jeffrey Wasserstrom [judaic?] Among other things, it devotes itself to clarifying “misunderstandings” on each side. For example, China doesn’t understand our 2-party, 3 branch system of government, so everytime some Congressman says something they don’t like, they feel they’ve been ‘attacked by the US”. Etc.

    One thing American’s don’t understand is “How could a genocidal monster like Mao arise and more importantly, still be thought of as a “great man” who “did so much for China”. What’s interesting is how Wasserstrom patiently “explains” the greatness of Mao, DESPITE admitting to his murdering tens of millions. So much for conservative vaporing about “exposing the horrors of Marxism.”

    The point is, since China didn’t lose a war, they have full control of their national identity and history, and can make of it whatever they want. And since Mao’s victims weren’t Jews who control the media, academia, and finance, there’s no screaming chorus of “Never again!” and “Never forget!” Russia is somewhere in the middle, since Stalin did have Jewish targets; hence the demonizing of Russia by the neo-cons. Still, Cockburn insisted during so-called “perestroika” that the Bresnev 70s were looked on as a ‘golden age’ [the stats on deaths, etc. bear it out] while there are still plenty of Russians who boast of an admiration of Stalin.

    Had Germany won, or fought to a draw or “conditional” surrender, much the same would be true of them today.

  3. icr
    Posted April 20, 2011 at 8:32 am | Permalink

    “And in quite concrete terms no American would have died in Vietnam if Hitler had destroyed Soviet Communism…”

    There was that war in Korea as well.

    I guess I shouldn’t be shocked- but I found this outrageous lie in Wikipedia:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Nolte#The_War_of_Words_in_the_German_Press
    (…)
    “The German political scientist Richard Löwenthal noted that news of Soviet dekulakization and the Holodomor did not reach Germany until 1941, so that Soviet atrocities could not possibly have influenced the Germans as Nolte claimed.”
    (…)
    The Holodomor was -of course-widely known in 1933 due to the newspaper articles
    written by Gareth Jones and Malcolm Muggeridge. Certainly German diplomatic and intelligence personnel stationed in the UK and US perused the local press.

  4. Junghans
    Posted April 20, 2011 at 10:04 am | Permalink

    This is one of the most sagacious, well balanced perspectives on Hitler, and his long ‘shadow’, that has ever been written. Irmin’s take on the causes & consequences of the demonization of Hitler is enlightening, and indeed, liberating….in and of itself. Historical objectivity and the unvarnished truth do matter. It is, in fact, vital. Without it, Whites will remain mentally enslaved to lies and delusions that are, to say the least, ideologically and genetically lethal. This is the intellectual dilemma that all Whites everywhere will eventually have to face, as their genetic survival becomes critical.

    The effrontery of Jewry knows no bounds. The ghost of Hitler is very important in the effort to maintain a lock on the popular mindset, that’s why Jewry keeps whipping this particular ‘dead horse’ as hard as they can. This is nowhere better displayed than in the anti-Hitler, anti-nationalist, and anti-“racist”, hysteria that Jewry and their minions have always spread. Want to paralyze your ‘respectable’ and ‘conservative’ opponents and make them cringe?, just slander them with one incendiary word: “Nazi”! The intellectual tyranny is really that simple, folks. This is sweet reason, not rocket science. The ironic tragedy is that so many foolish Whites have blindly bought into this hypocritical deception. The matricide of Europe by the Anglo West and Bolshevist East was a devastating watershed event that had, and, still is having enormous Darwinian/demographic consequences. The accelerating political, economic, cultural, philosophical, moral and racial consequences of that disaster….are having a deleterious effect on every White person on earth.

    • Fourmyle of Ceres
      Posted April 20, 2011 at 8:00 pm | Permalink

      Junghans:

      Great comments.

      You wrote:

      Historical objectivity and the unvarnished truth do matter. It is, in fact, vital. Without it, Whites will remain mentally enslaved to lies and delusions that are, to say the least, ideologically and genetically lethal. This is the intellectual dilemma that all Whites everywhere will eventually have to face, as their genetic survival becomes critical.

      It’s time for counter-punching. A good way to start is Bob Whitaker’s Mantra, which I use to focus on the GENOCIDE OF WHITE CHILDREN.

      Don’t apologize! They openly practice GENOCIDE against White Children. To them, “Racist” means “White.”

      Focus Northwest

  5. Edgardus de la Vega
    Posted April 20, 2011 at 10:57 am | Permalink

    Hitler is correct: a spiritual manifestation of a ‘NATIO’ (i.e. Latin for ‘birth’, ‘people’) is the key to sustainability. The economic factor is simply a tool for basic needs. By contrast: America has allowed a ‘money junkie’ addiction into her founded system, thereby perverting her founded roots and racial consciousness.

    America’s eventual, economic collapse will break out a new awareness among our silent majority by revising its true needs and sensible wants.

    Without guilt: Happy Birthday Mr. Adolf Hitler!

  6. Gregor
    Posted April 20, 2011 at 10:59 am | Permalink

    @ Wandrin

    “compare and contrast the collective memorial to the Jewish dead with the collective non-memorial to the non-Jewish dead and you have Talmudic morality caught in the headlights.”

    Simply Brilliant.

  7. Jimmy Marr
    Posted April 20, 2011 at 12:09 pm | Permalink

    I like your thinking on this, Wandrin. I’ve clipped the last several paragraphs and posted them as individual comments on a Holodomor video. I made a source attribution to you and this post.

  8. Alaskan
    Posted April 20, 2011 at 12:28 pm | Permalink

    Great piece. While there are obvious aspects of both Hitler’s leadership and N.S. Germany that we can take inspiration from, it must be remembered that Hitler was-like most political leaders-an opportunist. He ignored many of the socialist elements of Gottfried Feder’s 25 points and even had Otto Strasser’s brother, Gregor, murdered. In the end, Hitler (like Mussolini) sided with the capitalists who financed him, betraying most of the German workers and, most importantly, farmers.

    • Fourmyle of Ceres
      Posted April 20, 2011 at 8:11 pm | Permalink

      Alaskan wrote:

      In the end, Hitler (like Mussolini) sided with the capitalists who financed him, betraying most of the German workers and, most importantly, farmers.

      Reply:
      Hitler took office with FIFTY PERCENT unemployment, and a collapsed economy.

      I ask his critics, “What would YOU have done?”

      The correct answer?

      LEARN from what he did right, and apply it to what we are doing wrong.

      He inspired, led from the front, offered new economic and social solutions, and was attacked on all fronts by all but the rest of the world, simultaneously.

      Answer this:

      “In a Northwest Republic, today’s Hitler would…”

  9. Lew
    Posted April 20, 2011 at 7:41 pm | Permalink

    http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v08/v08p389_Hitler.html

    Hitler’s speech to the Reichstag declaring war on FDR has always been my personal favorite.

    Especially this passage:

    ===

    When the Greeks once stood against the Persians, they defended more than just Greece. When the Romans stood against the Carthaginians, they defended more than just Rome. When the Roman and Germanic peoples stood together against the Huns, they defended more than just the West. When German emperors stood against the Mongols, they defended more than just Germany. And when Spanish heroes stood against Africa, they defended not just Spain, but all of Europe as well. In the same way, Germany does not fight today just for itself, but for our entire continent.

    ===

    And this one where he mocks FDR and points out how Jews maneuvered the US into conflict with Germany twice.

    ===

    With regard to Germany’s relationship with America, the following should be said:

    1. Germany is perhaps the only great power which has never had a colony in either North or South America. Nor has it been otherwise politically active there, apart from the emigration of many millions of Germans with their skills, from which the American continent, and particularly the United States, has only benefited.

    2. In the entire history of the development and existence of the United States, the German Reich has never been hostile or even politically unfriendly towards the United States. To the contrary, many Germans have given their lives to defend the USA.

    3. The German Reich has never participated in wars against the United States, except when the United States went to war against it in 1917. It did so for reasons that have been thoroughly explained by a commission [a special U.S. Senate investigating committee, 1934-1935, chaired by Sen. Gerald Nye], which president Roosevelt himself established [or rather, endorsed]. This commission to investigate the reasons for America’s entry into the [First World] war clearly established that the United States entered the war in 1917 solely for the capitalist interests of a small group, and that Germany itself had no intention to come into conflict with America.

    Furthermore, there are no territorial or political conflicts between the American and German nations that could possibly involve the existence or even the [vital] interests of the United States. The forms of government have always been different. But this cannot be a reason for hostility between different nations, as long as one form of government does not try to interfere with another, outside of its naturally ordained sphere.

    America is a republic led by a president with wide-ranging powers of authority. Germany was once ruled by a monarchy with limited authority, and then by a democracy that lacked authority. Today it is a republic of wide-ranging authority. Between these two countries is an ocean. If anything, the differences between capitalist America and Bolshevik Russia, if these terms have any meaning at all, must be more significant than those between an America led by a President and a Germany led by a Führer.

    It is a fact that the two historical conflicts between Germany and the United States were stimulated by two Americans, that is, by Presidents Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt, although each was inspired by the same forces. History itself has rendered its verdict on Wilson. His name will always be associated with the most base betrayal in history of a pledge [notably, Wilson’s “14 points”]. The result was the ruin of national life, not only in the so-called vanquished countries, but among the victors as well. Because of this broken pledge, which alone made possible the imposed Treaty of Versailles [1919], countries were torn apart, cultures were destroyed and the economic life of all was ruined. Today we know that a group of self-serving financiers stood behind Wilson. They used this paralytic professor to lead America into a war from which they hoped to profit. The German nation once believed this man, and had to pay for this trust with political and economic ruin.

    After such a bitter experience, why is there now another American president who is determined to incite wars and, above all, to stir up hostility against Germany to the point of war? National Socialism came to power in Germany in the same year [1933] that Roosevelt came to power in the United States. At this point it is important to examine the factors behind the current developments.

    First of all, the personal side of things: I understand very well that there is a world of difference between my own outlook on life and attitude, and that of President Roosevelt. Roosevelt came from an extremely wealthy family. By birth and origin he belonged to that class of people that is privileged in a democracy and assured of advancement. I myself was only the child of a small and poor family, and I had to struggle through life by work and effort in spite of immense hardships. As a member of the privileged class, Roosevelt experienced the [First] World War in a position under Wilson’s shadow [as assistant secretary of the Navy]. As a result, he only knew the agreeable consequences of a conflict between nations from which some profited while others lost their lives. During this same period, I lived very differently. I was not one of those who made history or profits, but rather one of those who carried out orders. As an ordinary soldier during those four years, I tried to do my duty in the face of the enemy. Of course, I returned from the war just as poor as when I entered in the fall of 1914. I thus shared my fate with millions of others, while Mr. Roosevelt shared his with the so-called upper ten thousand.

    After the war, while Mr. Roosevelt tested his skills in financial speculation in order to profit personally from the inflation, that is, from the misfortune of others, I still lay in a military hospital along with many hundreds of thousands of others. Experienced in business, financially secure and enjoying the patronage of his class, Roosevelt then finally chose a career in politics. During this same period, I struggled as a nameless and unknown man for the rebirth of my nation, which was the victim of the greatest injustice in its entire history.

    Two different paths in life! Franklin Roosevelt took power in the United States as the candidate of a thoroughly capitalistic party, which helps those who serve it. When I became the Chancellor of the German Reich, I was the leader of a popular national movement, which I had created myself. The powers that supported Mr. Roosevelt were the same powers I fought against, out of concern for the fate of my people, and out of deepest inner conviction. The “brain trust” that served the new American president was made up of members of the same national group that we fought against in Germany as a parasitical expression of humanity, and which we began to remove from public life.

    And yet, we also had something in common: Franklin Roosevelt took control of a country with an economy that had been ruined as a result of democratic influences, and I assumed the leadership of a Reich that was also on the edge of complete ruin, thanks to democracy. There were 13 million unemployed in the United States, while Germany had seven million unemployed and another seven million part-time workers. In both countries, public finances were in chaos, and it seemed that the spreading economic depression could not be stopped.

    From then on, things developed in the United States and in the German Reich in such a way that future generations will have no difficulty in making a definitive evaluation of the two different socio-political theories. Whereas the German Reich experienced an enormous improvement in social, economic, cultural and artistic life in just a few years under National Socialist leadership, President Roosevelt was not able to bring about even limited improvements in his own country. This task should have been much easier in the United States, with barely 15 people per square kilometer, as compared to 140 in Germany. If economic prosperity is not possible in that country, it must be the result of either a lack of will by the ruling leadership or the complete incompetence of the men in charge. In just five years, the economic problems were solved in Germany and unemployment was eliminated. During this same period, President Roosevelt enormously increased his country’s national debt, devalued the dollar, further disrupted the economy and maintained the same number of unemployed.

    But this is hardly remarkable when one realizes that the intellects appointed by this man, or more accurately, who appointed him, are members of that same group who, as Jews, are interested only in disruption and never in order. While we in National Socialist Germany took measures against financial speculation, it flourished tremendously under Roosevelt. The New Deal legislation of this man was spurious, and consequently the greatest error ever experienced by anyone. If his economic policies had continued indefinitely during peace time, there is no doubt that sooner or later they would have brought down this president, in spite of all his dialectical cleverness. In a European country his career would certainly have ended in front of a national court for recklessly squandering the nation’s wealth. And he would hardly have avoided a prison sentence by a civil court for criminally incompetent business management.

    Many respected Americans also shared this view. A threatening opposition was growing all around this man, which led him to think that he could save himself only by diverting public attention from his domestic policies to foreign affairs. In this regard it is interesting to study the reports of Polish Ambassador Potocki from Washington, which repeatedly point out that Roosevelt was fully aware of the danger that his entire economic house of cards could collapse, and that therefore he absolutely had to divert attention to foreign policy.

    The circle of Jews around Roosevelt encouraged him in this. With Old Testament vindictiveness they regarded the United States as the instrument that they and he could use to prepare a second Purim [slaughter of enemies] against the nations of Europe, which were increasingly anti-Jewish. So it was that the Jews, in all of their satanic baseness, gathered around this man, and he relied on them.

    • Justin Huber
      Posted April 20, 2011 at 8:59 pm | Permalink

      Great stuff. I’ve read this speech several times and have always enjoyed it. Thanks for posting this excerpt.

  10. Wandrin
    Posted April 20, 2011 at 11:01 pm | Permalink

    Gregor, Jimmy Marr,

    Ty

    (JM, for future reference everything i say is open source)

    icr,

    “The German political scientist Richard Löwenthal noted that news of Soviet dekulakization and the Holodomor did not reach Germany until 1941″

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial_of_the_Holodomor

    “In August 1933, Cardinal Theodor Innitzer of Vienna called for relief efforts, stating that the Ukrainian famine was claiming lives “likely… numbered… by the millions” and driving those still alive to infanticide and cannibalism.”

    “Fischer was on a lecture tour in the United States when Gareth Jones’ famine story broke…He spent the spring of 1933 campaigning for American diplomatic recognition of the Soviet Union. As rumors of a famine in the USSR reached American shores, Fischer vociferously denied the reports.”

    “In Chicago, on December 17, 1933, several hundred Communists mounted a massed attack on the vanguard of 5,000 Ukrainian American marchers, leaving over 100 injured in what The New York Times called “the worst riot in years”:”

  11. Lew
    Posted April 21, 2011 at 5:09 pm | Permalink

    Jews stay perched on Wikipedia like vultures. I’m surprised that article on Holodomor denial even exists. I am glad the article is there, but I did a quick search and unsurprisingly found the words Jew and Jewish to appear no where apart from a single reference to the Jewish holocaust.

    • Wandrin
      Posted April 22, 2011 at 5:25 am | Permalink

      “but I did a quick search and unsurprisingly found the words Jew and Jewish to appear no where apart from a single reference to the Jewish holocaust.”

      That’s what’s so good about it.

      • Lew
        Posted April 26, 2011 at 6:13 pm | Permalink

        I would prefer the article state that Jews were responsible for the Holodomor and the attempted denial of the Holodomor, not communists and communist sympathizers.

        Incidentally, on a somewhat related note, I have it on good authority from a friend of mine and frequent contributor to Wikipedia (Ph.D. in History) that there is coordinated effort underway at Wikipedia to greatly downplay and when possible scrub information on crimes committed by communists (i.e. Jews).

3 Trackbacks

  • By The Measure of Greatness | The West's Darkest Hour on April 20, 2011 at 12:35 pm

    […] at Counter-Currents (originally, a 1989 National Vanguard article), which published also another article that I had previously quoted in the previous incarnation of this […]

  • By Anonymous on April 24, 2011 at 9:53 pm

    […] as Multiracialist Propaganda Some Thoughts on Hitler | Counter-Currents Publishing ..Although most nationalists in the United States and even in Germany do not consider themselves […]

  • […] writing some of the most intelligent remarks I have read. The following is the first comment about an article of Hitler last […]

  • 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